Ending Secrecy on Police Misconduct

I'm all for more transparency in government, at the local, state and federal levels. The FOIA is nice, but government agencies spend too much time and effort stonewalling requests. There should be penalties (on individuals) when information is not provided on a timely basis.

And it's not just the police that have power over citizens, but many other government employees. Just look at recent reports of IRS and FBI seizures of assets from citizens without any proof of a crime.

An editorial is a bit like a history book, out of date before printed. A recent incident in Alabama provides another example of gratuitous brutality. A visitor from India was reported to police as a suspicious character in the neighborhood. Cops pull up, speak with the man who has language difficulties, and within minutes, the man is on the ground partially paralyzed. One cop "took him down" in what was either a wrestling move or a martial arts move. An act of barbaric sadism.

On the other hand, a recent episode of Blue Bloods on CBS was either a brilliant send-up of the NYPD or a shocking PR job for them. The Mayor is Black, The Commish is White, Irish-American, Catholic. His father, who presides at four-generation Sunday dinners, was Commish before that. A daughter is ADA. Two sons are cops--one is a nice guy, kinda wimpish though; the other is the effective one--he shouts and threatens, and doesn't mind breaking rules in the name of justice. And they all hold hands and say grace nicely.

This editorial is surprisingly biased against the police. Sure, there have been a few slightly troubling incidents, but generally speaking our city's finest have done a great job protecting decent members of the upper classes from unpleasant elements that seek to destabilize and to impede the progress of the gentrification that has made New York a good, safe place to live and raise a family. One can only imagine what recalcitrant individuals could do with personnel files if they were able to get hold of them. Internet impersonation or "satire" has become a weapon of choice, to the point of obliging prosecutors to take action, at enormous cost to taxpayers:

http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

and others have even gone so far as to outrageously post fake "NYPD drone" ads around the city (appealing again to "satire"), to say nothing of the inappropriately abusive protests we have seen in recent months on our bridges, in the middle of our thoroughfares, and even in our parks. In these steadily worsening conditions, what are we to do? Release personnel files to the masses? Our lawmakers, no strangers to unfair accusations of corruption, wisely thought ahead when they enacted this statute. Government cannot function without secrecy, and the contrary suggestion is perhaps a tad bit irresponsible, to say the least...

Your asking for transparency in government, it is just not going to happen..

The police have far too much power and privilege, fully condoned in culture and fully codified in law. Legal police power and privilege opens the door wide for police actions that would be unquestionably be considered crimes if performed by anyone else, such as Daniel Pantaleo's unprovoked assault and strangulation of Eric Garner. And yes, as this article points out, it creates numerous avenues for criminal cops to avoid detection and prosecution. Even for murder.

But this is what people, especially but by no means exclusively black people, have been saying for EVER. The system is biased. Impartiality in the law is a humorless joke. Legal judgments of guilt or innocence, and sentences for convictions, depend heavily on who you are. Cops are a protected group.

Now there's been another "official" report repeating the obvious. It follows the violent public backlash over police power and privilege in 2014. As yet, there have been no reactions from the politicians who have the power to change the status quo. One has to wonder just how many official analyses, how many citizens victimized, and how much mayhem in the streets will make them do so.

They are government employees and all their actions should be public information.

Please stop with the bias reporting always stating the Ferguson case as Brown being unarmed. While of course true it's been proven by forensics, witnesses and a jury that Mr. Brown attacked the officer. It should be included with your reporting of the incident.

For the folks complaining that encounters with police are consistently negative, here's why. Since 2004, the number of New York City cops has decreased by 14%. The population has grown by 2.5%. And while the crime rate has gone down, the broken windows policy has caused enforcement actions to skyrocket. Bottom line, we're paying just enough for cops to investigate and arrest. The tight budget assures that they have little time to make friends. If we don't pay for what we want we shouldn't expect to get it.

