SarahRyley

I'm surprised that you would say you think the NYPD has done well in implementing the law, since you have said you don't agree with how they are using it against businesses for alcohol violations (58% of business cases); have raised questions about some of its other undercover operations and subsequent nuisance actions, for example of massage parlors; and have said you don't agree with it being used against families (44% of all cases are residential).

I think it's interesting that the law was enacted in the 1970s, before the 1993 Supreme Court ruling that found the government may not seize a home suspected of being involved in drug activity (via civil forfeiture) without notice or a hearing: http://www.nytimes.com/1993/12/14/us/supreme-court-roundup-justices-insist-notice-be-given-drug-case-property.html

How do you think this ruling would apply to nuisance abatement?

But what about to justify the ex parte order? Do you think the city should be required to show more recent incidents than one year ago in order to justify going in and closing a location on an emergency basis before the occupants have had the opportunity to come to court? A good example of this is the woman whose family was kicked out of their home for four days on an ex parte order over drug allegations that were 10 months old. Serious allegations, but they were so old that the offending tenants had moved out seven months before the NYPD got its order. What safeguards do you think should be in place to protect against this happening? And do you think those safeguards should be written into the law, or on a prosecutorial discretion (honor system) basis?

I think the question is, should there be more written into the law to ensure these factors are addressed?

City Council is considering introducing a bill that would reduce the time period the city has to request such an order -- from a year to perhaps 60 or 90 days -- and possibly to tighten the evidentiary standards.