The City of New York
Department of Investigation
MARK G. PETERS
COMMISSIONER

Inspector General Philip K. Eure
Office of the Inspector General for the NYPD
80 MAIDEN LANE
NEW YORK, NY 10038
212-825-5900
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FRIDAY, APRIL 1, 2016

Release #09-2016
nyc.gov/oignypd

CONTACT:

NICOLE TURSO
DIANE STRUZZI
(212) 825-5931

DOI’S OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT
RELEASES SECOND ANNUAL REPORT
The Department of Investigation’s (“DOI”) Office of the Inspector General for the New York City Police Department
(“OIG-NYPD”) today released its Second Annual Report, discussing the Office’s efforts and recommendations made in
Calendar Year 2015. The City Charter requires that such Report be produced each year on or before April 1 st. As a result of
OIG-NYPD’s four major studies and policy reviews, highlighting prominent and timely issues facing policing in New York City,
the Office made 47 recommendations to improve NYPD policies, procedures and accountability last year. According to the
Report, nearly 75% of those recommendations have been implemented or accepted in principle by the New York City Police
Department (“NYPD”). This Annual Report outlines those recommendations and analyzes how OIG-NYPD’s reforms have
been implemented and its concerns addressed by NYPD.
DOI Commissioner Mark G. Peters said, “Over the past year, OIG-NYPD has provided critical analysis of policing in
New York City and proposed meaningful reforms to NYPD resulting in tangible change, including a commitment from the
Department to release – for the first time – an annual use-of-force report based on data culled from tracking force incidents.”
Inspector General Philip K. Eure said, “OIG-NYPD has built upon its mission to bring significant, permanent oversight
to NYPD, with reports and recommendations that get at the root of systemic issues, towards the goal of improving
transparency, accountability and an increased confidence in the police force. We look forward to expanding on this work,
issuing additional comprehensive reports in the coming months.”
OIG-NYPD released four detailed reports in 2015, which included:


Observations on Accountability and Transparency in Ten NYPD Chokehold Cases: OIG-NYPD conducted
a targeted review of ten substantiated cases where NYPD officers used chokeholds on members of the public.
The investigation found deficiencies in how NYPD determines discipline, communication road-blocks between
agencies in the review of use-of-force complaints, and questions regarding the effectiveness of officer training.
OIG-NYPD’s recommendations called for NYPD to adopt a more transparent process for handing down
discipline and for NYPD to share information related to use-of-force cases.



Using Data From Lawsuits and Legal Claims Involving NYPD to Improve Policing: OIG-NYPD released
findings on how NYPD can better use data from police litigation to improve officer performance and identify
trends of police misconduct. After assessing NYPD’s current approach to mining litigation data, the review

 identified several categories of information that NYPD should be better analyzing and proposed the creation of
an interagency working group to coordinate the organization and exchange of litigation information.


Body-Worn Cameras in New York City: An Assessment of NYPD’s Pilot Program and
Recommendations to Promote Accountability: A comprehensive review of NYPD’s volunteer body-worn
camera (“BWC”) pilot-program, this report incorporated interviews with dozens of stakeholders, including
police officers who used BWCs and all five District Attorney’s Offices. The review focused on officer discretion
regarding when to activate BWCs; officer compliance with NYPD’s BWC policies; NYPD, government, and
public access to video footage; and retention and purging of footage.



Police Use of Force in New York City: Findings and Recommendations on NYPD’s Policies and
Practices: OIG-NYPD’s comprehensive investigation into NYPD use-of-force encounters, policies, and
training revealed an inability to track use-of-force encounters by officers, a failure to properly instruct officers
to use de-escalation tactics, and a lack of discipline imposed on officers involved in substantiated force
allegations—even when NYPD was provided with evidence that excessive force was used.

The vast majority of OIG-NYPD’s recommendations – 35 of the 47 or nearly 75%– have been implemented or accepted
in principle by NYPD, meaning the Department has agreed with the general purpose of the recommendation but has yet to
complete its implementation. NYPD is considering eight other recommendations and rejected four. For example, NYPD
declined to adopt two recommendations regarding the Department’s disciplinary process, including OIG-NYPD’s call for NYPD
to clearly state the penalty for specific acts of misconduct and to analyze the effect of disciplinary penalties on the frequency
of excessive force incidents. The Office will monitor NYPD’s progress in implementing the accepted recommendations and
continue to evaluate the areas where NYPD has declined to adopt the recommended reforms.
In addition to issuing substantive policy reports, OIG-NYPD has received and addressed individual complaints. By
reviewing complaints, investigating allegations, speaking to complainants, and communicating with other government
agencies, OIG-NYPD continues to address specific concerns raised by New Yorkers while identifying potential systemic
issues facing NYPD.
OIG-NYPD also made strides in outreach to a broad spectrum of communities, addressing an equally broad range of
issues. Over the past year, OIG-NYPD has hosted, visited, spoken to, and held meetings with representatives of over 60
organizations and groups. These representatives include local community advocates, organizations interested in criminal
justice
reform,
civil
rights
groups,
and
police
officers
themselves.

