Public Oversight Board Releases Thousands Of NYPD Disciplinary Records

from the at-long-last,-some-transparency dept

At long last, some more NYPD police misconduct records have been released. Last month, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals refused to block the release of these records, now publicly available thanks to the repeal of a state law that shielded these records from the public eye for more than 40 years.

A first batch of records was released before the matter was even settled. Records obtained by the NY-ACLU and ProPublica were released by ProPublica even as the Police Benevolent Association secured a restraining order blocking their release. Since neither of these entities were party to the lawsuit (the PBA was suing New York City and Mayor Bill de Blasio), they weren't subject to the court order.

The partial set of records published by ProPublica came from the Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB). The publication only included records for officers with at least one substantiated complaint against them. A much fuller set of data has now been released by the CCRB -- a set that dates back more than 20 years and covers tens of thousands of NYPD officers.

The CCRB's database includes information on 34,811 active NYPD officers and 48,218 inactive officers, with complaints dating back to 2000. Details about each complaint are limited to the incident date, the type of complaint (force, abuse of authority, discourtesy, or offensive language), a one-or-two-word description of the allegation, and whether the complaint was substantiated.

But this won't be the final data dump on the NYPD. The department has its own internal set of disciplinary records which are subject to the same disclosure mandates as the CCRB's tranche. This one covers information not available in the CCRB's database -- like officers whose claims were handled by the NYPD's internal trial system.

Some of this could be posted as early as next week, but it will be an incomplete data set.

The first NYPD records release will detail discipline cases back to 2018. After that, [Assistant Chief] Pontillo said, more data will be added — for active cops who are disciplined without a trial, and for trials, going back to 2008, for both current and ex-cops.

The NYPD will also be releasing trial room decisions for both current and former officers.

The repealed law also grants public access to disciplinary records pertaining to fire department employees and corrections officers, but neither have offered a publication date. It actually appears they may try to litigate their way through it.

Hank Sheinkopf, a spokesperson for the coalition of unions that sued to block the release of the records, provided no specific indication whether or not they plan to take further legal action.

“We're considering our options,” Sheinkopf told Gothamist.

Well, good luck with that. The Second Circuit opinion made it pretty clear they had no actionable argument against complying with public records law.

After years of secrecy -- and months of stalling -- the NYPD may finally join those who've already released department disciplinary records. Given its history of extreme recalcitrance when it comes to transparency, it's no surprise it will be the last to produce these documents.

Filed Under: disciplinary records, nypd, transparency

Appeals Court Rejects New York Police Unions' Attempt To Block Disclosure Of Disciplinary Records

from the your-definitions-of-'irreparable'-and-'harm'-suck-equally dept

A bunch of New York City law enforcement unions have been suing to block the side effects of the repeal of 50-a, an ordinance passed in 1976 that exempted police departments and other agencies (like fire departments) from disclosing information about misconduct to the public.

For more than 40 years, the bad law remained in place. It took nationwide anger of the killing of another black man by a white cop to get it taken off the books. In response, a bunch of unions presiding over the New York City's police and fire departments lawyered up, hoping to continue withholding this information.

The legal battle has reached the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. And the Appeals Court doesn't find the plaintiffs' assertions about "irreparable harm" credible. The unions claim the repeal of 50-a (and the consequent release of disciplinary records) violates agreements they have with the city -- one that says findings in favor of officers/employees will be removed from employees' disciplinary records.

The Appeals Court [PDF] points out that the unions can't just decide the public employees they represent don't have to follow the law.

[T]o the extent that this claim implicates records that must be disclosed under FOIL, the NYPD cannot bargain away its disclosure obligations.

The Appeals Court affirms everything the district court already told the unions. "Irreparable harm" is not only not foreseeable, it's not even remotely credible.

