by Stewart S Lilker

After years of abuse by the Glackenites, NYS Attorney General, Eliot Spitzer has brought suit in Federal Court, charging the Village of Freeport with violating the civil rights of residents guaranteed under the United States Constitution. Specifically, the Village is accused of violating residents' rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution, entitled Search and Seizure, and ratified in 1791 prevents the Government from unlawfully searching people's homes.

The Attorney General is accusing the Village of unlawfully searching residents' homes.

The Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution, entitled Citizenship rights, and ratified in 1868, in relevant part guarantees residents that they will not be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process and that they are guaranteed equal protection of the laws.

The Attorney General is accusing the Village of depriving its residents of due process and equal protection of the laws.

The glue that holds the Federal charges together is from the US Code, Title 42 § 1983, which is based on the Civil Rights act of 1871, known as the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. The KKK Act was passed after the Civil War, as blacks in the South were being unconstitutionally deprived of their civil rights because the police, the governmental officials, the judges and those at every level of government were members of the KKK and as such, they consorted to deprive their victims of their civil rights guaranteed by the recently passed Fourteenth Amendment.

The Attorney General is also accusing the Village of violating the Federal Fair Housing Act and NYS Civil Rights Law.

The charges against the Village are serious charges, as the Mayor and the Board of Trustees have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Earlier in the month, Newsday reported the Village claimed "We always adhere to the law" and "This is a frivolous lawsuit ... a campaign stunt."

At the October 21, 2002 board meeting, with nothing more to go on but Newsday's minor piece, written by their friend, Newsday reporter Sid Cassese, residents Georgia Prunty and Alan Jay came to the Village's defense.

Ms. Prunty told the board, "I want to stand in defense of the building department, that is being very badly maligned." Ms. Prunty then explained that she was told by the building department that they have to follow the law and cannot just walk into a house. Visibly moved, she told the board, "I love this village. It's just killing me to see what is happening here." (file photo)

Then, long time resident Alan Jay told the board, "It's beneath contempt what this man [Attorney General Eliot Spitzer] is doing by suing the village. I'd like to compliment the village on their good strong response to this demagogy. I hope the village counter sues Spitzer for defamation and slander. For a handful of votes he has maligned the whole village." (file photo)

Unfortunately, neither Ms. Prunty nor Mr. Jay had read the charges against the Village.

On October 4, 2002, NYS Attorney Eliot Spitzer filed charges against the Village of Freeport in Federal Court. The Attorney General alleged that "Commencing in or around 1993 and continuing to the present, the Village adopted and implemented a set of policies and practices designed to increase the numbers of inspections of Village residents' homes and the numbers of summonses issued to residents. These inspection and summons-issuance policies and practices were designed to respond to complaints from various civic associations and Village residents directed at homes occupied by Latinos and blocks with a substantial proportion of Latino households from Central American countries ... in or around 1993, the Village assigned Team inspectors to patrol predominantly Latino neighborhoods and to conduct ongoing surveillance of Latino homes."

The Attorney General continued, "In or around 1993, the Village changed its policies on the issuance of summonses. Prior to 1993, as a matter of practice, residents cited for violations of the Codes were routinely granted notice of and an opportunity to cure alleged violations before facing penalties. In or around 1993, the Village instituted a new policy of issuing summonses seeking penalties immediately following an inspection. The Village also began to issue multiple summonses and to levy higher fines. In many cases, the penalties assessed were several thousand dollars, often for violations that easily could have been cured had an opportunity to do so been granted. In addition, rather than issuing summonses for violations to landlords in order to induce them to improve conditions for their tenants, the Village more frequently began issuing summonses to tenants instead."

"The Village's current administration [the Glackenites - ed.], which took office in April 1997, specifically continued the inspection and summons-issuance policies and practices begun in 1993 and retained the Over-Occupancy Team with its same complement of inspectors to implement those policies and practices."

The Attorney General (AG) continued. "Since in or around 1993, and continuing to the present date, Village inspectors (particularly those on the Over-Occupancy Team) have engaged in a pattern and practice of gaining entry into Latino residents' homes through unlawful means and then unlawfully conducting searches of their homes."

"These unlawful entries and searches have taken a variety of different forms. Common to all is the fact that inspectors routinely have entered private homes without either valid consent, search warrants, or the existence of exigent circumstances -- in violation of the Fourth Amendment."

The AG also alleged, with numerous examples, that "Village inspectors regularly have made false statements that they had obtained consent to search in order to deceive Latino families and thereby gain entry into their homes to conduct inspections. They had no search warrants, nor were there exigent circumstances."