###

The Office of the Inspector General for the NYPD (OIG-NYPD) is an oversight office charged with investigating,
reviewing, studying, auditing, and making recommendations relating to the operations, policies, programs, and practices of
the New York City Police Department (NYPD). The goals of OIG-NYPD are to enhance the effectiveness of the Police
Department, increase public safety, protect civil liberties and civil rights, and increase the public's confidence in the police
force, thus building stronger police-community relations. OIG-NYPD is part of the New York City Department of Investigation
and is independent of NYPD. Inspector General Eure reports to DOI Commissioner Peters.
The New York City Department of Investigation (DOI) is one of the oldest law-enforcement agencies in the country and is
New York City’s corruption watchdog. DOI investigations may involve any agency, officer, elected official, or employee of
the City, as well as those who do business with or receive benefits from the City. DOI’s strategy attacks corruption
comprehensively, through systemic investigations that lead to high-impact arrests, preventive internal controls, and
operational reforms that improve the way the City runs. Learn more at www.nyc.gov/doi.
Visit us online at nyc.gov/oignypd
Follow us on Twitter @OIGNYPD
Contact OIG-NYPD at (212) 806-5200

 New York City Department of Investigation
Office of the Inspector General for the NYPD (OIG-NYPD)
Second Annual Report

Mark G. Peters
Commissioner
Philip K. Eure
Inspector General for the NYPD
April 2016

 OIG-NYPD SECOND ANNUAL REPORT

APRIL 2016

Table of Contents

I. Introduction .............................................................................................. 1
II. Systemic Investigations, Reviews, Studies, and Audits:
Recommendations and NYPD Responses .................................................. 4
A. Observations on Accountability and Transparency in Ten NYPD
Chokehold Cases .............................................................................. 5
B. Using Data From Lawsuits and Legal Claims Involving NYPD to
Improve Policing .............................................................................. 9
C. Body-Worn Cameras in New York City: An Assessment of NYPD’s
Pilot Program and Recommendations to Promote Accountability... 15
D. Police Use of Force in New York City: Findings and
Recommendations on NYPD’s Policies and Practices ...................... 25
III. Complaints ............................................................................................. 36
IV. Community Outreach and Engagement ................................................... 40

 OIG-NYPD SECOND ANNUAL REPORT

I.

APRIL 2016

INTRODUCTION
This is the second Annual Report of the New York City Department of Investigation’s

Office of the Inspector General for the New York City Police Department (OIG-NYPD). This
Report, covering the work of OIG-NYPD’s first full calendar year, highlights the investigations
completed in 2015 and assesses the extent to which the New York City Police Department
(NYPD) has adopted – or not adopted – OIG-NYPD’s recommendations for reform.
The Office of the Inspector General for the NYPD is an office charged with external
oversight of NYPD. OIG-NYPD is independent of NYPD and sits within the New York City
Department of Investigation (DOI). As amended by Local Law 70 of 2013, the New York City
Charter empowers the DOI Commissioner to “investigate, review, study, audit and make
recommendations relating to the operations, policies, programs and practices, including
ongoing partnerships with other law enforcement agencies, of the New York City Police
Department with the goal of enhancing the effectiveness of the department, increasing public
safety, protecting civil liberties and civil rights, and increasing the public’s confidence in the
police force, thus building stronger police-community relations.” (Charter of the City of New
York, Chapter 34, §803 (c)(1)). The Inspector General for the New York City Police Department
– who carries out this mandate on behalf of DOI – publishes written, publicly-available reports
based on certain of these investigations, reviews, studies, or audits. The NYPD Commissioner is
required to submit a written response to each published report within 90 days.
OIG-NYPD released reports in 2015 that covered issues including force, discipline,
litigation data, training, inter-agency cooperation, transparency, and technology:


Observations on Accountability and Transparency in Ten NYPD Chokehold
Cases (January 2015)



Using Data From Lawsuits and Legal Claims Involving NYPD to Improve Policing
(April 2015)

1

 OIG-NYPD SECOND ANNUAL REPORT

APRIL 2016



Body-Worn Cameras in New York City: An Assessment of NYPD’s Pilot Program
and Recommendations to Promote Accountability (July 2015)



Police Use of Force in New York City: Findings and Recommendations on
NYPD’s Policies and Practices (October 2015)

These reports highlighted several prominent and timely issues facing policing in New
York City, as well as nationwide. With important insights and recommendations, these reports
played a critical role in the conversation on how to enhance police accountability and reform
while offering practical proposals for NYPD.
In addition to examining systemic issues, in 2015 OIG-NYPD continued to receive,
review, assess, investigate, and respond to complaints and inquiries from the public regarding
NYPD. These complaints and contacts serve an important function in informing OIG-NYPD
about potential trends and the experiences and concerns of members of the public.
Lastly, the Office continued its investment in outreach. Throughout the year, the
Office’s efforts to connect with members of the public ranged from attending community
events to social media engagement to participating in meetings with a variety of government
and non-government representatives. These outreach efforts served to educate the public
about OIG-NYPD’s mandate, mission, and activities while keeping OIG-NYPD abreast of the
concerns of New York City residents.
For more information about the mission, work, and history of OIG-NYPD, please visit the
Office’s website at www.nyc.gov/oignypd. The website contains copies of all reports issues by
OIG-NYPD, as well as NYPD’s legally-required responses to OIG-NYPD’s reports.1

1

Commissioner Mark G. Peters and Inspector General Philip K. Eure thank the staff of OIG-NYPD for their efforts
and contributions in producing this report, especially Sandra Musumeci, Deputy Inspector General; Asim Rehman,
General Counsel; Sarolta Toscano, Special Investigator; Andrew Guinan, Special Investigator; Syed Ali Ameer,
Auditor; Percival Rennie, Auditor; Kanika Khanna, Policy Analyst; Betty Diop, Data Assistant; Rebecca Engel,
Examining Attorney; Adrain Gonzales, Data Management Assistant, and other current and former staff members.

