NYPD Must Reject Zero Tolerance
Policing of RNC Protests
By Alex S. Vitale
August 23, 2004
The NYPD faces one of its toughest challenges during the upcoming Republican
National Convention. In addition to providing security for the convention and performing its ongoing work of fighting crime
and terrorism, it will be confronted by a week of large and diverse demonstrations. While the NYPD has a great deal of experience
in dealing with such protests, over the last several years it has developed a style of policing them that may cause more problems
than it solves.
Over the last 6 years the NYPD has developed a “total control”
method of policing demonstrations, attempting to micromanage almost every aspect of these protests through the use of protest
pens, limited access to demonstration areas, restrictions on permits, and the widespread use of force against even minor violations
of the law. This approach not only impinges on the civil liberties of demonstrators, it is also hugely expensive and often
ineffective in achieving its stated objectives.
While large anti-Iraq war demonstrations over the last two years in Europe and the United
States have been overwhelmingly peaceful, police and protesters in New
York City experienced escalating confrontations. On February
15, 2003, millions marched around the world almost without incident. In New York,
however, permits were denied, hundreds were arrested, and several were injured in police demonstrator confrontations. Whether
at that rally or following a march to Washington Square
Park a month later, these confrontations occurred only after police initiated enforcement
action against non-violent demonstrators, a tactic avoided in other cities.
This zero tolerance oriented policy of using force against demonstrators who
may be blocking traffic or rallying past the end of their official permit has led to more disruption at demonstrations not
less. Beginning with the Million Youth March in 1998, when the police charged the stage within minutes of the expiration of
their permit, the police have chosen to escalate confrontations in order to assert their authority over demonstrators, even
if this leads to injuries and an increase in disruption. When the NYPD used force to attempt to prevent people from marching
without a permit following the murder of Mathew Shepard in 1998, they turned what would have been a peaceful march in one
lane of Fifth Avenue into a running street battle that shut down the whole avenue, caused numerous injuries, and resulted
in a $550,000 settlement against the city.
Other major cities in the United States
and Europe rely on a “negotiated management” style of protest policing that calls for the
police to tolerate a certain amount of disruptive activity by demonstrators as a price of democracy. They also try to maintain
a high level of communication with protest organizers before and during demonstrations and respond flexibly to changing circumstances
when that would help to reduce the chance of escalated confrontations. This approach to policing, which was utilized in Boston
during the Democratic National Convention, requires far fewer police and is much less likely to result in conflict between
police and demonstrators.
Cities such as Washington D.C.
and San Francisco also use a much smaller number of officers to handle major permitted
demonstrations than in New York. During last year’s anti-Iraq war protests,
these cities routinely assigned only a few hundred officers to demonstrations of over 100,000 people. In contrast, the NYPD
assigned three to four thousand officers to police demonstrations of a similar size and character. This ten fold difference
has a dramatic effect on police overtime, which has far exceeded its budget in recent years, contributing to the city’s
fiscal shortfalls. In addition, police assigned to demonstrations must be taken off their usual assignments fighting crime
and terrorism.
To prevent a repeat of this breakdown in policing, the NYPD needs to abandon
its failed attempts to micro manage all aspects of demonstrations. A recent injunction by Judge Sweet in Federal court stemming
from the problems last February 15th, echoes this sentiment by calling for reductions in the use of protest pens
and fewer restrictions on access to demonstrations. Denials of permits, the use of overly restrictive protest pens, limited
access to demonstration areas, and the use of force against non-violent demonstrators during the RNC are an affront to our
democratic values and threaten to tarnish the city’s image for many years to come. The whole world will be watching.
Alex S. Vitale is Professor of Sociology at Brooklyn College
and co-author of “Arresting Protest: A Special Report of the New York Civil Liberties Union on New York City’s
Protest Policies at the February 15, 2003 Antiwar Demonstration in New York City.