While employed as an NYPD sergeant/lawyer assigned to the Legal Bureau, part of my job was quashing subpoenas and defending motions for disclosure of police officers’ personnel files pursuant to section 50-a of the Civil Rights Law. The law does not bar disclosure of officer’s personnel files, it requires a good faith factual basis as to why disclosure of an officer’s personnel files are relevant to the criminal or civil matter before the court or tribunal. The presiding judge makes a determination if the records should be produced and disclosed by conducting an in camera or confidential review of the records. In my experience the bulk of these requests in criminal cases were to shift the focus off the accused defendant’s criminal acts and place it on the officers involved in the arrest. When the facts supported disclosure or when the defendant showed a pattern or suspected pattern of misconduct on the part of the officer, the judge would order and in camera inspection and more often than not a portion of the records were disclosed. A defendant should not be permitted to demand disclosure of an officer’s personnel file merely because that officer was involved in his or her arrest. Police officers are the most visible representative of government and are on the front lines in uniform putting their safety at risk to serve and protect. Section 50-a provides some degree of protection for their personal safety and unwarranted attacks on their integrity and reputation.

Even the casual student of history knows how dangerous unaccountable police forces are. History overflows with examples of grave and savage injustice at the hands of police answering only to their wealthy employers. How can people not see all the ways our society is returning to feudalism?

feudalism |ˈfyoōdlˌizəm|
noun historical
the dominant social system in medieval Times, in which the nobility held lands from the Crown in exchange for military service, and vassals were in turn tenants of the nobles, while the peasants (villeins or serfs) were obliged to live on their lord's land and give him homage, labor, and a share of the produce, notionally in exchange for military protection.

In government many times changes have unintended consequences, following that train of thought. While I champion greater transparency their is some modicum of opaqueness needed. I would suggest that something akin to a double blind system of information where as the system has for public view individual records of officers in total but, random numbers are assigned in place of officer names to place a separation of name and record. If the general public finds history of any officer in question then it could petition the courts to review the history and decide if said history rises to the level of inquiry and the joining of history and name for further action. This will give transparency and anonymity when prudent.

Most other states do not have the population of New York City, leave along the NY State. The only rationale I could think of for this blue wall of silence that 50-A creates is that some nutcase, if he or she comes to know of the officer's identity will want to do serious harm to the officer and his family. But then, in the absence of specific knowledge of identity of officers involved in a questionable action such as shooting an unarmed (in hindsight) person, we have seen that any member of the whole force could become the target for 'assassination' as we have witnessed recently in the eastern district.

I agree that the cops do a dangerous job but they cannot be so afraid that they would assume the worst and draw the guns to shoot miscreants.

Maybe, we should have cops patrol areas with nothing but batons as the 'Bobbies' do in Britain. Have gun, will shoot is the wrong type of mindset to have in policing any precinct, leave alone the melting pot of New York city.

In America nothing brings about change more than money. If I was Philly I would send Pat Lynch and the PBA season tickets to the Eagles games. If anyone thinks the show they put on for the world didn't have something to do with New York losing the DNC convention they are crazy. Maybe if anybody ever looks at how much money is loss in lawsuits and other things they would start to realize this secrecy culture that has been allowed to morph needs to be exposed to the sunshine. Was it not the head of the Sergeants union who advised the convention committee not to come to New York because they could not guarantee their safety? Someone need to be called to task for that.

My country South Africa was rightfully called a police state, where the police and their actions lived above the law. Sadly when I read this and see the protection of laws like Section 50-a of the civil rights code my mind goes back to the apartheid rules and protection of the minority white police force in South Africa that gave them the title of a police state. Sadly when you read article like this, on top of the shooting deaths of too many unarmed civilians, and the militarization of the police forces in the country, the question that should be on the table are we living in a version of a police state?

I rarely agree with the editors of the Times. I heartily embrace this call for greater government transparency. But it needs to happen not only after black deaths. Americans must also demand it in the terrible crimes committed against conservatives by the IRS, which are still hidden behind the veil of cover-up, secrecy and lies.

“I’ve got no patience with it, I will not tolerate it, the president lied to the American people on May 13, 2013. “You should feel that way regardless of party – I don’t care whether you’re a Democrat, independent, or Republican.”

Now, two years later, his corrupt attorney general and his incompetent IRS director still refuse to release relevant documents and emails to the appropriate investigators in the Congress.