2

 OIG-NYPD SECOND ANNUAL REPORT APRIL 2016

 

 

THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR THE NYPD IS RESPONSIBLE FOR INVESTIGATING,
REVIEWING, STUDYING, AUDITING, AND MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO THE OPERATIONS,
POLICIES, PROGRAMS, AND PRACTICES OF THE NYPD WITH THE GOAL OF ENHANCING THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE DEPARTMENT, INCREASING PUBLIC SAFETY, PROTECTING CIVIL LIBERTIES AND
CIVIL RIGHTS, AND INCREASING THE CONFIDENCE IN THE POLICE FORCE.
SO HOW DOES OIG-NYPD DO ITS 

 

 

WE IDENTIFY THE Issu
 :1 731211151 .733
poucme Tomes AND NEWS AFFECTED INDIVIDUALS, ADVOCACY GROUPS,

AND COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS
ENFORCEMENT POLICIES AND STATISTICS

ELECTED OFFICIALS

NYPD MANAGEMENT, OFFICERS, AND
PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS IN OTHER REPRESENTATIVES

DEVELOPMENTS AT NYPD

OTHER POLICE OVERSIGHT BODIES

WE INVESTIGATE, REVIEW, STUDY, AND ANALYZE

 

 

 

 

 

 

FACTS, DATA, PATTERNS, AND TRENDS BEST PRACTICES
POUCIES AND OPERATIONS THE 

WE PROPOSE SOLUTIONS AND ISSUE RECOMMENDATIONS

 

 

 

 

 

THAT EXPLAIN THE FINDINGS OF OUR INVESTIGATIONS

THAT SHED LIGHT ON NYPD POLICIES AND PRACTICES

THAT MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS AIMED AT IMPROVING PDLICING, PUBLIC SAFETY, AND
POLICE-COMMUNITY RELATIONS

 

 

 

OIG-NYPD SECOND ANNUAL REPORT

II.

APRIL 2016

SYSTEMIC INVESTIGATIONS, REVIEWS, STUDIES, AND AUDITS:
RECOMMENDATIONS AND NYPD RESPONSES
Pursuant to § 803(d) (3) of the New York City Charter, the following section summarizes

the findings and recommendations made in the four substantive reports OIG-NYPD released in
2015, along with assessing NYPD’s progress in implementing the recommendations made in the
reports. OIG-NYPD’s four reports from 2015 include 47 separate recommendations. NYPD’s
response to these recommendations can be broken down as follows:


9 Implemented or Partially Implemented: NYPD has accepted and
implemented the recommendations completely or in part.



26 Accepted in Principle or Partially Accepted in Principle: NYPD has agreed
with the general intent of these recommendations but has not yet implemented
them.



8 Under Consideration: NYPD has not yet decided whether to adopt or reject
the recommendations.



4 Rejected: NYPD does not agree with the recommendations and will not
implement them.

The majority of the recommendations were accepted in principle but not yet fully
implemented. While OIG-NYPD is encouraged by NYPD’s general acceptance of most OIG-NYPD
recommendations, OIG-NYPD will closely monitor NYPD’s work in 2016 to assess whether NYPD
actually implements them.

4

 OIG-NYPD SECOND ANNUAL REPORT

APRIL 2016

OBSERVATIONS ON ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY IN TEN NYPD CHOKEHOLD CASES
January 2015
On January 12, 2015, OIG-NYPD released its
inaugural Report, entitled Observations on Accountability
and Transparency in Ten NYPD Chokehold Cases. This
Report was prompted by the death of Staten Island
resident Eric Garner, who was brought to the ground during
an arrest for the sale of loose cigarettes, a non-violent
quality-of-life offense. This Report laid the groundwork for
the Use-of-Force Report that OIG-NYPD would release later
in the year.
By conducting a focused review of ten
substantiated Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) cases
where members of NYPD had used chokeholds, OIG-NYPD sought to address questions
regarding the policies, practices, and procedures surrounding the use of chokeholds, examine
the disciplinary process as applied to substantiated chokeholds, and assess the interactions
between NYPD and CCRB. The ten substantiated chokehold cases encompassed a variety of
factual scenarios and resulted in a range of outcomes once they were presented to NYPD for
discipline. In reviewing these cases, OIG-NYPD highlighted how NYPD’s disciplinary process is
complex, multi-tiered, and often delivers inconsistent results. OIG-NYPD also noted an
apparent disconnect in how CCRB and NYPD reviewed and evaluated the same cases.
As a result of its investigation, OIG-NYPD observed the following:


CCRB generally believed that severe penalties were warranted in chokehold cases.
CCRB recommended Administrative Charges, the most serious level of discipline
within NYPD, in nine of the ten cases where it found an NYPD officer had used a
chokehold. In the one case in which CCRB made a different recommendation – where
the officer had died before CCRB’s recommendation was reviewed or acted upon –

5

 OIG-NYPD SECOND ANNUAL REPORT

APRIL 2016

CCRB recommended Command Discipline, a lesser form of discipline. The matter
would then proceed to NYPD’s disciplinary process.


NYPD, by contrast, believed that lesser penalties were warranted in substantiated
chokehold cases. NYPD’s Department Advocate’s Office (DAO) is the NYPD unit that
prosecutes NYPD disciplinary matters and, until April 11, 2013, was responsible for
prosecuting all substantiated use-of-force cases that resulted in Administrative
Charges.

In those cases where CCRB substantiated chokeholds, recommended

Administrative Charges, and DAO became involved, none of the substantiated cases
ever went to trial before a NYPD Trial Commissioner. Instead, DAO departed from
CCRB’s recommendation every time. Rather than pursue the more serious
Administrative Charges, DAO recommended lesser penalties or no discipline
whatsoever.


