New York Daily News

Can’t air cops’ records: court

- BY GRAHAM RAYMAN

The state’s highest court has ruled that police disciplina­ry records are exempt from disclosure, records show.

The Court of Appeals voted 4-2 to uphold the key elements of state Civil Rights Law 50-a, which has been read to bar law enforcemen­t agencies from turning over police personnel records.

“This case presents a straightfo­rward applicatio­n of (the law), which mandates confidenti­ality and supplies no authority to compel redacted disclosure,” the majority of the court ruled.

However, in dissent, Justice Jenny Rivera wrote that the ruling was “bad decision-making” and noted the ruling is “an interpreta­tion of our statutes that cloaks government activity in secrecy and undermines our state’s public policy of open government."

Judge Rowan Wilson offered an even more sharply worded dissent, noting NYPD disciplina­ry trials are already open to the public. “There is no basis to withhold that informatio­n — already made public in the hearings — from disclosure,” he wrote. “Because the City has made a decision to reveal some informatio­n to the public as part of those proceeding­s, it cannot withhold that same informatio­n when another party seeks to obtain it under FOIL (the Freedom of Informatio­n Law).”

The New York Civil Liberties Union challenged the law, seeking all final opinions in disciplina­ry cases investigat­ed by the Civilian Complaint Review Board from 2001 to the present. The NYPD stubbornly fought the request even after the NYCLU agreed to accept the records with all identifyin­g informatio­n of the officers blacked out.

“This is a terrible step back for transparen­cy and police accountabi­lity in New York,” said Christophe­r Dunn, associate legal director of the NYCLU. “But it’s also a wake-up call to the incoming legislatur­e that it needs to repeal section 50-a to assure that police disciplina­ry practices no longer remain secret. If we have learned anything over the last few years of turmoil around police misconduct, it is that secrecy breeds distrust and worse.”

The Legal Aid Society also slammed the decision. “The Court of Appeals decision cements a dangerous precedent in a democracy that relies on access of informatio­n in order to hold public officials accountabl­e,” the society said. “This decision fails to follow the principles of open government and the deference courts have traditiona­lly given to open records laws. By emphasizin­g 50-a’s privacy protection­s over open government principles, the court’s decision today will amplify harm to people abused by police.”

Patrick Lynch of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Associatio­n said he was pleased.

“We are grateful that the Court of Appeals has once again reaffirmed the core principles behind the law protecting the confidenti­al personnel records of public safety profession­als,” he said. “For more than 40 years, the Court has recognized the tremendous potential for abusive exploitati­on of these records and the harassment — or worse — of police officers, firefighte­rs and correction­s officers. These risks call for a careful, well-thought-out approach to handling and releasing records.”

The NYPD routinely provided disciplina­ry case outcomes to the media for decades, until 2016 when its lawyers suddenly concluded that was against the law. A series of legal challenges filed by the New York Civil Liberties Union and the Legal Aid Society commenced.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States