"After being invited into-Latino families' homes by police officers on emergency calls, and without having search warrants or being presented by exigent circumstances, Village inspectors routinely conducted searches beyond the geographic scope of the plain view of those officers."

The AG goes on to charge that "During at least the last several years, the Village has been fully aware of the frequency and nature of unlawful entries and searches by Village inspectors. The Village also has been aware of the inspectors' discriminatory treatment of Latino residents."

Most damning to the Glackenites is the AG's charge that "The Village's clear knowledge of the unlawful practices of inspectors is reflected, in part, in its efforts to suppress public discourse on the subject. Prior to the November 2000 meeting, a Village official tried to convince one Latino community leader to cancel the meeting. Specifically, a week prior to the meeting, a Village Trustee offered a community leader money and space for his organization, to be provided by the Village, if the meeting were canceled. The community leader refused, and the meeting took place as scheduled."

"In January 2001, another community meeting was called by Latino residents of the Village to protest the practices of the Village Building Department. The meeting was attended by the Deputy Mayor and other Village officials ... At the January 2001 meeting, several Latino residents described their specific experiences with Village inspectors' unlawful entry into and searches of their homes. At the meeting, the Deputy Mayor, inter alia, said that she preferred not to hear about people's experiences regarding illegal entries and stated that anyone with complaints should instead bring them to the Village Attorney's office or the Building Department."

The AG accused the village of deliberate indifference toward inspector misconduct. "The Village's policies, procedures and customs facilitated unlawful and discriminatory conduct by Village inspectors. By, inter alia, establishing the Over Occupancy Team, failing to require search warrants or other procedural protections against Fourth Amendment violations in non-exigent circumstances, authorizing the patrolling and surveillance of Latino residents' homes in particular, and pressuring Over Occupancy Team inspectors to maximize the numbers of summonses issued, the Village effectively encouraged Village housing inspectors to seek entry into residents' homes -- even if the only way to gain entry and search was to violate the Fourth Amendment. Further, the Village's policies, procedures and customs effectively encouraged inspectors to violate the Fourth Amendment rights of Latinos in order to gain entry into their homes in particular and to issue summonses against Latinos for over-occupancy violations based on stereotypical views of Latino families."

The AG is asking the Federal Court to declare the policy of the Village of unlawfully entering residents' homes and targeting the homes of Latino residents, unconstitutional and order a stop to it. To assure compliance, the AG is asking for a Special Master to monitor compliance with the Court's orders.

At the October 21, Monday night meeting, Mayor Glacken and the Glackenite Board were fully aware of the charges against them. The Mayor dug in.

Your reporter, who is also a resident, addressed the Mayor and the Board. "Can you tell me how far you are willing to go with this lawsuit? By that I mean, are you willing to go as far as the United States Supreme Court?"

Mayor Glacken replied, "We will win this law suit."

The Mayor's brother in law, mob/Village Attorney Harrison Edwards jumped in, "We don't feel it is the Village that is going to be doing the appealing. We feel it is the Attorney General's office that is going to be doing the appealing. I have no control where the Attorney General seeks to appeal. I am quite sure he will lose."

Your reporter told the Board, "Eliot Spitzer has asked for a jury trial, so I guess the jury will decide and the case will be decided on the merits in the Federal Court. My question is, how far is the Board of Trustees, not Mr. Edwards ---."

Glacken interrupted, "You've already got our answer."

Your reporter repeated the question, "You are willing to take this all the way to the Supreme Court?"

Glacken replied, "I don't think, expect that will be necessary."

Your reporter asked, "But you would be willing to go there?

Glacken answered, "Yes."

Your reporter asked, "So the tax payers will have to pay for this. Is that correct, sir?

Glacken answered, "Unless we get reimbursement from Mr. Spitzer."

Edwards jumped in, "Mr. Lilker, you miss the point. Whether or not the village wins this case and I have every reason to believe it will. It will win this case in the first shot, Federal District Court. Therefore, if it goes to the Supreme Court, from that point, it will be going to the Supreme Court, not at the behest of the village, but at the behest of the Attorney General. We don't control who or what he seeks to appeal to."

Your reporter asked Mayor Glacken, "We really don't know, regardless of Mr. Edward's statement, how the jury is going to decide this case, do we?"

Due to the horrible acoustics in village hall, something which the Glackenites have been promising to fix for the past five years, Glacken's answer was completely unintelligible.

Your reporter concluded by asking Board, "Should a judgment by a jury go against the Village, will you folks resign?"

Glacken apparently spoke for the Board, "Mr. Lilker, I think you are really kind of scraping bottom. That is a ridiculous supposition."