Judge Fialla has denied the union attempt to block the release of CCRB records and NYPD charges & specifications and substantiated disciplinary records,, with the exception of a small piece of NYPD records covered by union contracts.

2/ Judge Fialla is now reading her opinion in the hearing, which appears to already have been written. She warns us that it is somewhat long. She is going through the caselaw and legal standards now.

3/ "To my mind, any injunctive relief that I could order could not put the horse back in the barn" (with reference to the NYCLU release yesterday of all past histories). But the police unions also have not met their burden to show reputational or safety harms.

4/ Judge Fialla accepts the expert opinion of Jon Shane, but finding it is unsupported by empirical evidence and therefore unpersuasive.

5/ Judge Fialla questions underlying assumption that potential future law enforcement agencies will not be able to properly consider released disciplinary records when considering hiring officers.

6/ IIHC, Judge Fialla said she doesn't see cops having inherent privacy rights in disciplinary records. I hope I heard correctly. It's crucial to understand these records are PUBLIC records about public actions of government agents -- NOT private actions of ordinary citizens.

7/ Risk to cops & their families -- no one wants that. But there's no evidence of increased risk tied to release of these records. "Speculation only" & at NYS legislature couldn't provide a single example.

8/ Twelve states have open disciplinary records broader than NYS & no evidence of "increased violence, or *threat* of violence," stemming from those data being available.

9/ Judge now addresses the union contracts. They provide for removal (upon request of officer) of unfounded, exonerated, or unsubstantiated files from personnel file. Judge Fialla: that remains available. This does *not,* however, apply to the public record.

10/ Police do not have a reason to arbitrate union grievance claims vs public release

Now the limitation on release: Judge grants injunction on NYPD & CCRB release of schedule A command discipline violations & trial room cases for POs, Sgts & Lts, if outcome is other than guilty & if record could be expunged w/in 2 yr contractual window.

12/ The scope of this injunction is not clear. It doesn't affect @NYCLU's release.

13/ Judge Fialla will permit release of settlement agreements -- no examples of reliance on 50-a. No other rights implication by release, so she denies injunction on release of this class of records.

14/ Who is now going to be filing to obtain settlement documents?

15/ Judge Fialla is now distinguishing between release of false records & release of records with dispositions other than substantiated. It is not false to release that a complaint was made & was unfounded or unsubstantiated.

16/ Judge Fialla: Released complaints, even those of complaints not substantiated, are not false; they are true records of a complaint being unfounded or subsubstantiated.

17/ Judge Fialla is very thoroughly analyzing & rejecting many minor claims & each of their subparts. This opinion is careful & designed to survive appeal.

18/ Equal protection claims rejected for 3 reasons: precluded by Supreme Court precedent; cops are not in same position as other civil servants due to their unique powers; & release of records is rationally related to strong gov't interest in transparency & accountability.

19/ The unions claimed repeal of 50-a was arbitrary & capricious. Judge Fialla reviews care put into repeal & implementation of amendments to effect it.

20/ Claim that CCRB & NYPD's disclosure plans are arbitrary & capricious interpretations of repeal of 50-a: rejected. (This is the "throw everything at the wall & hope something sticks" portion of union arguments -- doesn't fare well w/Judge Fialla.)

21/ Judge Fialla finds that the balance of hardships of an injunction would fall mostly on CCRB & NYPD b/c they'd be stymied in implementing democratic change in law.

22/ Judge Fialla stays decision until Mon at 12 noon for appeal.

23/ Judge Fialla repeatedly said she thinks public can tell the difference b/t substantiated, unsubstantiated, exonerated, unfounded & nonfinal outcomes. This seems to be the core reason she rejected the idea that release of these outcomes will hurt PO reputations.

24/ The big question here is what the "small" or "limited" exception to release means. My initial take is that it may be broader than the judge thinks and may prevent release of most records until at least 2 years after disposition, but hard to parse while merely listening.