Thursday, July 15, 2010

Sergeant WILLIAM EISEMAN and Officer MICHAEL CARSEY, of the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”) Have Been Indicted

UPDATE: NYPD SERGEANT PLEADS GUILTY TO PERJURY AND CONDUCTING UNLAWFUL SEARCHES


Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr. today announced the indictments of Sergeant WILLIAM EISEMAN, 41, and Officer MICHAEL CARSEY, 29, of the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”) for lying under oath and falsifying paperwork to conceal their involvement in the unlawful searches and seizures in various incidents in Northern Manhattan. EISEMAN has been charged with Perjury, Offering a False Instrument for Filing, Tampering With Evidence, and Official Misconduct. CARSEY has been charged with Perjury, Offering a False Instrument for Filing, and Official Misconduct. [1]

“Members of the New York City Police Department take an oath to protect and serve,” said District Attorney Vance. “We expect all of our partners in law enforcement to uphold that pledge to the highest standards of their profession, and the overwhelming majority of them do. However, these officers crossed the line and violated the public’s trust. Eiseman’s conduct was particularly troubling because he was in a position to mentor and train young officers in the department.”

“It’s always disheartening when police officers engage in misconduct, but more so when they put career and liberty at risk in misguided attempts to make sure that criminals are successfully prosecuted,” said Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly. “The NYPD instituted intensified training this year to make sure officers don’t resort to perjury and that they always testify truthfully, letting the chips fall where they may even if it means that the guilty go free.”

According to NYPD records, EISEMAN joined the department in 1997. In 2007, he was promoted to sergeant and was assigned to the Impact Response Team (“IRT”), where he was responsible for supervising and training newly-hired police officers. The IRT is primarily comprised of recent Police Academy graduates assigned to patrol high crime neighborhoods throughout Manhattan. In late 2007, EISEMAN was transferred to the Manhattan North Task Force, where he continued to supervise and train junior police officers. CARSEY graduated from the Police Academy and was assigned to the IRT in June of 2007, where he worked under the supervision of EISEMAN.

The court charges involve at least four incidents of misconduct documented between August 2007 and the summer of 2008. EISEMAN was involved in all of them, and CARSEY was involved in the first incident. Each involved unlawful stops and detentions of civilians in Northern Manhattan, which sometimes led to unlawful searches as well. Where the searches led to the recovery of contraband, EISEMAN ordered his subordinates to falsify their police paperwork in order to make the stops and searches appear legitimate.

In the first incident, which is disclosed in documents filed in court, an unlawful stop and detention led to a court-authorized search warrant in which the civilian’s apartment was searched as well. In that case, defendants EISEMAN and CARSEY later falsely testified under oath at a hearing conducted by a New York County Supreme Court judge investigating the legality of the arrest and the admissibility of the evidence seized. Because of the defendants’ conduct, that criminal case was ultimately dismissed, and the civilian was not punished.

According to court documents, the second incident occurred in July 2008, when Eiseman recovered cocaine from inside the trunk of a car that he unlawfully searched. Eiseman ordered subordinates to falsify police reports and tell the District Attorney’s Office that drugs had been recovered during a search at the precinct, rather than at the scene. The case has since been dismissed.

Later that same month, Eiseman ordered the unlawful detention of two individuals after searching their car, according to documents filed in court. No contraband was discovered, but the two were issued a false summons for reckless driving in order to justify the initial stop and subsequent detention.

The fourth incident disclosed in documents filed in court also occurred during the summer of 2008. Eiseman stopped and detained two people for no apparent reason. He allowed them to leave only after one of the people said that a relative was employed as an Assistant District Attorney in Manhattan.

District Attorney Vance thanked Assistant District Attorney Julio Cuevas, Deputy Bureau Chief of the Official Corruption Unit, who handled the case under the supervision of Assistant District Attorney Richard Buckheit, former Unit Chief of the Official Corruption Unit, and Executive Assistant District Attorney Adam Kaufmann, Chief of the Investigation Division. District Attorney Vance also thanked Assistant District Attorneys Charles Linehan and Jonathan Lenzner of the Major Economic Crimes Bureau, who assisted in the case. Investigators Alex Farrugia and Angelo Pisani assisted in the investigation under the supervision of the District Attorney’s Investigation Acting Chief Walter Alexander.