The Police Commissioner has the authority in all cases to make a final determination
about discipline. In those substantiated chokehold cases presented to the Police
Commissioner, he rejected CCRB’s disciplinary recommendation, imposing a less
severe penalty than that recommended by CCRB or deciding that no discipline was
warranted at all.

Based on these observations, OIG-NYPD’s Report contained four recommendations for
NYPD. In the 15 months since the Report was released, NYPD has taken several positive steps
that align with OIG-NYPD’s recommendations. NYPD has implemented or partially implemented
three of the recommendations. For the remaining recommendation, NYPD has agreed in
principle with the recommendation but still needs to take additional action before the
recommendation is fully implemented. OIG-NYPD will continue monitoring NYPD’s reforms in
the months ahead.

6

 OIG-NYPD SECOND ANNUAL REPORT

APRIL 2016

OBSERVATIONS ON ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY
IN TEN NYPD CHOKEHOLD CASES
(JANUARY 2015)
RECOMMENDATION
NYPD RESPONSE REGARDING
OIG-NYPD ASSESMENT OF
MADE BY
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS
NYPD RESPONSE
OIG-NYPD
1 NYPD should increase
coordination and
collaboration with CCRB
to refine the disciplinary
system for improper use
of force.

According to NYPD, coordination
and collaboration continues to
increase between NYPD and CCRB in
the Penalty Review Process. One
example is the “Reconsideration
Process” that was launched in
December 2014, by which NYPD
makes a formal written request for
penalty reconsideration when it
disagrees with CCRB'S
recommended penalty. NYPD
believes that this new procedure has
increased transparency and
cooperation between NYPD and
CCRB.

Partially Implemented.

2 NYPD should provide
transparency with
respect to the Police
Commissioner’s
Disciplinary decisions.

According to NYPD, the Police
Commissioner provides
transparency by writing an
explanation to CCRB for any
disciplinary decisions that deviate
downward from CCRB's original
recommendation.

Implemented.

7

The Reconsideration Process has
improved communication and
coordination between NYPD and
CCRB. OIG-NYPD has also seen
improvements in the nature and
frequency of ad hoc
communication between NYPD and
CCRB. As the relationship
strengthens, NYPD should adopt
the remaining recommended
changes outlined in OIG-NYPD’s
Report. These changes include
developing, in conjunction with
CCRB and others, a more
transparent set of factors regarding
how disciplinary decisions are
made in use-of-force cases.

Since the January 2015 Report,
OIG-NYPD has monitored NYPD’s
compliance with the legal
obligation to provide written
notification to CCRB when
deviating from CCRB’s
recommended penalty. OIG-NYPD
has seen evidence that NYPD is
adhering to this obligation, and
OIG-NYPD will continue to monitor
NYPD’s compliance.

 OIG-NYPD SECOND ANNUAL REPORT

APRIL 2016

3 NYPD should expand
IAB’s access to newlyfiled complaints and
substantive information
on Use-of-Force cases
filed with CCRB.

According to NYPD, the Department
has made some positive
developments with regard to
information sharing with CCRB.
Specifically, in late 2015, CCRB and
NYPD established a process through
which CCRB would share video
evidence and case files with IAB
when CCRB substantiated a force
complaint. NYPD notes that
fulfillment of this recommendation
turns on CCRB providing NYPD with
access to newly-filed complaints.

Partially Implemented.

4 NYPD should improve
information sharing and
case tracking for cases
that are outsourced to
Borough and Precinct
Investigators via the
Office of the Chief of
Department and the
Investigative Review
Section.

NYPD states that it has recently
received funding to update the Chief
of Department Investigative Review
Section’s database, which will
improve information sharing and
case tracking. NYPD projects that
the updated system will be
operational in early 2017.

Accepted in Principle.

8

OIG-NYPD acknowledges the
developments that NYPD and CCRB
have made with information
sharing. However, and as noted in
OIG-NYPD’s Report, NYPD would
benefit from receiving use-of-force
complaint information from CCRB
when complaints are filed and not
only after they are substantiated.
OIG-NYPD recognizes that CCRB
must provide greater access to its
records before this
recommendation can be fully
implemented. OIG-NYPD will
continue to monitor.

OIG-NYPD welcomes NYPD’s efforts
to secure funding for a system
upgrade. Until it is upgraded, the
Chief of Department Investigative
Review Section will continue to
have an antiquated tracking system
that is incompatible with other
NYPD systems. OIG-NYPD will
continue to monitor this issue.

 OIG-NYPD SECOND ANNUAL REPORT

APRIL 2016

USING DATA FROM LAWSUITS AND LEGAL CLAIMS INVOLVING NYPD TO IMPROVE POLICING
April 2015
On April 21, 2015, OIG-NYPD issued its findings on
how NYPD could more effectively use police litigation data
to improve officer performance and identify trends of
police misconduct. The proper collection and analysis of
police litigation data has the potential to reduce police
misconduct, improve public safety, control costs, identify
training opportunities, strengthen public confidence, and
advance law enforcement oversight.

