charges, a function for which the Police Department may be
sued by persons claiming they were unlawfully arrested or
188 58 MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS, 3d SERIES
prosecuted. (Id. ¶¶ 42-43.) These attorneys advise the Police
Department on policies, procedures, and practices to prevent
civil liability; defend the Police Department and officers against
civil liability for their conduct in connection with their arrests;
and, even if not the attorneys who appear for the prosecutions
initiated, work closely with them. (Id. ¶¶ 44-46.)
Petitioners further allege that the Police Department
prosecutors in the criminal actions against petitioners, in
exchange for an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal
(ACD) (CPL 170.55), demanded their allocutions on the record
that the circumstances gave the police officers probable cause
to arrest petitioners for the offenses charged. (Verified petition
& complaint ¶ 62.) The Police Department prosecutors’
demands for petitioners’ admissions that will insulate the Po-
lice Department and officers from civil liability for their conduct
in connection with petitioners’ arrests and prosecutions alleg-
edly are due to the prosecutors’ allegiance to their employer,
the Police Department, and their co-employees, the complain-
ing and arresting officers. (Id. ¶¶ 44-45, 47, 49-51.) Demanding
admissions of probable cause for arrests contravenes the
purpose of ACDs, which is to treat the arrest as ‘‘a nullity’’ and
restore defendants to their status before the arrest, as if it
never occurred, not as if it occurred with probable cause. (CPL
170.55.) Had respondent District Attorney prosecuted these
charges, petitioners claim, he would not have exacted any al-
locution or admission in exchange for offering an ACD because