District Attorney Vance also thanked Chief Charles Campisi, Captain Gregory Sheehan and Sergeant Kevin Gildea of the Internal Affairs Bureau of the NYPD.

Defendant information:

WILLIAM EISEMAN, D.O.B. 04/02/72
Patterson, NY

Charges:

Perjury in the First Degree, class D felony, 2 counts
Offering a False Instrument for Filing in the First Degree, class E felony, 4 counts
Tampering with Evidence, class E felony, 1 count
Official Misconduct, class A misdemeanor, 6 counts

MICHAEL CARSEY, D.O.B. 10/16/80
Garden City, NY

Charges:

Perjury in the First Degree, class D felony, 3 counts
Offering a False Instrument for Filing in the First Degree, class E felony, 1 count
Official Misconduct, class A misdemeanor, 1 count

A class D felony is punishable by up to 7 years in prison, a class E felony is punishable by up to 4 years in prison, and a class A misdemeanor is punishable by up to 1 year in prison.
[1] The charges contained in the indictments are merely allegations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

8 comments:

  1. Bill Eisman should only be found guilty of taking his job to heart. He went the extra mile to protect our youth from low life drug dealers and protect our society from careless and dangerous savages. If he recovered a gun with a technically illegal search, he may have saved the life of someone's precious child. If the majority of the population continue to believe that low lives carrying drugs and guns deserve equal civil rights, the world will just be more miserable for the people who do good because it becomes just too difficult to fight crime. I say give Bill Eiseman a medal of honor and give him back some respect for the hard work he did which most people like me would be much too terrified to do.

    ReplyDelete
  2. More crooked cops.....

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mike Z......a medal of honor? What? Are you kidding? You must be a friend of his. (Hence you never defended bad (ex) cop partner of his). These are supposed to be people of highest dignity, morals and honesty. He lied numerous times and blackballed people, lied under oath.....and who knows what else. And who knows what else he got away with, and how much dough he pocketed over the years to save someones a$$ from getting nailed on carrying a measly nickelbag. On a good note, this opens two employment positions to two deserving people. Hopefully Rikers isn't too bad for him and the people he backstabbed don't recognize him.....and really blows to have to spend weekends this summer in the slammer. Liars always get it in the end.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If he had really wanted to get drugs off the street he would have and should have done it right so that criminals are actually getting legitimately punished for what they did wrong. Now that he has only four cases that have been proven he did his duty wrong and illegally, all his cases have a high possibility of being reviewed and stops that he did in the past that were legal and legit will be reviewed and possibly/most likely be tossed and a bad guy gets out on the streets again. In the end, if had done everything right in the first place bad guys would be getting caught and doing time that they deserve. And the fact that he taught new Officer right out of the Academy this is not only wrong but disgusting, and the fact that they listened and didn't report him is disturbing too. He may have been their training officer and a superior officer, they should have learned that what he was doing was illegal.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The right thing the wrong way? Ugh....more like the wrong thing the wrong way.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sounds like the DAs office going after the good guys rather than the bad guys...in another nore,even bloomberg became involved @ Plaxico gun case and wanted the book thrown @ him...the guy is an idiot (Plaxico), he shot himself...however what about the individual that has numerous arrests in his record and is actually living the "thugstyle" lifestyle...DAs office simply gives them a pat on the back and a don't let it happen again...when these DAs step out of their office and decide to put on that uniform, gunbelt and go uphold the law, than they'll realize what really goes on...until than, I guess they prefer to go after the real men and women that decided to do the job....retired & out

    ReplyDelete
  7. Worked with Eiseman a lot. Was married many times, girlfiends on the side.....always a big mess. We, as a group, are so happy to not to have to cover for him anymore. The wives, girlfiends, "friends", etc....calling the precingt continously got to all of us after a while. So his lies started with women and ended with his work.....or was it the other way around? Nonetheless he got it in the end. I am sure aot of people who were personal in his life are dancing by the moonlight tonight. See what goes around always comes around.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Knew eiseman too. Hooked up with my wife knowing she was married. Didnt care. He is jail bound and she is in a psych hospital. See honesty is always the best route. Cant teach an old dog new tricks. They got theirs.

    ReplyDelete