NYPD Sunshine
Are New Yorkers entitled to know the details of disciplinary hearings against police officers? The state’s highest court is going to decide that question — and we hope it comes out for full transparency.
That’s why The Post and other local news media support the New York Civil Liberties Union’s ongoing legal efforts to obtain these records — over the NYPD’s objections — under the Freedom of Information Law.
The records involve complaints that have been substantiated by the city’s Civilian Complaint Review Board. Alower court ruled in favor of releasing them — with sufficient redactions to hide the accused officers’ identities.
But the Appellate Division overturned that ruling, even while acknowledging that “the public has a compelling interest” in ensuring that the NYPD takes “effective steps to monitor and discipline police officers.”
That court cited a legal quirk: These records, including the final disposition of the charges and any punishment imposed, fall under a section of the Civil Rights Law that makes NYPD personnel records confidential to protect cops from harassment.
This, even though disciplinary trials are matters of public record.
The Appellate Division said it was powerless to address the discrepancy and tossed the matter to the Court of Appeals.
Until recently, the NYPD argued that the records couldn’t legally be released even with redactions. Now it claims that the amount of editing needed to sufficiently protect cops’ identities would “distort [the documents’] meaning.”
Though sensitive to the issue of protecting cops from unwarranted harassment, we disagree — and so should the Court of Appeals, which is expected to hear arguments in the case this spring.
Public confidence in the NYPD rests in good measure on the department’s transparency when it comes to police discipline. Though we generally give cops the benefit of the doubt, that’s not absolute.
New Yorkers rely on the news media to assure that the department is taking such cases seriously. But journalists can’t make such assessments without access to the critical final-decision reports.
Without seeing the evidence and reasoning that led to the result, after all, you can’t understand the “why” behind it.
Quite simply, releasing the records with prudent redactions protects the anonymity and safety of police officers while allowing reporters to do their job — a job that serves New Yorkers and that the courts have already agreed serves a compelling public interest.