The Unions assert that law enforcement officers will have fewer employment opportunities in the future if records of the allegations against them that prove to be unfounded or unsubstantiated are disclosed, even though each record will reveal the outcome of the investigation. But the District Court noted that future employers were unlikely to be misled by conduct records that contained “dispositional designations” specifying that allegations of misconduct were unsubstantiated, unfounded, or that the accused officer was exonerated. As the District Court also noted, despite evidence that numerous other States make similar records available to the public, the Unions have pointed to no evidence from any jurisdiction that the availability of such records resulted in harm to employment opportunities.

No harm foreseeable there. Unfortunately, that sort of means employers like the NYPD aren't all that selective in their hiring processes. Multiple allegations -- even if they ultimately resulted in exoneration -- should be a red flag. And the NYPD should definitely know this because its internal review process clears bad cops all the time, ensuring they can continue to engage in misconduct without fear of reprisal.

The same goes for the equally wild claim that disclosing these records will result in physical harm to officers.

We also address the Union’s more general assertion of heightened danger and safety risks to police officers. We fully and unequivocally respect the dangers and risks police officers face every day. But we cannot say that the District Court abused its discretion when it determined that the Unions have not sufficiently demonstrated that those dangers and risks are likely to increase because of the City’s planned disclosures. In arriving at that conclusion, we note again that many other States make similar misconduct records at least partially available to the public without any evidence of a resulting increase of danger to police officers.

The unions' argument only makes sense if they are asserting that New York City residents are far more prone to acts of violence targeting law enforcement officers following the release of public records than people living elsewhere in the company. And if that's the argument, it hasn't been preserved for appeal so...

The Appeals Court hands out even more rejection along state law lines. Simply asserting "diminished" employment opportunities on the presupposition of "damaged reputations" is not enough to engage state constitutional protections. There's also nothing in the unions' equal protection assertions since (despite the best efforts of a bunch of idiotic legislators at both state and federal levels) police officers and first responders are not a protected class.

Everything the unions argued is "without merit." That's the final call. (Note: It may not be the final call. But this doesn't look like the sort of the thing the Supreme Court is interested in entertaining.) 50-a is gone. The records can be made public. And if cops think it will hurt them to hand over records showing they've been exonerated will result in harm to themselves and their careers, they're not going to find any sympathy from the courts, much less the general public they've been hiding records from for years.

Filed Under: appeals court, disciplinary records, foia, foil, new york, nypd, public records, transparency

New York Legislators Dump Law That Allowed PDs To Withhold Officers' Disciplinary Records

from the it's-a-shame-it-took-another-killing-by-cops-to-make-this-happen dept

More than 40 years after a law went on the books in New York allowing cops, firefighters, and corrections officers to have their disciplinary records hidden from the public, the NYPD suddenly decided to start following the law.

For years, the NYPD gave journalists access to "Personnel Orders," which detailed the outcomes of closed internal investigations. They were posted on a clipboard in the NYPD's public information office, making them as public as any record can be. In 2016, the NYPD suddenly decided it was no longer going to share these with the public, citing (I'm not even kidding) a need to "save paper."

Another, less laughable explanation was later given by Deputy Chief Ed Mullen. The NYPD spokesman said someone in the PD's legal bureau had re-read the 1976 law and realized the NYPD had no obligation to turn over this info to the public. So it stopped. (On the other hand, the NYPD is indebted to the public to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars in lawsuit settlements every year, so maybe it would have made sense to let this four-decade oversight continue.)

The NYPD seized the moment four decades too late, further shielding its officers from accountability. This decision to stop being even slightly open about officer discipline followed a few high profile killings of citizens by officers -- most notably Eric Garner, who was choked to death by a police officer during an arrest.

For almost a half-decade, city legislators have been trying to get the law -- known simply as "50-a" -- repealed. Some state officials, including Governor Andrew Cuomo and New York City mayor Bill de Blasio, have suggested they're up for some limited reform, but neither of these two have expressed support for a repeal of the law.

It looks as though both officials will get the repeal they never really wanted. And if they want to thank anyone for this outcome, they can thank all the bad cops in America, starting with Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin.

