NYPD Conducting Illegal Rooftop Raids on Franklin Avenue

Thank you for posting. This sort of thing is super infuriating. I wonder if people in the neighborhood could ask land lords to post almost the opposite of F-TAP in their lobbies. Like a sign that says "I, ___, give permission to all residents of ____ to use the roof." or something like that. It is insane that this has to be done, but maybe residents want something like this to cover themselves as newbie police officers act in such a way....

Catwalkertexasranger - can you please tell me what specific section of the building codes refers to use of the rooftops?

Also, even if what you say is true, building violations are NOT regulated the NYPD. They are civil matters, not criminal matters. So, even if a person was on a roof that was not regulated for access by the city, the police do not have the right to arrest that person or issue a citation, unless they are trespassing. Think of it this way, if your landlord fails to repaint your walls every 3 years, like he is required by housing maintenance codes, could he be arrested or issued a citation by the police? Of course not! That would be crazy, just like its crazy to tell people it is "illegal" to be on a rooftop when they have permission to do so from the building owner.

xlizellx said:

Thank you for posting. This sort of thing is super infuriating. I wonder if people in the neighborhood could ask land lords to post almost the opposite of F-TAP in their lobbies. Like a sign that says "I, ___, give permission to all residents of ____ to use the roof." or something like that. It is insane that this has to be done, but maybe residents want something like this to cover themselves as newbie police officers act in such a way....

I suspect the police would act in a manner similar to the way they dealt with a car dealer in my college town. The car dealer advertised that he would pay the first 2 speeding tickets of new car buyers.

The cops told him to withdrawal the ads. He didn't. The cops then made it known that they had large amounts of discretion when it came to which places they patrolled, like new car lots.

He told them to screw themselves. Predictably, a number of the cars on his lot were vandalized. The cops took the report of the crime. The insurance did not cover all of the losses and the dealer withdrew his advertisements about paying tickets.

To my knowledge, the lot was not vandalized again, and life returned to normal.

Catwalkertexasranger - you didn't answer my question, do you know what section of the building code refers to rooftop use? I'm not asking you because I'm challenging your statement, I actually want to know so I can read them.

I think you misunderstood my earlier statement. I was saying that there is nothing in the criminal code that prohibits tenants from being on the rooftop unless their landlord does not allow it, and that would be considered trespassing. If the landlord gives permission, it may still violate the building code, but it would not be "illegal" and the police would have nothing to write a citation for.

The circumstances you described largely have to do with emergencies, like the hurricane (the city and state declared a state of emergency), or dilapidated buildings which are a safety hazard. Again, you may be right that the building code requires certain things before tenants can access the rooftop, but again, the police cannot arrest someone for being on a rooftop purely because it violates the building code. Why? Because that is a civil violation, not criminal. Now, if there is an emergency on the rooftop, for example if the police are chasing a suspect across rooftops in the area, or conducting surveillance, then in those situations the police could prohibit access temporarily, and could arrest people for obstruction of justice if they did not comply. But absent those emergency-type situations, police do not have authority to arrest tenants on rooftops. To arrest, they need probable cause that you have committed a crime, and building code violations are not criminal.

Building codes are one thing. But we all know this police "work" has nothing to do with them.

And thank you for this & your blog post, I found it very informative.

In NYC it is against the law to frequent and or hang out on any roof top unless the building is privately owned like lets say a house. This is not a made up rule...IT IS THE LAW. Even the super of a tenement can not give permission for a roof to be used as a hang out area. Frankly, the super or landlord does not have the authority to supersede this law.

Sorry but your argument is wrong and those coppers had every right to remove those people.

And, if I am so wrong, how come when I told the police officer I knew he was lying, he finally admitted to me that I was right, that I had the right to be on the roof. I was not arrested, nor did I receive a citation. Because I was not breaking the law!!

Catwalkertexasranger - you still haven't told me what part of the building code refers to rooftop use! I would actually like to read about it.

I'll just ignore your insults and address your substantive comments.

There are actually laws that apply to the situation of hanging a baby out the window, reckless endangerment in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.20: A person is guilty of reckless endangerment in the second degree when he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person) is certainly one, and probably endangering the welfare of a child would also apply. There is not one for roller skating on the roof per se, because that does not necessarily cause a risk to people, for example if there are really high walls on the roof and no chance of falling off. And as for chickens, I believe they are allowed in NYC! But, I'm not aware of the regulations regarding where they can be housed.

