NYPD Criticized for Weak Discipline in Illegal Stop-and-Frisk Cases \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ A court-ordered report revealed that the NYPD has been lenient in disciplining officers who conduct illegal stop-and-frisk encounters, with penalties often reduced or dismissed. Retired judge James Yates found that violations are not punished with the same rigor as other misconduct. Despite a sharp reduction in stop-and-frisk incidents since a 2013 ruling deemed the practice unconstitutional, the NYPD’s disciplinary process lacks transparency and effectiveness.
NYPD Stop-and-Frisk Violations: Quick Looks
- A court-ordered report found the NYPD lax in disciplining illegal stop-and-frisk violations.
- Retired Judge James Yates reviewed dozens of cases and found most resulted in reduced or no penalties.
- The report criticizes the NYPD for handling stop-and-frisk misconduct less seriously than other offenses.
- Yates found that illegal stops are often excused as “good faith” errors by the department.
- The NYPD’s internal discipline process often reduces penalties for repeated violations.
- The Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) and the NYPD investigate stop-and-frisk misconduct, but final decisions rest with the police commissioner.
- U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres commissioned the report to evaluate the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk reforms.
- Public feedback on the findings is invited through December 25, 2023.
- The NYPD has reduced stop-and-frisk incidents significantly since a 2013 ruling deemed the practice unconstitutional.
- Black people accounted for 59% of reported stops in 2022, up from previous years.
Deep Look:
A new court-ordered report has revealed significant shortcomings in the New York Police Department’s (NYPD) disciplinary actions regarding illegal stop-and-frisk violations. The report, authored by retired New York State Judge James Yates, highlighted that the department frequently reduces or dismisses penalties for officers found to have conducted unconstitutional stops, undermining efforts to reform a practice deemed unconstitutional more than a decade ago.
Yates reviewed numerous internal disciplinary cases and concluded that “discipline for illegal stops and frisks is not pursued with the same vigor and resolve as for other misconduct.” His comprehensive 503-page report revealed that even repeated violations often result in minimal or no punishment. “Penalties for wrongdoing involving stops, questions, frisks, or searches of persons, even when repeated, are rare,” Yates wrote.
While the NYPD’s discipline matrix lists a three-day penalty for illegal stops, frisks, or searches, the report found that “imposition of that level of discipline is a rarity.” Yates criticized the department’s patrol guide, which allows for guidance rather than penalties in “isolated cases” of good-faith errors. This leniency, he argued, contributes to officers frequently being excused for illegal stops, particularly when framed as mistakes made without malicious intent.
Disciplinary actions within the NYPD are decided either based on recommendations from the Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB), the city’s police watchdog, or following an internal investigation. Final decisions on penalties are left to the police commissioner, though some minor infractions are handled at the precinct level. According to Yates, past NYPD commissioners have often been overly willing to excuse unconstitutional stops and searches under the guise of “good faith” or “lack of mal-intention,” relegating constitutional rights to a lesser priority.
Yates’ findings were made public amid ongoing changes within the NYPD’s leadership. Edward Caban resigned as police commissioner on September 12, 2023, following an unrelated federal investigation, and interim Commissioner Thomas Donlon confirmed that federal authorities had recently searched his homes. These developments have added to the department’s turbulent period, complicating the reforms initiated after the 2013 ruling that found the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk practices violated civil rights, particularly those of Black and Hispanic New Yorkers.
U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres, who has overseen the NYPD’s reforms following the 2013 ruling, commissioned the report to provide an in-depth assessment of the department’s policies and procedures related to stop-and-frisk violations. The public, along with stakeholders involved in related litigation, has been invited to submit comments on the report’s findings by December 25, 2023. Further action by the court is expected after that deadline.
The Center for Constitutional Rights, which played a crucial role in the lawsuit that led to the 2013 ruling, criticized the NYPD’s ongoing failure to address unconstitutional conduct. Attorney Samah Sisay stated, “Even 10 years after the landmark ruling in our cases, the NYPD is failing to address unconstitutional conduct by officers.” Sisay emphasized the need for greater transparency and accountability, noting that the department should not be trusted to police itself.
Yates’ report was posted as stop-and-frisk numbers continue to fluctuate. The practice peaked in 2011 with nearly 686,000 stops, but the NYPD has since reported significantly lower numbers, particularly after the 2013 ruling. From 2016 to 2019, the department reported an average of 12,000 stops annually, with those figures dropping to 9,544 in 2020 and 8,948 in 2021. However, stop-and-frisk incidents increased again, with 15,102 stops reported in 2022 and 16,971 in 2023.
Notably, Black individuals remain disproportionately targeted by stop-and-frisk encounters, accounting for 59% of stops in 2022, compared to an average of 52% from 2004 to 2012. These figures suggest that despite reductions in the overall number of stops, racial disparities persist.
Yates made several recommendations aimed at improving transparency and accountability in the NYPD’s disciplinary process. He advised the department to publicize its procedures and consult with the court-appointed federal monitor on any proposed changes to its penalty matrix for stop-related misconduct. Yates also suggested that the NYPD update its online officer directory to include any substantiated stop-and-frisk allegations accepted by the police commissioner, listing the incident date and specific outcomes, whether guidance or penalty.
Yates further recommended that when an officer claims a stop was made in “good faith” or that misconduct was a “mistake” or an “isolated” incident, the CCRB panel evaluating the case should have access to all prior investigations related to stop-and-frisk violations. This would allow for a more objective assessment of whether an officer’s actions truly constituted a reasonable mistake.
“‘Good faith’ or ‘mistakes’ are to be measured objectively,” Yates wrote, adding that such defenses “must be an objectively reasonable belief or an objectively reasonable mistake measured by the standard of a reasonably trained police officer’s point of view.”
As the NYPD and city officials review the report, the findings will likely continue to fuel calls for deeper reforms to ensure that officers are held accountable for violating constitutional rights.
NYPD Criticized NYPD Criticized
