-
BACKGROUND
1
-
INTRODUCTION
1
-
Overview
1
-
Scope of the Panel’s Review and Work
2
-
THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT: ITS MEMBERS, LEADERS, AND REPRESENTATIVES
3
-
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
4
-
Lack of Transparency into the Disciplinary Process
5
-
The Police Commissioner’s Plenary Authority Over Individual Cases
5
-
Allegations of Favoritism, Bias, and Inconsistent Penalties
6
-
Unnecessary and Excessive Delay in the Disciplinary Process
6
-
Other Observations
7
-
OVERVIEW OF THE NYPD’S DISCIPLINARY PROCESS
7
-
Overview
7
-
Complaint Intake
8
-
Investigation
9
-
Prosecution and Disciplinary Recommendation
10
-
Adjudication
13
-
First Deputy Commissioner and Police Commissioner Review
13
-
Internal and External Oversight and Monitoring Bodies
14
-
KEY FINDINGS
17
-
THERE IS A FUNDAMENTAL AND PERVASIVE LACK OF TRANSPARENCY INTO THE DISCIPLINARY PROCESS AND ABOUT DISCIPLINARY OUTCOMES
17
-
Civil Rights Law § 50–a Establishes a Legislative Exception to Public Access Under the New York State Freedom of Information Law
17
-
Many States Provide Greater Access to Police Disciplinary Files Than Does New York
18
-
The NYPD Interprets § 50–a Aggressively and the Courts Have Upheld This Approach
19
-
Lack of Disclosure and Limited Visibility Into the Disciplinary Process are Detrimental to Public Confidence and Oversight
20
-
THE POLICE COMMISSIONER HAS AND EXERCISES COMPLETE DISCRETION OVER DISCIPLINARY OUTCOMES
21
-
The Commissioner’s Review and Evaluation of Disciplinary Decisions
21
-
The Police Commissioner’s Case Review Procedures
21
-
In Certain Cases, the Police Commissioner Must Detail the Reasons for Imposing Penalties Inconsistent with the Recommendations He Receives
23
-
The Police Commissioner Frequently Departs from the Disposition and Penalty Recommendations He Receives
24
-
The Police Commissioner’s Change of Penalty Letters Do Not Provide Meaningful Explanations for Departing from the Recommended Outcome
27
-
The Absence of Information in Change of Penalty Letters Has the Potential to Adversely Impact the Disciplinary Process
27
-
ALTHOUGH THE PANEL DID NOT IDENTIFY PERVASIVE FAVORITISM, THE PANEL IDENTIFIED A FEW CASES WHERE FAVORITISM MAY HAVE INFLUENCED THE DISCIPLINARY PROCESS OR OUTCOME
29
-
Preliminary Analysis of Disciplinary Case Data Involving Higher-Ranking NYPD Personnel Did Not Show Pervasive Favoritism
29
-
Disciplinary Decision Makers are Potentially Susceptible to Inappropriate Influences
31
-
Operations Within the Department Advocate’s Office Raise Particular Concerns About Outside Influences on the Disciplinary Process
31
-
CERTAIN PHASES OF THE DISCIPLINARY PROCESS INVOLVE UNNECESSARY AND EXCESSIVE DELAY
32
-
The NYPD Disciplinary Process is Lengthy
32
-
Certain Factors and Phases in the Disciplinary Process Cause Unnecessary Delay in Disciplinary Case Adjudication
36
-
OTHER OBSERVATIONS
38
-
The Department’s Handling of False Statement Cases
38
-
The Department’s Handling of Domestic Violence Cases
41
-
The Department Lacks an Integrated Case Management System
43
-
RECOMMENDATIONS
44
-
THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD SUPPORT AMENDMENTS TO § 50–a TO INCREASE TRANSPARENCY AND ENHANCE ACCOUNTABILITY
44
-
Section 50–a is an Unnecessary Barrier to Transparency and Accountability and Should be Amended to Allow Public Access to Information on Final, Substantiated Disciplinary Matters
44
-
THE NYPD MUST GUARD AGAINST UNWARRANTED EXPANSION OF THE SCOPE OF § 50–a
46
-
THE NYPD SHOULD ALSO ENHANCE ITS PUBLIC REPORTING IN LINE WITH THAT OF OTHER AGENCIES
46
-
THE NYPD SHOULD PUBLISH TRIAL ROOM CALENDARS
47
-
THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD APPOINT A CITIZENS’ LIAISON
48
-
THE POLICE COMMISSIONER SHOULD ENHANCE THE DOCUMENTATION OF VARIANCES FROM DISCIPLINARY RECOMMENDATIONS
48
-
THE NYPD SHOULD ADOPT PROTOCOLS TO INSULATE DECISION MAKERS FROM EXTERNAL PRESSURES AND MINIMIZE THE APPEARANCE OF INAPPROPRIATE INFLUENCE OVER THE DISCIPLINARY PROCESS
50
-
The Department Should Design and Implement Training and Policies Addressing and Memorializing Informal Communications Concerning Disciplinary Cases
50
-
The Department Should Consider Adopting a Recusal Policy in Certain Disciplinary Cases
50
-
THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD STUDY AND CONSIDER ADOPTING A DISCIPLINARY MATRIX
51
-
THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD TAKE MEASURES TO EXPEDITE DISCIPLINARY ADJUDICATIONS
52
-
DAO Should Hire Additional Attorneys and Fill Vacancies on the Executive Staff
52
-
The Department Should Implement a “Fast Track” Review for Certain Disciplinary Cases
52
-
DAO Should Limit Reconsideration Requests
53
-
THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD STRENGTHEN ENFORCEMENT OF FALSE STATEMENT DISCIPLINARY POLICIES
53
-
THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD ADOPT PRESUMPTIVE PENALTIES IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES AS RECOMMENDED BY CCPC
55
-
THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD UPGRADE AND INTEGRATE ITS CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
55
-
THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD RETAIN EXTERNAL EXPERTS TO CONDUCT PERIODIC AUDITS OF THE DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM
56
-
CONCLUSION
56