Testimony
on Internal and External Monitoring of the NYPD
Before
the
The
Committee on Public Safety
and
The
Committee on Civil Rights
March 9, 2007
Alex
S. Vitale Ph.D.
Department
of Sociology
Brooklyn College
avitale@brooklyn.cuny.edu
My name is Alex Vitale
and I’m a professor of sociology at Brooklyn College,
where I teach courses in criminology and sociology of law. I’ve co-authored two reports with the NYCLU on the policing
of demonstrations and have written articles on policing for Policing and Society, Contemporary Sociology, Mobilization,
and Police Practice and Research.
I would like to speak today about one specific aspect
of police activity that I believe needs additional oversight which is the policing of protests. As I’m sure you know
the NYPD has been the subject of a large number of lawsuits over the past several years stemming from actions
at protests, especially those of February 15, 2003 and during the Republican
National Convention. While most of these suits remain unresolved, the city could potentially loose tens of millions of dollars
as result of police action on those days. In addition considerable staff time at the NYPD and Corporation Counsel’s
office has been dedicated to these matters.
I want to start with a couple of points of praise for
the NYPD’s handling of protests. Tactically, they have made great strides in avoiding individual acts of police misconduct
during protests. In the wake of the Tompkins Square riot, the NYPD instituted
a new procedure for emergency mobilizations that requires that officers report to such emergencies in organized formations
under strict supervision. I’m certain that this has substantially reduced complaints of excessive force that resulted
in the past from officers arriving at the scene without supervision or a clear understanding of the law enforcement objectives
at work.
In addition I have been pleased by the way the NYPD has
cooperated with the monitoring efforts of the New York Civil Liberties Union. During the RNC and at a few subsequent events
these monitors have been allowed to observe police actions from a distance without being subject to arrest or harassment in
keeping with the Department’s policies on the rights of observers during any kind of police action.
Page 2
Unfortunately, other observers have not always been so
fortunate. During the RNC several credentialed legal observers from the National Lawyers Guild were arrested. In addition,
independent journalists and members of the I-witness video project have also reported being either swept up in mass arrests
or targeted for arrest by the police.
Given these facts I would like to make two specific oversight
recommendations. Both of which are based on a recent policy changes in Washington DC stemming from a report issued by their
City Council in 2004 following several large protests there that resulted in large numbers of lawsuits and public criticism
of the police.
CCRB Monitoring
The first recommendation is that the Civil Complaint Review
Board send observers to all demonstrations were there is a significant possibility of police taking enforcement action. This
has now become regular practice in Washington. Their Office of Police Complaints
has been instructed to monitor not only the actions of individual officers but the overall tactics used by the police. Most
recently they issued a substantial report on the Policing of Antiwar and Anti-Globalization protests in September 2005. That
report makes recommendations on police practices related to dispersal orders, formation of police lines, arrests, and treatment
of the media.
New York’s
Civilian Complaints Review Board could easily perform a similar function. The CCRB has historically resisted this suggestion
stating that they don’t want to have their investigators to become witnesses in complaints against individual officers.
I want to challenge this argument in two ways. First, the CCRB is charged with the responsibility of reporting on both individualized
misconduct and problematic patterns and practices used by the police. The only way they can offer pattern and practice suggestions
is if they have information on what the pattern and practice of the NYPD is at demonstrations. This information cannot always
be gleaned from complaints against individual officers in the current FADO framework.
Second, I see no inherent problem with an individual investigator
serving as a witness in an individual complaint. The fact that they have an on-going working relationship with the NYPD should
not be a factor since their task is to make independent judgments about police misconduct regardless of who the witness is.
In addition, since the investigators are neutral observers trained in police
procedure they are ideally suited for the task.
Corporation Counsel
The second recommendation involves requesting that the
Corporation Counsel’s office assign someone to be present during protests when police enforcement action is anticipated
or deemed likely. This is another recommendation that was made by the D.C. City Council in its 2004 report. Like the NYPD,
The DC police have their own in house legal counsel. The intent of this measure is to provide a more independent assessment
of the legality of police actions. While the NYPD’s in-house counsel has been present at some demonstrations that have
resulted in large numbers of lawsuits and CCRB complaints it appears that their advice was either inaccurate or overridden
by commanders at the scene. By having an attorney from the Corp. Counsel office, the city will be better represented in its
desire to avoid litigation.
Page 3
One major advantage of both of these recommendations is
that if specious litigation occurs, the city will be in a stronger position to defend itself if investigators for the CCRB
and an attorney from Corp. Counsel were present.
Thank you for your attention and please let me know if
I can be of further assistance on this matter. In addition, I know that the NYCLU shares
many of these same concerns and would be happy to also work with you on further developing any of these recommendations.
