Court Monitor Finds NYPD Still Performing Unconstitutional Stops
from the trickledown-don'tgiveashitness dept
Surprise, surprise! The NYPD is less enthusiastic about telling its officers to restrain themselves than it is about letting them off their leashes.
The NYPD has lightened up on its use of stop-and-frisk, but unconstitutional stops persist because cops don’t know about reforms, according to a federal monitor’s report released Tuesday.The NYPD is more in its element when it's creating terrorism/dissent-focused task forces or shipping its officers halfway around the word to get in the way of local investigators. What it's less interested in doing is ensuring its officers live up to the Constitutional expectations of Judge Shira Scheindlin's order from nearly three years ago.
“Many police officers, including supervisors, are not well informed as yet about the changes underway or the reasons for them and, therefore, have yet to internalize them,” said monitor Peter Zimroth in court papers to Manhattan Federal Judge Analisa Torres.
“Many appear not to understand what is expected of them,” wrote Zimroth, who was appointed in August 2013 to oversee stop-and-frisk reforms. He called for better communication throughout the department.
While it's true that the number of SQFs (Stop, Question and Frisk) is down considerably since its pre-lawsuit heyday, NYPD officers are still performing searches that don't live up to the constraints of the court order, thanks to the hands-off approach apparently deployed by their superiors.
The court-appointed monitor also noted the Citizen Complaint Review Board isn't providing much in the way of accountability, despite its moniker.
“One issue identified by the monitor is that allegations of racial or other profiling allegations made to the CCRB but not the NYPD are not being investigated by either the CCRB or the department,” the report said.The more things are ordered to be changed, the more they stay the same. Those defending the NYPD's newfound, court-enforced "respect" for the Fourth Amendment often point to the precipitous drop in stops as evidence officers are following the new rules. The problem is, those numbers don't mean what the defenders claim they mean. Lower numbers aren't necessarily reflective of successful reform efforts, as Brooklyn attorney Ken Womble points out at Mimesis Law.
The declaration that from 2011 to 2014, “street stops” by the NYPD went from almost 700,000 down to 46,000 is a bit tough to swallow. Don’t get me wrong, I wish this were true. But quite honestly, I feel like I would have noticed long before the New York Times brought it to my attention.As Womble notes, the steepest drop in stops occurred while Mayor Bloomberg and Commissioner Ray Kelly were still running the show -- both of whom dissolved into apoplexy when Judge Scheindlin declared the program mostly unconstitutional.
Where did these numbers come from?
Data Sources: Division of Criminal Justice Services for Felony and Misdemeanor Arrests, New York City Police Department for Stops, and Office of Court Administration for Criminal Summonses.
Is it possible that the numbers provided by the NYPD to John Jay College were accurate? Technically, yes. But a look deeper into the actual data shows that it is much more likely (almost certain) that the NYPD’s reported rates of stop and frisk over the last ten or so years have had little connection to reality.
If the stop and frisk numbers are accurate, then Kelly and the NYPD slashed stop and frisk from a high of 203,500 in the first quarter of 2012, down to 99,788 in the first quarter of 2013, all the way down to a paltry 21,187 in the 3rd quarter of 2013, well before Judge Sheindlin told them to stop.So, despite there being no ruling in place, stops were already dropping. And they have continued to drop, even without clear guidance being handed down from above. Womble points out that while the number of stops has fallen off a cliff, the NYPD's arrest numbers have stayed steady. Considering the number of nearly-suspicionless stops has dropped from nearly 600,000 a year to less than 46,000 (in 2014), one would expect a dramatic drop in arrests. But that hasn't happened. Womble speculates the stops are still occurring. The only thing that's changed is the paper trail.
The NYPD counts “stop” data via “Unified Form 250” which should be filled out any time an officer has a “street encounter” with a civilian that involves stop, search or arrest. So, what happens if a cop stops someone and doesn’t fill out one of these forms? Nothing. Nothing at all.Which is exactly what the court-appointed monitor discovered last summer.
Zimroth cited NYPD internal audits at 19 precincts that found “a number of instances where it appeared likely that a stop was conducted but there was no or improper documentation,” he wrote.And, again, the problem was the NYPD's apparent reluctance to issue clear guidance for its officers.
The monitor referenced conversations with beat cops and their supervisors indicating some officers opted to abandon the approach because they were “not confident or have been misinformed about... what they are authorized to under the law,” he wrote.Add this to the toothless Complaint Review Board -- one that refuses to perform its sole function -- and New York citizens are likely still being unconstitutionally stopped and saddled with bogus arrests. The problem may express itself at the street level, but the real problem is way above beat cops in the organization chart. The Center for Constitutional Rights, which represented the plaintiffs in the stop-and-frisk lawsuit, points out that change starts at the top -- and so far, there's no evidence that's happening.