Depending on the situation, an officer may be able to arrest someone for obstruction of governmental administration (Penal Law § 195.05) if they ignore an order from the police (and I'm sure there are other laws which would also address this), but this law assumes that the police action is lawful, which means the police would need a valid reason to issue it. Absent an emergency on the roof, they would have no valid reason to do so.

My landlord has told residents that the roof is usable space for tenants - I'm not sure why you assume all property owners prohibit rooftop access. Ours specifically mentions it in the rental ads, and again, think of fancy rooftop gardens in Manhattan, or ones with pools. Tenants have the right to access those and they are not breaking the law when they use them. Many rooftops in the city can be walked on. Ours houses all of our air conditioning units which are frequently serviced by workers. Now, you may be right that the owner of the building has to have rooftop access approved by the city (which I haven't yet figured out because you haven't given me the section of the building code that discusses this), but that doesn't mean all rooftops are unsafe to walk on.

My incident did not involve alcohol, nor were the police responding to a routine call. They were actually on the roof hanging out when I got there, and I actually didn't follow the police instructions. Instead of leaving the rooftop, I engaged in a reasonable conversation with the police officer, and told him that he was wrong about the law. After talking with him for awhile (and mentioning that I would call the precinct and/or landlord to check if it was an F-tap building as he claimed), he admitted that it was not an F-tap building, and that, assuming landlord permission, I did have the right to use the roof. My mere presence on the roof does not create a risk of injury to myself or others. Now of course, if I was throwing stuff off the roof, then by all means, that is behavior that it prohibited by the criminal code! I think you are still confusing crimes with civil violations of the building code, which would likely result in a fine to the owner.

Yes. You should really expect cops to obey the laws more than you and I do. Just as you expect judges not to accept bribes for a favorable verdict.

If cops themselves break the law (which of course they do on a daily basis), they set a negative example for everyone else to follow. In addition, they lose all credibility as enforcers of the law, and rule solely by force rather than by respect of the governed.

That's not a good thing.

Can I save it for something more significant than the police breaking up a legal rooftop party?

Different demographics have different relationships with the police.

What is a small offense/issue with cops to you, might be far more significant to someone else.

So, the answer to your question is: yes, save it for whatever you want.

However it might not be such a trivial issue for other people.

Trivial? When cops bust into a sunny day on your own roof and, for no good reason other than their desire to harass you, tell you to "move along, buddy"? That's not trivial, that's a bloody interference with your right to pursue "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

Not trivial at all.

Perhaps I just have a bigger well of outrage than you do, but that sure fires my outrage flame.

There are very different potential outcomes for partying on a rooftop depending on your demograpic. For 30-something folks hosting dinner parties its embarassment and a ticket, for 19 year olds it's a bullet to the chest

This issue was brought up (rather angrily) by one community resident at the last 77th Precinct Community Council meeting held this past Monday, Sept. 12.

Next month's meeting, Monday October 10, 2011, will be held at Union United Methodist Church, located on NY Avenue between Bergen and Dean Streets. The meeting starts at 7:30pm, and refreshments are usually provided by the hosting site and/or community restaurants to tide people over who have forgone dinner to attend the meeting.

This "might" be a better forum to air your displeasure with the police departments methods and methodologies.

I'm just sayin'.

I'm assuming this happens only in buildings where the police have an agreement with the landlords to do regular patrols?

I don't see how they themselves could trespass on a private roof.

eastbloc said:

I'm assuming this happens only in buildings where the police have an agreement with the landlords to do regular patrols?

I don't see how they themselves could trespass on a private roof.

Your assumption does not mesh with what people are reporting.

Here's the typical scenario:

1. The police learn of people on a roof. (they observe same from another roof or the street, their helicopter sees it, someone calls to report it, etc).

2. Regardless of whether the landlord participates in the program which allows vertical patrols, FTAP, the police gain access to the building's hallway. (they are let in by someone exiting, or buzzed in by a tenant).

3. They then approach said people on roof and see what they are up to. Based on a variety of factors [the response of the people, what substances they are enjoying on the roof, the extent they have been enjoying said substances, the mood of the officer, etc] the end result varies:

-Sometimes the police leave without telling the people they must leave the roof

-other times they tell the people they must leave or be charged with an offense

-other times they issue a violation, or make an arrest.

There have been a lot of complaints about the program since it started, from residents that live in buildings that actually participate as well as residents in buildings that are not participating, but are subject to the police patrols regardless.

The debate has been going on for years. Here's a thread about it from four years ago. Note, the old thread gets the program's name wrong: It is actually called Formal Trespass Affidavit Program.

In many neighborhoods of NYC, people have come to the conclusion that "even if my landlord says it is ok to be on the roof, the police say it isn't, so I don't go up there."