After evaluating

problems with NYPD’s current approach to litigation data, the Report identified several
categories of information that NYPD should be analyzing better and recommended the
creation of an interagency working group to coordinate the organization and exchange of
litigation information. The Report also recommended that NYPD increase transparency in this
evolving area and allow citizens to provide public comment on the data NYPD is currently
tracking.
From fiscal years 2010-2014, the City saw more than 15,000 lawsuits filed against NYPD
at a cost of over $200 million. By carefully reviewing the information contained in these
lawsuits and legal claims, and omitting causes of action that are clearly without merit, NYPD
and the City can begin taking necessary corrective actions to drive down these costs.
Information about litigation has been shown to help law enforcement and oversight agencies
across the country identify patterns and trends of police misconduct, as well as better train
9

 OIG-NYPD SECOND ANNUAL REPORT

APRIL 2016

officers for possible encounters in the community. Coupled with “Early Intervention Systems”
(EIS), or computer databases that allow police departments to monitor the behavior of officers,
agencies can use the data to identify at-risk officers who may require guidance, instruction, or
discipline. The Report cited case studies from other cities where positive results have already
been seen.
NYPD currently uses computerized systems for tracking officer performance and conduct
as well as overall policing trends, and in some instances is ahead of many other departments
in this field. OIG-NYPD’s Report found, however, that while NYPD did track certain information
culled from police litigation, such as complaints filed against an officer, it did not track some
key indicators, such as the core allegations made in the claims. In addition, OIG-NYPD
identified a need for better communication between NYPD and other agencies that also track
lawsuits and claims involving members of the Police Department, specifically the Comptroller’s
Office and Law Department. These issues stand in the way of fully realizing the benefits of
analyzing the data.
During the course of OIG-NYPD’s review, investigators found NYPD had limited access to
both the Comptroller and Law Department’s data, and cannot easily access information about
legal claims or lawsuits filed against NYPD or the resolution of these claims. The Report found
the Comptroller’s Office and Law Department – like NYPD – also track different sets of data
without an effective way of merging the information. The Comptroller’s Office, for instance,
tracks the number and type of pre-litigation legal claims filed and amounts paid in claim and
lawsuit settlements, while the Law Department tracks data on the number of lawsuits filed and
information related to court proceedings. All three agencies lacked uniform definitions for
10

 OIG-NYPD SECOND ANNUAL REPORT

APRIL 2016

similar metrics.
Although NYPD now has better access to litigation–related information from both the
Law Department and Comptroller’s Office than in years past, additional improvements are
necessary. With the help of this data, updated systems, and a staff realignment to focus on
culling litigation data, NYPD has begun to identify trends, but the Department has yet to
release any of its findings, including those about areas in which lawsuits may be increasing or
decreasing and those where NYPD is revising its policies or training.
OIG-NYPD’s Report contained five recommendations for NYPD. Overall, NYPD has made
some progress with respect to OIG-NYPD’s recommendations, but more work is needed. NYPD
has implemented two of the five recommendations in whole or in part. For the remaining three
recommendations, NYPD has accepted the premise of the recommendation but not yet taken
steps to implement them.

NYPD has also rejected one aspect of one of these three

recommendations. OIG-NYPD will continue to monitor NYPD’s efforts.

11

 OIG-NYPD SECOND ANNUAL REPORT

APRIL 2016

USING DATA FROM LAWSUITS AND LEGAL CLAIMS INVOLVING NYPD
TO IMPROVE POLICING
(APRIL 2015)
RECOMMENDATION
MADE BY
OIG-NYPD
1 NYPD should perform a
qualitative review of the
most relevant data
contained within legal
claims and lawsuits
against NYPD.
Specifically:
(1.1) Nature of the
claims/core
allegations.

NYPD RESPONSE REGARDING
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

According to NYPD, the new Police
Litigation Section (PALS),
comprised of attorneys and
investigators, reviews civil
lawsuits, including the nature of
the claims and the core
allegations, and, at times,
identifies trends that may warrant
further analysis by the Enterprise
Liability Assessment Unit (ELAU).
Any such observations are
communicated to ELAU, which is
responsible for conducting a more
robust data processing and
analysis based on the identified
trend. NYPD said that it will make
further use of such data after the
implementation of the
forthcoming RAILS (Risk
Assessment Information Liability
System) database. NYPD states
that RAILS is still in development
and the segment of RAILS that will
deal with litigation data is still
several months away from launch.
NYPD noted that certain data
analysis regarding civil lawsuits
are protected by the AttorneyClient Privilege and may not be
included in RAILS.

12

OIG-NYPD ASSESMENT OF NYPD
RESPONSE

Partially Implemented.
Concurrent with the release of OIGNYPD’s April 2015 Report, NYPD
expanded the capacity of PALS,
resulting in a greater ability of NYPD to
collect and track key information from
civil lawsuits, including information
about claims and core allegations.
Furthermore, OIG-NYPD’s April 2015
Report acknowledged the potential
uses of the forthcoming RAILS system.
OIG-NYPD will monitor NYPD’s use of
RAILS once it is implemented, including
how RAILS is used to track and analyze
data.
With respect to the Attorney-Client
Privilege, Recommendation 1 calls for
only the internal collection and analysis
of data and not the public disclosure of
data. (See discussion of
Recommendation 3 regarding public
disclosure.)

 OIG-NYPD SECOND ANNUAL REPORT

APRIL 2016

(1.2) Information
about the subject
police officer(s).

According to NYPD, it currently
collects limited information about
subject police officers from legal
claims and lawsuits. The
Department agrees that collecting
additional information about
subject police officers has
benefits, and the forthcoming
RAILS database will provide an
opportunity to consider such
additional officer information.

Accepted in Principle.

(1.3) the location of
the alleged incident
and address of the
plaintiff(s).

According to NYPD, the
Department will begin including
location of incident information in
the applicable database(s).
However, NYPD declines to collect
and analyze the address of
plaintiff(s) on the grounds that it
has limited analytical benefit.

Partial Agreement in Principle.

