|
| FILE - In this June 17, 2012, file photo, the Rev. Al Sharpton, center, walks with demonstrators during a silent march to end New York's "stop-and-frisk" program. On Aug. 12, 2013, a federal judge sitting in New York said the department made thousands of racially discriminatory street stops and appointed a monitor to direct changes. |
NEW YORK (AP)
-- After years of burnishing a reputation as one of the nation's most
potent police forces, the New York Police Department appears poised to
become one of the most closely monitored.
A
federal judge this week said the department made thousands of racially
discriminatory street stops and appointed a monitor to direct changes.
And city lawmakers are readying for a final vote Thursday on creating an
inspector general for the NYPD and widening the legal path for pursuing
claims of police bias.
It's a one-two punch
of outside tinkering that will muddy police work, a pair of
complementary steps to protect civil rights or a rash of policymaking
that may end up meaning little on the street, depending on who gets
asked. But from any perspective, it would be the onset of a new era of
oversight for the country's biggest police department, though the
impacts would be defined by particulars and politics still in play.
The
federal ruling outlines but doesn't always detail reforms, and the city
plans to appeal it. The City Council, if it succeeds in overriding a
mayoral veto, would establish a monitor but not select the person or
specify exactly what gets investigated. And a new mayor will take office
next year, which could well mean new police leadership.
"The
complexity, at this point, is that there are so many moving parts,"
said John Jay College of Criminal Justice professor Eugene O'Donnell,
who isn't involved in the litigation or legislation. "And it doesn't
help that it became very adversarial."
Some
other police forces, including the Los Angeles Police Department, also
have had both court monitoring and an inspector general. The NYPD was
under a 1980s federal consent decree that involved undercover and
surveillance techniques, but this would be an unprecedented level of
outside scrutiny for the agency.
Advocates see
distinct roles for each of the prospective new NYPD watchdogs, who
would have different scopes and powers. They wouldn't directly
intersect, deriving their authority from different parts of government.
The
court monitor could compel changes, via the judge, but only concerning
stop and frisk. If the ruling stands after the expected appeal, the
monitor will flesh out details of U.S. District Court Judge Shira
Scheindlin's calls for changes to officer training, supervision and
discipline. The monitor also would keep tabs on specific initiatives
Scheindlin required: revising forms that document stops and testing
body-worn cameras for officers.
The inspector
general could look at many aspects of policing - surveillance of Muslims
or officers' response to the mentally ill, for instance. But the
inspector could issue only recommendations, not orders, though the mayor
or council could make them mandatory.
The
court's monitoring would end when the judge saw no further need for it,
while the inspector general's position would be permanent.
"Both
are essential elements in creating transparency and accountability in
the NYPD," said Chauniqua Young of the Center for Constitutional Rights,
which brought the federal case and is among groups backing the city
legislation.
But Mayor Michael Bloomberg and
Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly have bitterly resisted the push to
impose more outside input on the NYPD, pressure that built amid anger
over the department's heavy use of the stop and frisk tactic and
concerns about extensive NYPD surveillance of Muslims. The spying was
disclosed in stories by The Associated Press.
The
mayor and commissioner say police already get plenty of scrutiny from
entities ranging from a 700-person internal investigations staff to a
civilian complaint board. The new monitors would layer on confusing,
overlapping oversight, the officials say.
Bloomberg
has raised the specter of the police force becoming so policed by
watchdogs and lawsuits that officers might hesitate to defend
themselves, with deadly consequences.
"I'd like to see you go to the funeral and explain to the family," he snapped at a news conference Monday.
Kelly
decried the court ruling during news show appearances Sunday; the judge
has "indicted an entire police department... based on what we believe
is very flimsy information," he said on CBS' "Face the Nation."
Supporters
hope Scheindlin's ruling will embolden lawmakers to back what could be
an extremely close veto override vote Thursday; sponsors expect it to
succeed. Bloomberg, meanwhile, suggested Scheindlin's ruling should give
lawmakers pause about adding more monitoring.
The
legislation also would make it easier to bring suits claiming
discriminatory policing - cases like the one Scheindlin decided. She
found police systematically and unjustly singled out black and Hispanic
men for stop and frisks, about 90 percent of which don't result in
arrests or tickets.
The legislation would
apply only in state court, easing some legal standards the advocates
faced in the federal case, City Councilman Brad Lander said.
To some, the question isn't whether to add the new watchdogs, but how much they could accomplish.
Police
Sgt. Ed Mullins sees the inspector general as a bureaucratic add-on and
the court monitor as "an easy way out for a judge." Changing the
dynamic between police and minority communities takes more than "coming
in here and saying, `You gotta do this,'" said Mullins, who leads the
Sergeants Benevolent Association union.
In Harlem, Edgar Sanchez, 34, digested the idea of new NYPD monitors with something of a shrug.
"They'll
still do whatever they want to do, and they'll use the excuse that
they're protecting the people," he said. "The police will always have
that freedom."
