James T. Marcinek

James T. Marcinek

James T. Marcinek
Badge #6130, White Male, 41
Detective Grade 3 at 34th Precinct Detective Squad since November 2021, active
Also served at 52nd Precinct, 30th Precinct
Service started January 2006, made $160,000 last year, Tax #940419

Substantiated Allegations:
Abuse of Authority: Frisk
Abuse of Authority: Stop

Discipline Cases:

Case: 2017-18280
Closed: 5/20/2020

View Details

Lawsuit settlements:
$50,000   Mancebo, Rufino vs City of New York, et al., 2016 BCSC BCSC 302319/2016
View Details

Complaints

6 Complaints
11 Allegations
2 Substantiated
2 Substantiated (Charges)
1 Complainant Uncooperative
4 Exonerated
4 Unsubstantiated

Complaint #202001243, March 2019
Allegation: Abuse of Authority: Stop
Complainant: Black Male, 46
CCRB Conclusion: Exonerated
Allegation: Force: Physical force
Complainant: Black Male, 46
CCRB Conclusion: Exonerated
additional details

Complaint #201306186, July 2013
Allegation: Abuse of Authority: Vehicle stop
Complainant: Black Male, 25
CCRB Conclusion: Complainant Uncooperative
additional details

Complaint #201302933, April 2013
Allegation: Abuse of Authority: Stop
Complainant: White Male, 30
CCRB Conclusion: Exonerated
Allegation: Abuse of Authority: Refusal to provide name/shield number
Complainant: White Male, 30
CCRB Conclusion: Unsubstantiated
additional details

Complaint #201300137, December 2012
Allegation: Abuse of Authority: Stop
Complainant: Hispanic Male, 34
CCRB Conclusion: Unsubstantiated
additional details

Complaint #200716621, November 2007
Allegation: Abuse of Authority: Frisk
Complainant: Black Male, 30
CCRB Conclusion: Substantiated (Charges)
Allegation: Abuse of Authority: Stop
Complainant: Black Male, 30
CCRB Conclusion: Substantiated (Charges)
Allegation: Discourtesy: Word
Complainant: Black Male, 30
CCRB Conclusion: Unsubstantiated
Penalty: Command Discipline - A
additional details

Complaint #200610420, July 2006
Allegation: Discourtesy: Word
Complainant: Hispanic Female, 26
CCRB Conclusion: Unsubstantiated
Allegation: Abuse of Authority: Question
Complainant: Hispanic Female, 26
CCRB Conclusion: Exonerated
additional details

Complaint #202001243, March 2019
Allegation Complainant CCRB Conclusion
Abuse of Authority: Stop Black Male, 46 Exonerated
Force: Physical force Black Male, 46 Exonerated
additional details
Complaint #201306186, July 2013
Allegation Complainant CCRB Conclusion
Abuse of Authority: Vehicle stop Black Male, 25 Complainant Uncooperative
additional details
Complaint #201302933, April 2013
Allegation Complainant CCRB Conclusion
Abuse of Authority: Stop White Male, 30 Exonerated
Abuse of Authority: Refusal to provide name/shield number White Male, 30 Unsubstantiated
additional details
Complaint #201300137, December 2012
Allegation Complainant CCRB Conclusion
Abuse of Authority: Stop Hispanic Male, 34 Unsubstantiated
additional details
Complaint #200716621, November 2007
Allegation Complainant CCRB Conclusion
Abuse of Authority: Frisk Black Male, 30 Substantiated (Charges)
Abuse of Authority: Stop Black Male, 30 Substantiated (Charges)
Discourtesy: Word Black Male, 30 Unsubstantiated
Penalty: Command Discipline - A
additional details
Complaint #200610420, July 2006
Allegation Complainant CCRB Conclusion
Discourtesy: Word Hispanic Female, 26 Unsubstantiated
Abuse of Authority: Question Hispanic Female, 26 Exonerated
additional details

Conclusion Meanings:

'Exonerated': or 'Within NYPD Guidelines' - the alleged conduct occurred but did not violate the NYPD's own rules, which often give officers significant discretion.
'Substantiated': The alleged conduct occurred and it violated the rules. The NYPD has discretion over what, if any, discipline is imposed.
'Unsubstantiated': or 'Unable to Determine' - CCRB has fully investigated but could not affirmatively conclude both that the conduct occurred and that it broke the rules.

Further details on conclusion definitions.


Discipline

Case: 2017-18280
Closed: 5/20/2020
Case Details:
  1. Guilty: Did wrongfully make computer inquires on a Department computer unrelated to the official business of the Department.
  2. Guilty: Did wrongfully and without just cause prevent or interfere with an official Department investigation.
  3. Guilty: During an official Department interview pursuant to the provisions of patrol guide 206-13, did wrongfully make false and misleading statements to members of housing bureau investigations unit.
  4. Guilty: Was unfit for duty due to the over indulgence of an intoxicant
Penalty: Counseling, dismissal probation (12 months), ordered breath testing, pre-trial suspension days (32 days), suspended w/o pay (13 days), vacation days (20 days)


Lawsuits

Named in 3 known lawsuits, $50,000 total settlements.

Nieves, Michael vs Best, Miriam R., et al.
Case # 21CV07171, U.S. District Court - Southern District NY, October 25, 2021, ended January 6, 2022
Zero Disposition
Complaint
Description: On March 26, 2021 plaintiff's defense counsel filed a motion to dismiss. On June 14, 2021, the ADA filed a response to the Motion to dismiss. On June 23, 2021 plaintiff's defense counsel filed a response to the response to the motion to dismiss. On July 28, 2021 Judge Best entered a decision and order denying the motion to dismiss. Plaintiff states that the judge falsified several statements about body cam footage of a fire which he was involved in.

Nieves, Michael vs Honorable Judge Farbers, Curtis, J., et al.
Case # 20CV00990, U.S. District Court - Southern District NY, May 1, 2020, ended March 31, 2023
Zero Disposition
Complaint

Mancebo, Rufino vs City of New York, et al.
Case # 302319/2016, Supreme Court - Bronx, July 13, 2016, ended April 18, 2017
$50,000 Settlement