It would be good if the editors of the Times believed in transparency for the truth in this government campaign against white conservatives, not just for the issues against blacks in the ghetto.

They are two sides of the same coin--of cover-up, lawlessness, misconduct and official arrogance.

What better way to undermine trust than promoting secrecy. Dress police in robocop costumes. Arm them for combat. We can't be expected to have trust when all public appearance and judicial procedure suggests fear of exposure.

It is easier to be opaque than transparent. If you make everything confidential you don't to think about what can be made public.

Yes, rescinding or at least modifying Section 50a to exclude cases of police misconduct - or all employee misconduct - would be a good start. Then the Good People of New York and other states must insist that our lawmakers change the laws that make it almost impossible to find a police officer guilty of gunning down citizens for no apparent reason. It must stop if we want a democratic, civil society.

Corrupt police, protecting themselves. Who trusts them? Why should they? They get all offended when the mayor instructs his kid on how to protect himself from their racial bias, and would stop working because he was being truthful?

Here's a clue for NYPD: you have systematically, corruptly, and unapologetically abised the trust of those you are sworn to protect. You are rightfully despised and will never be trusted to be anything but the horrible excuses for humans you collectively are. Are there men and women of valor who are doing their best in a difficult job? Of course. Sadly, your organization is FULL of rats and predators.

Until you get straight with yoursleves and your employer - the taxpayer - it's easy to predict the outcome. More violence against you and more violence against the citizenry.

Which brings the question of unions and their grossly corrupting effect on any organization. It is nothing more than a proection scheme that promises immunity. Who will break up this fraternity of corruption?

The public should "turn their backs" on the New York police until this law is rescinded.

The police officer who murdered Eric Garner should be put in prison for the rest of his life and serve as example of the public's rightful intolerance of “the blue wall of silence.” And, all of the other police officers who joined in the murder of Eric Garner should lose their jobs and pensions.

When both the legal records and the public behavior of police officers are kept secret, nobody knows nuttin'.

Nowadays, however, some of the public behaviors of police officers are captured on cell phone video cameras, and some of the videos are made public via social and news media.

This has given an increasingly shocked public a glimpse at a growing list of troubling police behaviors like attacking journalists and peaceful protesters, beating suspects after they've been subdued, and shooting unarmed civilians.

This, in turn, has created a growing gap between the public's ability to witness instances of police misconduct that take place in public, and the public's ability to learn about what's going on behind the scenes.

This is a bad situation. It's bad for the public, bad for the victims, and bad for the police. It increases mutual distrust. Little by little, evidence of police misconduct is coming out anyway. Transparency and genuine accountability would be much better for all of us.

Any new law or rule that moves the police back to their true roles as public servants, not public masters, is a good law or rule.

I know I'm not the only one who wonders if all of this has a tipping point. We are armed to the hilt in this country, many police officers vote privately for politicians who are aligned with the NRA. Would it shock anyone to see someone retaliate? It wouldn't shock me.

"Approved in 1976, the statute sought to protect police officers from the Freedom of Information Law, passed two years earlier, and keep defense lawyers from rummaging around in police personnel files for information to use in cross-examining officers during criminal trials. " Rummaging around and finding things like how often the cop has lied in the past. This law should have been overturned in the courts in the interest of justice.

It is becoming obvious that there are many "trigger-happy" police officers in this country who shoot first and ask questions afterwards.

Any elements of an officer's record that indicate he or she may be unfit to carry a gun with implied permission to use it must be open to the public.

If an officer has a history of complaints that s/he beat citizens, abused them in other ways or drew their guns too readily, we the people need to know.

City officials require access to such information so that officers who have histories of inappropriate behavior will not be hired in the first place or can be weeded out of the force.

And there need to be penalties for police officers who withhold information about the misdeeds of their fellow officer and retreat behind "the blue wall of silence, making it possible for the police to hide an officer's conduct from the public."

It is ludicrous that in some communities citizens need to be protected FROM the police whom they've hire TO protect them.