According the NYPD, the
Department has increased its
collaboration with the
Comptroller’s Office and the Law
Department, and improvements
have been made in data accuracy,
collection, and analysis. NYPD has
weekly bi-lateral discussions with
the Comptroller’s Office on prelitigation claims and daily
discussions with the Law
Department on the thousands of
lawsuits involving NYPD. NYPD
does not have a formal tri-lateral
working group with all three
agencies, but they do collectively
confer when necessary on
individual lawsuits.

Partially Implemented.

2 NYPD should create an
interagency working
group between NYPD,
the Comptroller’s Office,
and the Law
Department to improve
their police-involved
litigation data collection,
coordination, and
exchange.

13

NYPD’s agreement on the benefits of
collecting subject officer information is
encouraging. However, NYPD has
provided no information clarifying
whether the specific subject officer
information referenced in the
recommendation (including rank,
experience, precinct assignment, prior
complaints, etc.) has been added to its
current database since April 2015.
Also, as noted, RAILS has not yet been
implemented.

While NYPD has agreed to begin
including incident location, it has not
provided a timeline for
implementation.
Notwithstanding NYPD’s declination to
collect plaintiff addresses, OIG-NYPD
maintains that tracking this information
would help identify relevant trends
regarding complaints.

NYPD has made important strides in its
direct collaboration with the
Comptroller and direct collaboration
with the Law Department, and it has
made some improvements regarding
tri-lateral discussions. Given the
complexities of data tracking and
collection and the use of different
systems across the three agencies, OIGNYPD still believes that NYPD should
create a standing interagency working
group where all three agencies can
regularly address litigation data
collection, coordination, and exchange.
However, to the degree that NYPD can
address the challenges noted in OIG-

 OIG-NYPD SECOND ANNUAL REPORT

APRIL 2016

NYPD’s Report without a tri-lateral
working group, this recommendation
may be satisfied.
3 NYPD should provide
the public with details
about NYPD’s Early
Intervention System and
its litigation data
analysis team and solicit
suggestion for further
development.

According to NYPD, it will consider
providing certain details regarding
its Early Intervention System to
the public to increase
transparency and improve police
legitimacy, but the final decision
and timing have not been
determined. Because the RAILS
database is still in development,
NYPD will not state with certainty
what information it may provide
to the public. However, while
NYPD has concerns regarding
releasing certain details – such as
proprietary technical details or
personnel information that could
violate New York Civil Rights Law §
50-a – NYPD will likely explain the
types of information in the system
on a macro level.

14

Accepted in Principle.
OIG-NYPD welcomes NYPD’s goal to
make certain EIS information public.
OIG-NYPD disagrees that the release of
such information depends on RAILS
database implementation, as NYPD is
capable of making public certain details
regarding its current Early Intervention
System pending the implementation of
RAILS. NYPD is likewise capable of
releasing macro-level findings of its
current analysis of legal claims and
litigation before RAILS is implemented.
Moreover, while OIG-NYPD has not
identified the specific types of details
that should be disclosed regarding EIS
or litigation data analysis, the types of
details referenced in its April 2015
Report are macro-level in nature and
would not result in the release of any
technical specifications, personnel
records (as may be prohibited by New
York Civil Rights Law § 50-a) or lawsuitspecific information (as may be
prohibited by the Attorney-Client
Privilege). For example, releasing the
list of indicators NYPD uses to place
officers on performance monitoring –
without identifying specific officers –
should not trigger New York Civil Rights
Law § 50-a or Attorney-Client Privilege
concerns.

 OIG-NYPD SECOND ANNUAL REPORT

APRIL 2016

BODY-WORN CAMERAS IN NEW YORK CITY: AN ASSESSMENT OF NYPD’S PILOT PROGRAM AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO PROMOTE ACCOUNTABILITY
July 2015
On July 30, 2015, OIG-NYPD issued the first
comprehensive review of NYPD’s volunteer body-worn
camera (BWC) pilot program.

The review included

interviews with dozens of stakeholders, including police
officers who used BWCs as well as all five District
Attorney’s Offices in New York City. OIG-NYPD found a
number of concerns in reviewing NYPD’s Operations
Order (Operations Order 48) that NYPD must address
prior to any expansion of the program. Specifically, the
Report focused on: (1) officer discretion regarding when to activate BWCs; (2) officer
compliance with BWC policies; (3) NYPD, government, and public access to video footage; and
(4) retention and purging of footage.
NYPD’s voluntary BWC pilot program began in mid-December 2014 with the limited
launch of 54 cameras deployed to patrol officers in six commands across the City, including in
East New York, East Harlem and Jamaica. Police Commissioner William Bratton announced the
program in September 2014, ahead of a separate body-worn camera pilot program ordered by
a Federal Court order in a lawsuit concerning NYPD’s Stop, Question, and Frisk practices.
As part of its review, OIG-NYPD met with 12 officers participating in the volunteer
program and found, through a discussion of their personal experiences over the course of
15

 OIG-NYPD SECOND ANNUAL REPORT

APRIL 2016

several months, disparate and inconsistent practices concerning camera activation, despite
NYPD’s written policies. OIG-NYPD also solicited input from NYPD, the Patrolmen’s Benevolent
Association, CCRB, and community members and reviewed BWC policies from over 20 other
police departments around the country to form an informed and broad-based analysis. As a
result, OIG-NYPD made 23 recommendations for the improved use of BWCs during a transition
from the current small-scale program to the long-term use of the cameras by the Department.
Chief among the concerns laid out in OIG-NYPD’s Report is a disconnect between the
policy and practice of when cameras are activated. NYPD’s policy for when to activate the
camera relies on a “reasonable suspicion” standard, but OIG-NYPD discovered that this policy
leads to different camera activation practices among officers. Through its officer interviews,
OIG-NYPD found that while officers generally turn on their cameras during traffic stops and
while arrests are in progress, the use of BWCs in other situations is inconsistent. For instance,
some officers told OIG-NYPD they recorded every interaction with members of the public,
while others stated that they only began recording once probable cause for an arrest was
established – a decision that would not capture the important initial seconds of an encounter.
These examples indicated to OIG-NYPD a lack of understanding of the standard stated in
NYPD’s Operations Order and demonstrated a need for more extensive training beyond the
two half-day training sessions provided by NYPD.
Through several interviews with District Attorney’s Offices, OIG-NYPD also learned that
NYPD’s current BWC policies do not explicitly address safety and privacy concerns for certain
vulnerable populations, including victims of sex crimes, minors, undercover officers, and
confidential informants. Moreover, NYPD must address the significant logistical and financial
16

