Weisberg v. Police Dept. of Village of Lynbrook, Nassau County
| Decision Date | 07 May 1965 |
| Citation | 260 N.Y.S.2d 554,46 Misc.2d 846 |
| Parties | Application of Walter WEISBERG, requesting removal of a certain record pertaining to Petitioner in the files of the Police Department Village of Lynbrook, County of Nassau, State of New York, and Nassau County Police Department, Petitioner, v. POLICE DEPARTMENT OF the VILLAGE OF LYNBROOK, COUNTY OF NASSAU, State of New York, and Nassau County Police Department, Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Braslow & D'Amaro, North Babylon, for petitioner.
Jack B. Weinstein, County Atty., Mineola, for respondent Nassau Police Dept.
Anthony J. Scuderi, Lynbrook, for respondent Village.
This proceeding seeks the removal and destruction of an arrest card from the records of the Police Department of the Village of Lynbrook and the Nassau County Police Department. It appears that petitioner is a diabetic, and in 1959 while in a diabetic fit, entered a grocery store and sought to take something sweet to eat. He was arrested, but on hearing in the District Court, the above facts having been developed, the charge was withdrawn. Petitioner fears that the arrest record will hurt him professionally and in his efforts to obtain government employment.
That petitioner's fears may not be groundless is suggested by the introduction by Senator Thomas Mackell of a bill (S. I. 135) which would make it a misdemeanor for any employer to 'inquire of or ask any person whether or not he has ever been arrested, as a condition of employment or continuing employment.' Nonetheless, the destruction of public records in a matter closely regulated by statute, Public Officers Law §§ 65-a, 65-b; Education Law, § 147; General Municipal Law, § 51-a. Under those statutes destruction is made to turn upon microfilming, or the consent of the Commissioner of Education and no provision is made for destruction with the consent of the court. Nor does the court have any inherent power over police department records, as it has with respect to its own records, to order the record sealed or otherwise withheld from public knowledge.
The conclusion thus reached is supported by the provision of § 552-a of the Code of Criminal Procedure that upon acquittal or dismissal of the charge, fingerprints taken as a condition to the admission to bail 'shall be returned to the defendant or destroyed in his presence, on demand.' It may well be that legislative consideration should be given to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doe v. Commander, Wheaton Police Dept.
...aff'd 259 A.2d 663 (Del.Supr.1969); Kolb v. O'Connor, 14 Ill.App.2d 81, 142 N.E.2d 818 (1957); Weisberg v. Police Dept. of Lynbrook, 46 Misc.2d 846, 260 N.Y.S.2d 554 (1965). 3 For example, in Kolb v. O'Connor, supra, the Illinois court 'In considering the right of the public we must take in......
-
Bradford v. Mahan
...51 Cal.App.3d 796, 124 Cal.Rptr. 484; Kolb v. O'Connor, 14 Ill.App.2d 81, 142 N.E.2d 818; and Weisberg v. Police Dept. of Village of Lynbrook, 46 Misc.2d 846, 260 N.Y.S.2d 554.) Most jurisdictions, however, recognize that a court through its equitable powers may order inaccurate police reco......
-
Davidson v. Dill
...1, 24 Cal.Rptr. 696; Mulkey v. Purdy, 234 So.2d 108 (Fla.); Kolb v. O'Connor, 14 Ill.App.2d 81, 142 N.E.2d 818; Weisberg v. Village, 46 Misc.2d 846, 260 N.Y.S.2d 554. Cases granting petitioner's request for expungement or return of their arrest records fall into several categories. The olde......
-
Smith, In re
...dissemination of their Court and arrest records would be inadequate. 13 Respectfully disagreeing with Weisberg v. Police Dept.,46 Misc.2d 846, 847, 260 N.Y.S.2d 554, 555 (Sup.Ct. Nassau, 1965), in this Court's opinion an expungement order based on an adversary proceeding does not conflict w......