The Democrat-led Legislature approved the long-stalled reform of the statute — which is routinely used to keep the public from learning about police misconduct and disciplinary actions taken against officers — in response to protests sparked by the death of George Floyd, a black Minnesota man who was killed when a white police officer kneeled on his neck for nearly nine minutes.

[...]

The bill passed along party lines in the Senate, 40-22, with all Republicans voting against the measure. The Assembly approved the measure 101-43 Tuesday evening, also along party lines.

Governor Andrew Cuomo has already promised to sign the bill, which will erase 50-a from the books. That hasn't made the state's police unions very happy. Pat Lynch -- president of the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association -- claims the release of records will endanger the lives of cops, even with personal information (address, phone numbers, etc.) redacted.

Then there's this bizarre statement, which suggests a bunch of cops feel informing the public about misconduct is unfair to the brave men and women committing the misconduct.

A coalition of law enforcement groups said in a statement Monday that releasing records, including complaints, could leave officers facing “unavoidable and irreparable harm to reputation and livelihood.”

Yeah. Like a public permanent record. Imagine being this obtuse about your job and your obligations to the public. Then imagine doing it while your fellow officers release tons of personal info about anyone ever booked into a jail... or extrajudicially killed by an officer. These are your nation's law enforcement reps, ladies and gentleman. And in the face of incremental accountability improvements, they're issuing statements so self-serving that those issuing them are blind to the inherent stupidity of their claims.

Filed Under: disciplinary records, new york, police

New Bill Aims To Pierce The Darkness Surrounding California Police Officers' Disciplinary Records

from the long-awaited-correction-to-the-[permanent]-record dept

Cops in California have literally unbelievable protections. To ensure the "privacy" of government employees sworn to serve the public, the Cali legislature has kowtowed to state police unions to make disciplinary records all but impossible to obtain… by anyone.

This has led to the expected results. Professional liars in cop uniforms offer unimpeached testimony filled with more lies as defense lawyers stand helplessly by, screwed out of offering effective counsel by state law. The law is so restrictive prosecutors are often unable to obtain these files. In the unlikely event a cop is being prosecuted, past misdeeds are hidden under a heavy layer of legislated opacity, hindering effectiveness on the other side.

Sure, if you're the victim of police violence, your past is an open book. The cops will dump everything they have on you, from the shoplifting citation two decades ago to every charge ever brought (but ultimately dropped or dismissed) against you in your lifetime to smear your reputation and burnish their own. But if the court would be better served knowing the witness on the stand is an inveterate liar with a history of misconduct, justice will not only go blind but underserved under state law.

This bill aims to change that.

There is currently a bill before the California Legislature that would ease the burden for the prosecutors and the public to know whether the officers in their communities are trustworthy. SB1421 would require police departments to release information about, inter alia, sustained findings of dishonesty in the course of criminal cases and other instances of police misconduct. This bill would also require police departments to release information about serious uses of force, including officer-involved shootings, to increase transparency.

As the article notes, cops -- especially the good ones -- should welcome this move towards transparency.

[C]urrent California law protects the worst officers by hiding their identities from the public and makes them indistinguishable from the bulk of the officers who do their jobs faithfully in accordance with the Constitution.

But they won't. Or, at the very least, their support will be overridden by all the other cops: the mediocre, the bad, the repugnant, and the morally and criminally corrupt. These are officers and former officers currently holding prominent positions in the state's unions, and police unions are universally opposed to transparency, accountability, or minor policy changes that might make policing better.

This bill could change things but it faces the same opposition that managed to talk the legislature into turning police officers into an extremely protected class. It's a welcome effort, but has little chance of survival. Maybe the tide has turned. Maybe this time police unions will be told to stop standing in the way of rebuilding California communities' trust in the officers and agencies policing their neighborhoods.

Filed Under: california, disciplinary records, police, transparency