And while we're at it, let's focus on prosecutorial misconduct as well! Those folks are exempt, in nearly all instances, from prosecution from rigging and withholding evidence in cases that ruin other's lives.

Even with public disclosure laws in place, police departments and their legal advisors dictate what information they disseminate through public disclosure request laws. Oftentimes, anything very inflammatory seems to be lost or misplaced. It's the disturbing and all too common practice of stonewalling in law enforcement circles.

When making more arrests lead to faster promotions or writing more revenue raising tickets is a performance evaluator or civil forfeiture becomes the modus operandi, you have the wrong incentives in the police force and what you really have are state mercenaries.

The attitude behind protocols like "stop and frisk" is bad. It unnecessarily creates an interaction that is likely to be negative and biased.

So, when most of your interaction with a police becomes the equivalent of paying a toll or proving that your innocent while walking around, is it a surprise that trust plummets? When you see police abuse their power time and time again and never get punished, are you really going to trust a police man coming at you when you have no idea if he is in a good mood or bad one?

The incentives need to be changed.

Finally, if civil settlements came out of police pension fund and the union, you'd see the blue wall crumble pretty quickly because then "good" cops would better understand how much bad cops hurt them.

Our increasingly abusive and aggressive police must be reined in. But it is not only this law that needs to be changed.

In effect since the 70s, it alone cannot account for the marked change in how NYPD and departments all over the country operate since Department of Homeland Security began to lionize and militarize them.

A militaristic and hostile police force cannot co-exist with democracy. Repealing this law would be a good start, but it's only one step in demythologizing police and "first responders" and bringing their entitlement and aggression to heel.

The move toward militarism, and the mythologies that support it, go hand in hand with the increasing brutality -- economic and otherwise -- with which the American populace are now treated.

Body cameras are successfully in use by 3,000 police departments across the country but in New York, as long as 50-a stands, they will be useless since the police can routinely refuse to release video and claim it’s not required under the statute. And all the gibberish about needing secrecy to protect police officers from the public is nonsense.

Now is the perfect time for New York legislators to reassess and modify that section of the statute.

NYPD is corrupt. Always has been. Let's open up the records

Look at what the PBA did to the mayor of New York recently. He was told who was not allowed to associate with, Sharpton, and told how to raise his son. Think of all the politicians that came to his defense. Then think of recent remarks by FBI director admitting that he has no way of tabulating police shooting in America. The genie is out of the bottle and is almost impossible to put back in. One segment of the population look at them like they were knights of King Arthurs court and another segment like they were Knights of another kind of Klan. If anyone can reconcile this they will be in the history books. The beating they put on the mayor of New York was tough to watch but it was a warning to other reformers of who actually works for whom. The mayor cannot give a speech these days without pay tribute to the guys that just beat him up.

All this writing of police misconduct, hidden records and general denigrating of the police reminds me of a bumper sticker from back in the 60's; "In trouble? Try calling a hippie for help".
Or, as the fictional Colonel Jessup said in the movie "A Few Good Men"; "You need me on that wall". I would point out that police officers, by and large, do not kill, wound or maim people in vast numbers but, instead, protect most civilians from crime.
Abuse of their power should be dealt with accordingly and if anything is to be learned from the deaths in Ferguson and New York it is that the police must also obey the law.
Having said this, police misconduct should be judged in the harsh light of reality; the records of police officers, as public employees, should certainly be available to all.
Of course, police officers are held to higher standards. They carry side arms, are authorized to use them and have a responsibility to use such power with enough caution as to not needlessly take lives.
if this sounds unfair or unjust I would remind people that nobody is forced to become a law enforcement official and anyone wishing to tackle this dangerous occupation should know that constraints exist to limit their behavior.
In essence, without the police who would "stand on that wall"?
Militias? Neighbors? The Military?

They are to "serve and Protect"--themselves. They are licensed to kill.

In many contexts, administrative charges of professional misconduct are withheld from public scrutiny - until those charges are upheld, at which point those charges become public. Only in New York State are proven charges of misconduct against police officers withheld from public disclosure.

