NYPD must log some frisks: judge
A federal judge Thursday ordered the NYPD to start a pilot program that could force officers to document hundreds of thousands of more street encounters.
The NYPD, however, called it impractical and unwieldy and said it could, given its 4.5 million calls for service a year, “impede police service.”
The nation’s largest police department has put in place a number of reforms mandated after a federal judge ruled in 2013 that the stop, question and frisk tactic was being used in a way that violated the constitutional rights of minorities.
The decision lead to a sea change in how police interact with people on the street — and it accelerated the already-declining use of the controversial tactic.
Other suggested reforms, however, have met with greater resistance, including one that would require police to fully document information gathered during street encounters in which it is not yet clear who may be involved in a crime.
The NYPD records such data about the person — including race, gender and approximate age — when there is reasonable suspicion that he or she has done something wrong, such as when a victim identified the person as having fired a gun. Such an interaction is called a Level 3 encounter.
Under terms of the order by Manhattan Federal Judge Analisa Torres, however, the pilot program would require data be collected from people whose role in a crime, if any, is not immediately clear, such as when police arrive on a street corner because someone reported hearing gunfire but have provided no description of the shooter, meaning officers might theoretically talk to 10 people before figuring out who was involved.
But Bronx Defenders, a nonprofit that represents the poor, said the only way to figure out if street stops are being done correctly is to document lower level interactions — Level 1 encounters, which involve an officer asking a civilian for information, and Level 2 encounters, which involve officers asking more pointed questions because there is a “founded suspicion” the person has committed a crime.
“Very often, officers are responding to instances where things are not so clear,” said Jenn Rolnick Borchetta, deputy director of the group’s Impact Litigation Practice. “Officers may not understand the limits on their authority, and if they don’t understand that, then the city has not fixed its stopand-frisk problem.”
The NYPD in its court response, however, raised concerns about the technology needed to record and save the data — and about the impact on the department neighborhood policing initiative.
“This recommendation is neither practical nor feasible,” the NYPD said in court papers. “Documenting all encounters that do not rise to the level of reasonable suspicion would be overly burdensome, unnecessary, and potentially have a chilling effect on community engagement.”
On Thursday, Lt. John Grimpel, a NYPD spokesman, said the department is “currently evaluating the judge’s order and its potential impact, and will decide next steps in the near future.”
“We have worked very closely with the monitor to implement many positive changes,” Grimpel added, “including enhanced training programs and new policies designed to police effectively and lawfully while building trust.
Peter Zimroth, the NYPD’s court-appointed monitor, will determine if recording low-level encounters will become permanent — or if the plan will be scrapped.