“We have long argued that you can write the best policies in the world and have the best training in the world, but unless and until there is commitment to reform at all levels of leadership, little will change,” CCR said.The lack of guidance suggests those up top are staying the course and leaving it up to individual officers to interpret the stop-and-frisk order as they see fit. For some, this simply means performing fewer stops. For far more, it appears standard operating procedure is to not fill out paperwork if the stop seems borderline. And with little to no guidance from above, the drop in recorded stops suggests a majority of stops performed are still on the wrong side of the Constitution. But with stop documentation being a closed loop guarded by the NYPD, the only evidence anyone has is a steep drop in stops that only suggests rules no one has issued are being followed.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: nypd, stop and frisk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who is your cell leader citizen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who is your cell leader citizen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A view from nose down on the pavement ("Get on the ground!")
He (they) should have dismissed them all, stipulating re-hiring only if they agreed (by signed consent) to abide by the same laws they enforced, among other stipulations. If not, hit the road... Meanwhile, bring on the new hires who scored high on common sense, courage, and a desire to serve the public rather than control, subdue, fleece, intimidate...
Much like the death rates in hospitals going DOWN on occasions when the staff goes on strike, the crime rate in NYC would likely drop if the crooked cops were ousted. I think one would be safer dealing with the "baddies" without the cops than with the cops. (I know there are good cops, the ones who rescue stranded dogs, kittens, and damsels in distress; they would NOT turn their backs on their leaders IF they were sincere.
But Nooooo. The mayor / chief didn't seize the opportunity.
Interesting to consider than Mr. Peeler established the first organized police force in England less than 200 years ago, and how it has morphed into a power unto itself accountable to very few (if any) and a refuge to bullies and serial killers.
Perhaps some day the populace will wise up and stand up, although I would bet not in my lifetime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A view from nose down on the pavement ("Get on the ground!")
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A view from nose down on the pavement ("Get on the ground!")
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What constitutes an unconstitutional stop?
I'm a middle class white guy without any criminal record. I don't even have a parking ticket or traffic ticket. I was driving home from the office one day and was pulled over by a state cop. I had seen the cop pull out behind me in my rear view mirror, so I was obviously following the law and was driving the speed limit.
When he walked up to my window, he took my driver's license and proof of insurance and disappeared to his cruiser. When he came back, he told me that they were patrolling to catch speeders and that "in the old days we could just write a citation to get the message across". I was let off with a warning - for 36 mph in a 35 mph zone. I didn't even mention the fact that my GPS said I was driving 34 mph (because I saw a marked cop car in my mirrors and made damn sure not to speed).
I would love to see oversight for cops with actual teeth. If a cop pulls over a car, detains a person or arrests a person and it cannot be proven that they have committed a crime, that cop needs to face some kind of punishment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What constitutes an unconstitutional stop?
Currently, the only way to prove someone committed a crime is to take them to court, and (except under specific exceptions) it is illegal to hold a trial in absentia. Your proposed rule change would make it possible for anyone to avoid prosecution for any crime simply by refusing to receive communications from the police/justice department.
ie. The general exception to being present at your trial is if you voluntarily fail to appear. Since the police cannot detain you prior to the trial, they have no way to force you to communicate with them. Thus, by simply refusing to communicate with the police, you can never be informed of your trial date, and thus the trial can never be held.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What constitutes an unconstitutional stop?
I'll explain it extremely clearly for you. If a cop is found to be pulling over, detaining and arresting people who are not later convicted of crimes (due to lack of evidence SINCE NO CRIMES WERE COMMITTED), that cop should face punishment including being fired.
I'm not arguing that the police should not have the power to pull over, detain or arrest people. I'm saying that they keep getting away with doing this to people WHO HAVE NOT COMMITTED A CRIME since there are no consequences. It's used as an intimidation technique.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What constitutes an unconstitutional stop?
I'm not sure if GPS is allowed as evidence in all states, but there was one case I read about years ago that it was and the ticket was dismissed as a result.
And yes - these incidences should be input to the officers performance appraisal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What constitutes an unconstitutional stop?
We only hear about the police state when it interferes with our pathetic lives.
We have been asking... nay... BEGGING for a police state for a while. Everyone told us slipper slopes folks that we were idiots to believe that these new laws and hard on crime policies would be used to oppress us.
Yes, this is just exactly what we asked for. Still waiting for anyone other than the racist "Black Lives Matter" movement to really say much about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What constitutes an unconstitutional stop?
Perhaps "we" == corporate overlords, in this case is suppose you are correct. Just because you are not privy to all conversations and thoughts across the globe does not mean those thoughts and conversations did not occur. Wake up and smell your own bullshit victim blaming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What constitutes an unconstitutional stop?