Section 50-a must be revised.

politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com

Rescinding the law rather than amending it to protect officers' personal information but make it more accessible in some instances would make those officers more accountable to the public, but also would invite the kind of courtroom abuse by lawyers seeking to win a case at any cost that caused the law, at least in part, to be enacted in the first place.

It's certain that this argument will be used by those who wish to protect the law.

A more difficult approach but perhaps one more likely to be accepted could be the enumeration of situations in which the information would be accessible.

It's tragic but true that the words of that miscreant Wayne LaPierre, Exec. V. P. of the National Rifle Association, "The guys with the guns make the rules" applies to those wearing uniforms.

In 1976, with high crime rates, maybe this law was passed to protect police from the new Freedom of Info Law. One step forward, 2 back. But why should defense lawyers be prevented from ‘rummaging around’, whatever that means, in cop personnel files? Cops rummage thru records of civilian suspects. Why block lawyers from needed data for cross examining officers? Isn’t the cross exam the basis for our trial system, thus the basis for justice?? Naïve? I always watch Perry Mason shows. And so did Justice Sotomayor.

Once officers see they’re protected, some of them feel more free to abuse, and act out their power trips on the public. Couple this with orders from a Mayor to stop and frisk 700,000 people a year and you get unregulated escalation.
What about ‘corrections’ officers in prisons, implicated in truly criminal violent brutality at Rikers, grimly detailed in the Times?

This secrecy not only undermines public confidence, it also causes fierce resentment, distrust, cynicism, which can lead to defiance of the law. And is, I would think unconstitutional. Secrecy laws varying so much among the states undermines the Equal Protection Clause.

If police had not gotten accustomed to non accountability, then 6 armed cops would have found a less cruel and lethal way to subdue and cuff Eric Garner ----for his mortal sin of selling some smokes untaxed. Telling the cops to leave him alone proved deadly.

Does this committee have any power? Will the media discuss it?

There needs to be some exception to public access to police personnel records referenced in Section 50-a. Disclosure of personal information can be dangerous if a violent criminal holds a grudge against a particular officer. A plethora of personal information and medical records warrant a high degree of confidentiality. Statements made in confidence for numerous reasons need to remain confidential. 50-a protects many legitimate privacy interests. As the Editorial Board states, we need to know all we can regarding misconduct. But that doesn't mean that we need to know everything about every officer. The proposal to get rid of 50-a is a sledgehammer. A surgeon's scalpel would be a better tool.

The New York police have the most stressful job and, in spite of doing splendid job in maintaining law and order in NY, few unfortunate error of judgment have mistakes have occurred in the course of discharging their duties. I agree with you that by ending secrecy on police involved in serious misconduct, the cops will be held accountable for any misdeed, especially if it involves human lives. However, on the flip side, if the cops are punished for misdemeanor, it may lead to a situation when they will be hesitant to use force even in extreme situations. It is therefore, before the secrecy clause is done away with, the cops are sensitized that brute force or killing of innocent civilians should never be the first option. especially while dealing with non-whiles. For example, in the incident involving an Indian in Alabama, the cops should have ideally taken him to the policy station and arranged for an interpreter instead of using brute force on an elderly man who was not familiar with English.

This wrongful shielding of official records for police, corrections officers, and firefighters is a corruptive dynamic, actually pushing the public employees hidden in this way towards misconduct and abuse, similar to the way that being anonymous produces so much nasty on-line commentary.
Revoking Section 50-a would tie in well with FBI Director Comey’s push for police to get to know the people they are charged to protect. Getting to know people can never be a one-way street. It cannot happen unless community members can learn what is relevant in the behavior of the officers just as well as the officers can learn what is relevant in the behavior of the community members.
For the NYPD to function properly its officers have to be accessible members of the communities in which they work. Besides ending the concealment of records, the NYPD should unshell as many officers as possible from their squad cars and put them back into easy casual interaction with the people by walking beats or biking. Good police officers have to know and be known, not through glass darkly, but face to face.

Secret government is the antithesis of democracy; secret police notoriously so.

So an officer can be involved in multiple instances of misconduct and that can't be brought out at trial to impeach his testimony? How is that even constitutional, let alone ethical?