 OIG-NYPD SECOND ANNUAL REPORT

APRIL 2016

challenges posed by the creation, retention, and potential redaction and disclosure of BWC
videos of these vulnerable populations and other members of the public in New York City as
the program moves forward.
OIG-NYPD further observed that while NYPD’s Operations Order does offer guidelines
on when to record and how officers should self-report issues with the BWCs, it does not
adequately address important issues such as record retention and access to footage – areas
that could have potentially negative effects on future civil and criminal cases. NYPD’s
Operations Order also does not include any provisions for quality assurance reviews to track
officer compliance with the program or indicate how footage could affect an officer’s
evaluations or potential for discipline.
While the NYPD Operations Order governing the body-worn camera pilot program is a
strong document that reflects a well-researched policy – and one that is more thorough than
the policies of some other police departments – OIG-NYPD believes that NYPD must improve
certain aspects of the policy. These improvements are particularly important if NYPD intends
to expand body-worn camera use beyond the small group of officers participating in the pilot
program. OIG-NYPD’s July 2015 Report contains 23 recommendations to NYPD on how to
improve its expanding body-worn camera program and policy.
In the months since the release of OIG-NYPD’s Report, NYPD has undertaken a substantial
review of its body-worn camera program and is currently in the midst of revising its body-worn
camera policy. As disclosed in public filings, NYPD has developed an internal working group to
review its program and has also been seeking input from a broad variety of stakeholders,
including officers, unions, community members, District Attorneys, defense lawyers, external
17

 OIG-NYPD SECOND ANNUAL REPORT

APRIL 2016

oversight agencies, and others. According to NYPD, this consultative process is currently
underway. OIG-NYPD welcomes these developments, as they are consistent with the Report’s
emphasis on community consultation. Additionally, NYPD has had ongoing discussions with a
court-appointed Monitor because certain aspects of the body-worn camera program are subject
to approval by a Federal District Court.
NYPD has informed OIG-NYPD that it cannot implement most of OIG-NYPD’s
recommendations until after the current revision process is complete. NYPD’s status updates,
reflected below, are subject to the caveat that NYPD is currently in the midst of active discussions
regarding policy revisions and its position could evolve. Nevertheless, NYPD has expressed
agreement in principle with many of OIG-NYPD’s recommendations, even if NYPD states that it
cannot implement them at this time. Specifically, of the 23 recommendations in the Report,
NYPD accepts 13 in principle. Seven recommendations remain under discussion. NYPD has
implemented one recommendation, partially implemented one, and rejected another one. OIGNYPD will continue to monitor the process and assess NYPD’s implementation of these
recommendations as the review process continues.

18

 OIG-NYPD SECOND ANNUAL REPORT

APRIL 2016

BODY-WORN CAMERAS IN NEW YORK CITY: AN ASSESSMENT OF NYPD’S PILOT PROGRAM AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO PROMOTE ACCOUNTABILITY
(JULY 2015)
RECOMMENDATION MADE
BY OIG-NYPD
1 On Officer Discretion to
Record
(1.1) NYPD should
broaden and illustrate the
standard for the
mandatory activation of
BWCs during street or
investigative encounters.

NYPD RESPONSE REGARDING
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

OIG-NYPD ASSESMENT OF
NYPD RESPONSE

Subject to the caveats above, NYPD
Accepted in Principle.
will broaden the standard beyond
reasonable suspicion. While NYPD
does not intend to include examples
of situations that meet the standard,
the revised policy will likely refer to
other Patrol Guide provisions that
would provide situational guidance
to officers.

(1.2) NYPD should
redefine the safety
exception for recording.

Subject to the caveats above, NYPD
is still considering this
recommendation.

Under Consideration.

(1.3) NYPD should
consider stricter
limitations on recording
vulnerable populations.

Subject to the caveats above, NYPD
states that it is taking steps to
determine the optimal limitations
when dealing with vulnerable
populations, including eliciting the
input of District Attorneys.

Accepted in Principle.

(1.4) NYPD should expand
BWC training for officers
using the BWCs.

According to NYPD, the Department
recognizes the need to provide
more training on the proper use of
Body-Worn Cameras. Per NYPD, the
timing of this training turns on when
the new Body-Worn Cameras are
purchased.

Accepted in Principle.

19

 OIG-NYPD SECOND ANNUAL REPORT

APRIL 2016

2 On Notification
2

2

(2.1) NYPD should provide
an example notification
phrase to advise members
of the public that they are
being recorded.

Subject to the caveats above, NYPD
finds this recommendation to be
logical insofar as the notification
does not interfere with an ongoing
investigation or jeopardize safety.
NYPD notes that the relevant Patrol
Guide Section will have sample
language that officers can use when
notifying a member of the public.
NYPD notes that the specific sample
language remains under discussion.

Accepted in Principle.

