STARTING NOW: Police unions are in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals continuing to fight NYC's planned release of police misconduct records. In June, Albany voted to repeal a longstanding ban on the release of these records, prompting this months-long court saga...

2/ The city got a favorable decision from the district court last month, which the unions chose to appeal. Let's see if this court tinkers with the parameters set in that preliminary decision. More context here from a colleague: https://gothamist.com/news/federal-judge-rules-nypd-misconduct-records-can-be-made-public

3/ We have a missing judge... hence the awkward banter among the parties on the call.

4/ Anthony Coles of the police union coalition starts his arguments.

5/ "We are asking for a short extension of the stay" to allow a consideration of the issues in our appeal. Cites separate rights of his clients separate from 50-a rollback.

6/ Union: "Without a stay these documents will be mass produced on the internet..."Judge says this already happened, citing @NYCLU release. "The cat is not only out of the bag, it's running the streets." So what is the injury that would result? Judge asks. https://www.nyclu.org/en/campaigns/Nypd-misconduct-database

7/ Union attorney notes that there are many more records that have still to be released. It's not just records from the Civilian Complaint Review Board. Its also disciplinary charges and specs from the NYPD, raw complaint files from CCRB etc...

8/ Union attorney: "Essentially what you have is just a small piece from the CCRB plus no documents from the NYPD." Judge jokes, ok, "there are many more cats and many more bags."

9/ Another judge asks if 50-a repeal requires the release of these records. Union attorney says no. "They did not wash away all the other existing protections," citing collective bargaining agreements, privacy protections, due process rights, and safety protections.

10/ Judge questions him, "The collective bargaining rights seem rather limited." Judge asks where the privacy rights come from. Union argues that his officers' privacy rights stem from NY's Freedom of Information Law.

11/ Judges keep asking about what records have been released and keep getting confused because they think the NYCLU records are all the records in question. Seems like this should have been clear at this point after months of court arguments...

12/ Judge questions union attorney, accusing him of "baking in" certain protections from pre-existing state law. Judge: "The Freedom of Information Law was supposed to expand the public's access to documents."

13/ Re collective bargaining agreement, judge says they protect records from being included in officers' personnel files. "It's not explicit... that you may not release these documents."

14/ Judge: "I would think if it was removed from the officer's personnel file that would still be of significant benefit" re promotions, internal discipline etc. "That's different than saying that record shouldn't exist."

15/ Union "We're looking for this matter to be referred to arbitration." Another judge says union time is up.

16/ City attorney Drucker now starts. "The unions failed to show likelihood of success and irreparable harm."

17/ City: "The unions are failing to make any distinctions between the documents here." Notes that NYPD charges and specs are the next step following substantiated internal findings. Says the union has been misleading the court for months by conflating all these records.

18/ Judges are completely confused here... They respond by asking about CCRB records.

19/ Judge brings up unions' arbitrator demand with regard to CBAs. "Why can't an arbitrator consider that these docs are within the scope of this contractual understanding?"

20/ Judge: "Are you saying unfounded is different from unsubstantiated?"

City notes that NYPD charges and specs to be released all stem from substantiated internal NYPD findings, not unfounded or exonerated allegations (so union clause under debate doesn't apply)

21/ City attorney closes by attacking unions' privacy and due process arguments. City attorney is far more passionate than predecessors in previous cases.

22/ @changethenypd attorney now speaking, argues that govt lacks right to negotiate away the public's right to know (as guaranteed by Freedom of Information Law).

23/ Attorney says unions' arguments about public humiliation doesn't constitute irreparable harm. Judge says people would be able to look up + find unsubstantiated allegations, find their addresses, and harm their families at their homes and in schools.

24/ Attorney points out that many other jurisdictions allow these records to be released without resulting harms.

Judge: "I thought NY was an outlier."

Attorney: Yes, "in the level of secrecy."

25/ Attorney points to Chicago, says 23K police misconduct records are online and available to the public, has not resulted in a single harm pointed to by the unions.

26/ Judge: "We're only asked if there should be a stay... What is the urgency on your side that these records be released tomorrow, rather than what is likely in a couple of months?"

27/ Attorney responds by citing the legislature's will following the repeal of 50-a (which the judge now calls 51-a)

28/ Attorney cites 2 examples of why this is urgent. Brings up sexual misconduct and sexual assault allegations against police officers. Says if victims know that others have come forward, they are more likely to speak up.

29/ Cites how police unions claimed that Daniel Pantaleo had a clean record, though he did have misconduct allegations before the death of Eric Garner.

30/ Union attorney speaks again, accuses amici attorney of saying there's no threats to officers. Judges step in, clarifying that unions' have showed no examples of harm that would result against police officers.

31/ "We're in a very turbulent time..." Says that the city wants to "throw gas on the fire."

32/ Union says if the judges fail to grant stay, most of these records would be released and the district court proceedings would be hollow exercise.

33/ Judge ends the arguments, says they will reserve decision.

34/ The end: decision about extending the stay will be posted on PACER at some undefined point.