If it's true that the United States has the best criminal justice system in the world, then the world is in a heap of trouble!

power corrupts and too much power corrupts absolutely.This it seems to be true with the largely white police force.In innocent short morning walker is brutally assaulted.A kid is mercilessly shot down.One wonders what is wrong with america.Is it schizophrenia.or is it a huge sense of insecurity

50-a was passed to limit abusive cross-examination of police officers. As a prosecutor, I can attest that this is a real problem. In a simple DUI case, where an officer testifies about a field sobriety test, full access to his file always results in a prolonged cross-examination regarding multiple arrests he has made that proved to be groundless. If a tiny percentage of arrests by a 20 year officer led to release without charge, that's a lot of cases. As a result, the trial can end up being more about them than the DUI. 50-a is designed to address this problem. It's especially important where there are victims. The problem this editorial points out is that 50-a prevents necessary disclosure of police misconduct, and that is true. The solution is to restrict the statuye to court cases, not matters directly related to misconduct. 50-a is too broad. It needs to be narrowed. Rescinding is overkill.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant of corruption and incompetence. Our Law Enforcement Officers and Corrections Officers' records MUST all be open to public scrutiny. When a person has the power to kill another under the cover of law, no information should ever be withheld from the public concerning the person who killed another under the cover of law. We have a horribly corrupt criminal justice and enforcement system in this country, compared to other 1st World countries. We don't even recognize how messed-up we are, we're so used to it. Our system does not seek to minimize harm to society, it seeks to maximize horribly misguided metrics for promotion as well as self-aggrandizement within the ranks. We truly have a messed-up, punitive, hypocritical society.

The legal concept of state action means that when you take state money you must comply with state law.
The corollary, in this case, should be:
When you take the publics money, that is, when you are employed by the public, you must be accountable to that public.

The common practice by police is to put all the information out there about the victim, but none about the police officers.

I am surprised at the quick action on the shooting by Peter Laing compared with the usual obfuscation in other police shootings. It made me wonder if Peter Laing being a chinese-american made a difference.

The reason for 50-a is not to protect the policemen from lawyers or journalists but from Mafia and other criminals who might seek revenge. A vulnerable police force leads to a vulnerable community. There must be a balance between the right of the public to know and the right of a policeman to make it back home. Not stating the obvious, NY Times undermines its credibility.

When criminal activity by individual police officers is shielded from public view, you have a secret police.

Once again. So much for democracy in America.

All proceeding of a group with the literal power of life or death over citizens, should be PUBLIC RECORD. Period.

Citizens keeping a vigilant eye on their police force may be the way to go. Seattle offers a good example.

Lot of folks think if the officer wasn't a person of color the things would be a lot different. With the reactions and actions from NYPD and the PBA. Seems like this officer is the pound of flesh to given up for the transgressions of other officers. Really tired of hearing about the blue wall of silence. In reality police unions in America is the only unions that the pols leave alone. Guess our representatives would rather shield the people who work for us as opposed to representing the people that voted them in office. The sight of the turned backs on the mayor must give them a lot of sleepless night. So for all the talk of change is just talk of change. For the director of the FBI to admit that there was no way for him to find out how many police shooting were in America. Should be an embarrassment in this information age.

The NYPDs commonly thuggish behavior increasingly reveals that their codified “blue wall of silence,” is operating on the same conspiratorial ethic as the Mafia's law of Omertà.

The recent 'slow down' to protest the mayor as well as to rebuff the public's disapproval with the NYPDs well documented abuses (particularly with Eric Garner) displays an arrogance that cannot be tolerated from public employees.

It is clear that for the sake of public safety a fair number of these public employees should be relieved of their duties and be obliged to try their luck in the private sector.

And how about lawyers? It's virtually impossible to find out if a lawyer has been disciplined, not to mentioned disbarred, in this police state where everybody seems to have more rights than an ordinary citizen!

Right on! The police, or I should say the police who promote irresponsible policing (such as arrest quotas that victimize citizens usually of color), impunity, and impenetrability (the code of silence) have too much power against the citizens and even their own mayor.