We are the ones never using jury nullification to prevent the tyranny of the DA & courts. We are the ones never protesting the local Mayor or Sheriff for letting police abuse their power. We are the ones that keep voting all those folks running on their "Tough on Crime" platforms. WE ARE THE ONE LETTING GOVERNMENT RAPE OUR LIBERTY!
You are THE PROBLEM... you vote in the problem and then have the flapping nerve to act like you are not responsible? You are responsible every time you sit back on your ass and do nothing when a person is abused by the system. You are responsible every time you play the party game. You are responsible every time you seek to avoid jury duty. You are responsible every time you attempt to escape blame just like you are now.
WE ALL ARE RESPONSIBLE!
Every nation gets the government it deserves.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Joseph_de_Maistre
Blaming shit on corporate overlords is just your way of acting like a coward and refusing to accept responsibility for you part in all of this. We could easily bring them to heal as soon as YOU and the rest of those bastard repukes & demtards get their heads out of their asses!
DAMN STRAIGHT THIS IS A WE PROBLEM, CAUSED BY WE THE PEOPLE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What constitutes an unconstitutional stop?
by your own logic that makes you the problem.
Donald? .. is that you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What constitutes an unconstitutional stop?
It will not be possible to help you and the vast majority of Americans on both sides of the party isle until they get their heads out of their asses.
Were you looking for an autograph or something? I am sure you can get one if you just go and buy something from his campaign.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What constitutes an unconstitutional stop?
You have a problem, not everyone else. Perhaps you need to seek help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What constitutes an unconstitutional stop?
When corporations fund the parties and candidates, and a few media organization choose which parties and candidates to cover, do the people really get to choose their government, or are they restricted to selecting from a pool of candidates chosen by others?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What constitutes an unconstitutional stop?
I don't think anyone needs you as a fellow citizen. You really have not even been greatly accosted and you have are already willing to give up helping your fellow citizens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What constitutes an unconstitutional stop?
They're breaking the law, fuck 'em.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What constitutes an unconstitutional stop?
How about putting a mirror in front of them when they do their thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What constitutes an unconstitutional stop?
Radar equipment is calibrated on each shift by the officer running the radar unit. If you want to call that into question, make sure you know your math really well and have a solid, unique attack because judges have seen and heard them all. You will most definitely need to appeal it a few times to get heard -- muni judges will routinely announce that they will not entertain indictments against the technology.
Getting off with a warning should not outrage you. If you were black, you'd have gotten a ticket at the very least. Enjoy your white privilege. BTW, all Anonymous Cowards are white people to me.
You'll never ever ever get a cop in trouble for investigating something that looks wrong to them. Never. It's called "probable" cause for a reason, and you don't get to indict it unless you attend an academy and get instructed on it. You're just operating from ignorance.
And that's fine. Techdirt is an interesting site for me, but it's comically anti-cop and shockingly ill-informed about law enforcement in general. So, I do what I can to tell you people you suck at this, just to balance it out.
-C
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What constitutes an unconstitutional stop?
This used to be true, but they stopped doing this years ago. Now the way it works is that civilian GPS and military GPS have the same amount of accuracy, but the US gov can flip a switch to turn the randomization back in specific areas. They do this to degrade the civilian GPS in battlefields.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What constitutes an unconstitutional stop?
TD is as anti-bad-cops as good cops are ignoring bad cops. TD's posted many articles lauding good cops using the law and tech smartly. Bad cops stories are big news though, so stand out. Cops aren't supposed to be bad, you know!
You suck at this, insufferably so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What constitutes an unconstitutional stop?
http://www.autoblog.com/2011/02/25/how-your-smartphones-gps-can-get-out-of-a-speeding-ticket/
You can rant & rave, make all the accusations you want but it does not change what actually happens. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions - not their own facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What constitutes an unconstitutional stop?
Well you're right about that.
Personally, I'd be outraged that I was pulled over for 36 in a 35 to begin with. It takes an exceptionally useless idiot to try and justify that in the name of public safety.
Then again, would YOU want to be the cop who has to show up in court and testify on record for such a grievous offense?
I'm sure it'd be great for your career - you can tell everyone about all the lives you've saved!
What a joke. This right here is why the general public hates you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawsuit Time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Easy Fix
One hopes that Karma isn't too harsh on them, or we'll see a few of them resist arrest as well, and get their faces caved in, get shot in the back, or tazed to death.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Their grabbing on to their new toy as hard as they can in the hopes the parent will give in and let them have it back
I.e......keep doing it, less obviously, over an extended period of time, until people are conditioned enough, used to it, that they give in, rinse repeat.........thats totally representational
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NYPD should be required to advertise
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New jewelry fashion statement
Cops (criminals in this instance), pull their stunt, boom, on the ground waiting for the "waaaaambulance" to arrive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]