Are New York Cops Raiding a Dead Man’s Home Just to Squeeze His Son?

Most of the
headlines about the bizarre New York City Police Department

raids on the Brooklyn home of long-dead James E. Jordan focus
on the macabre nature the repeated vists have taken on. Jordan’s
widow, Karen Fennell, has taken to posting his death certificate on
the door so cops forcing their way in can’t claim that they don’t
know he died in 2006.

But if you read the federal lawsuit
Fennell filed against the raiding police and New York City
(PDF), it looks like the cops may not be as forgetful as they
claim. They may just be using the raids premised on a dead man’s
outstanding warrant to put the screws to his son.

Fannell’s lawsuit points out that her husband died on March 17,
2006, and “since that time, including at least four (4) separate
occasions this year, defendant officers have appeared at the
plaintiffs’ home on numerous occasions claiming that they had an
arrest warrant for the late James E. Jordan.”

Even though the plaintiffs have been forced to take the
extraordinary step of affixing James E. Jordan’s Death Certificate
on their front door indicating that James E. Jordan passed away in
March 2006, defendant officers still continue to force their way
into the plaintiffs’ home under the guise of executing an arrest
warrant against said deceased individual.

But do they have any real interest in Jordan Sr.?

Along with Fennell, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the
federal government include James Jordan, Jr. and his friend,
Anthony Solis. The lawsuit alleges that James and Anthony were
arrested for weapon possession (his lawyer says it was a knife) and
other “unspecified charges” after police “stormed into the
plaintiffs’ home without any warrant and proceeded to perform a
warrantless search.” The warrantless searches are said to be a
regular feature of the police visits, with officers removing
personal items when they leave.

Defendants are listed as “John Doe and Jane Doe #1-20
(hereinafter ‘defendant officers’),” so the latest incident wasn’t
a casual visit. It was a raid in force.

While at the precinct, James was interrogated by defendant
officers who kept asking James to provide them with information
concerning drugs and guns in his neighborhood and concerning
certain individuals who James doesn’t even know.

Eventually, after detaining James and Anthony for several hours,
defendant officers released James and Anthony from their unlawful
detention but directed them to appear in court to defend the false
charges levied against them.

Eventually, after multiple court appearances, the false charges
levied against James and Anthony were summarily dismissed.

All that effort, and the charges just go away?

Not surprisingly, given the nature of the intrusions, the
plaintiffs are making claims against the raiding cops on grounds
involving the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. They also
allege a failure to train, supervise, and discipline against the
NYPD.

But if police are actually interested in the younger Jordan yet
have nothing on him, the cops may well know what they’re doing.
They may well be using the raids in search of a man they know to be
dead in order to squeeze the real target of their interest.

Watever the suspected crimes of the younger Jordan, deliberate
constitutional violations as a pressure tactic should raise even
more concerns than the possibility of a police department too
incompetent to acknowledge that a suspect died eight years ago,