(2.2) NYPD should
redefine the safety
exception for
notifications.

Subject to the caveats above, NYPD
is still considering this
recommendation.

Under Consideration.

(3.1) NYPD should require
supervisors to review
footage related to
documented incidents.

Subject to the caveats above, NYPD
is currently evaluating several
models of supervisory review,
including what video should be
reviewed by supervisors and under
what circumstances.

Accepted in Principle.

(3.2) NYPD should address
discipline when the BWC
program is more
established and
formalized.

Subject to the caveats above, NYPD
is currently evaluating the
disciplinary framework that would
be applicable to Body-Worn Camera
use.

Accepted in Principle.

(3.3) NYPD should
computerize the random
selection of officers for
review.

Subject to the caveats above, NYPD
is currently evaluating several
models of review, including what
video should be reviewed by
supervisors and under what
circumstances.

Accepted in Principle.

(3.4) NYPD should
establish a system for
high-level and periodic
review.

Subject to the caveats above, NYPD
is currently evaluating several
models of review, including what
video should be reviewed by
supervisors and under what
circumstances.

Accepted in Principle.

On Compliance

20

 OIG-NYPD SECOND ANNUAL REPORT

APRIL 2016

4 On Access for Quality
Assurance Review
(4.1) NYPD should grant
supervisors general access
to BWC footage with
restrictions on arbitrary
review.

Subject to the caveats above, NYPD
is currently evaluating several
models of review, including what
video should be reviewed by
supervisors and under what
circumstances.

Accepted in Principle.

(4.2) NYPD should
integrate BWC footage
review into NYPD’s field
training program.

Subject to the caveats above, NYPD
is still considering this
recommendation.

Under Consideration.

(4.3) NYPD should solicit
feedback and suggestions
for improvement from
supervisors performing
quality assurance reviews
and officers participating
in the Volunteer BWC Pilot
Program.

NYPD states that this
recommendation is accepted. The
NYPD has been conducting focus
groups with officers who are
wearing the cameras. As the
program expands, NYPD anticipates
incorporating additional feedback
from officers as well as supervisors.

Partially Implemented.

Subject to the caveats above, NYPD
agrees that the revised Body-Worn
Camera policy should instruct
supervisors not to issue punishment
for minor infractions, and that
supervisors should follow existing
Department procedures regarding
more serious misconduct. The
details of such instructions are
under discussion.
Subject to the caveats above, NYPD
agrees that the revised Body-Worn
Camera policy should instruct
supervisors and officers to report
misconduct in accordance with
existing Department procedures.

Accepted in Principle.

OIG-NYPD welcomes the steps
NYPD has taken to incorporate
officer feedback into the current
revisions to the Body-Worn
Camera policy and program.
OIG-NYPD looks forward to
assessing how the final revised
program incorporates supervisor
input.

5 On Mitigating Officer
Infractions Recorded on
BWCs
(5.1) NYPD should develop
policies to guide
supervisors when officer
infractions are observed
on BWC footage.

(5.2) NYPD should
institute mandatory
reporting procedures.

21

Accepted in Principle.

 OIG-NYPD SECOND ANNUAL REPORT

(5.3) NYPD should
integrate BWC recordings
into NYPD’s existing force
monitoring programs.

APRIL 2016

NYPD states that action on this
recommendation falls within or
overlaps with an existing Federal
Court order regarding the
implementation of a Body-Worn
Camera pilot program.

Under Consideration.

NYPD disagrees with this
recommendation. First, NYPD notes
that where an internal investigation
is confidential, restricting access to a
subject officer could alert the
subject officer to the investigation.
Second, NYPD believes that officers
should review BWC video prior to
making a statement in use-ofdeadly-force cases because it can
result in more accurate reporting,
swifter resolution of criminal
proceedings, and can help dispel
concerns regarding officer
credibility.

Rejected.

6 On Access by Officers
(6.1) Access to BWC
recordings should be
limited where officers are
under investigation or are
witnesses in misconduct
investigations.

OIG-NYPD maintains, for the
reasons outlined in its July 2015
Report, that officers who are
under investigation or are
witnesses in misconduct
investigations should not review
Body-Worn Camera footage until
after providing a formal
statement regarding the incident.
Allowing officers access to
footage before they have given
statements in misconduct
investigations interferes with
investigators’ ability to assess an
officer’s independent recollection
of events and could compromise
sensitive investigations.
OIG-NYPD will remain alert to –
and as appropriate, report on –
instances where police officer
access to body camera footage
potentially compromises the
investigation of use-of-force and
misconduct cases.

22

 OIG-NYPD SECOND ANNUAL REPORT

(6.2) In all other
instances, access to
recordings prior to
making statements
should be noted in those
statements.

APRIL 2016

Subject to the caveats above, NYPD
states that the Body-Worn Camera
technology will feature an audit trail
that can identify when an officer
viewed a video. NYPD states that it
is nevertheless open to requiring
officers to note, in another format,
when they have reviewed video.
Details of such notation depend on
the specific Body-Worn Camera
technology selected by NYPD.

Under Consideration.

(7.1) If and when disclosing
BWC video, NYPD should
provide privacy and safety
protections for vulnerable
populations.

NYPD states that it will follow
established procedures for BWC
video disclosure pursuant to the
New York Freedom of Information
Law. NYPD agrees with OIG-NYPD’s
concerns regarding privacy and
safety but cannot fully implement
the recommendation until certain
technical requirements have been
met regarding video redaction.

Accepted in Principle.

(7.2) NYPD should ensure
fairness between citizens’
and officers’ right to view
BWC footage.

Subject to the caveats above, NYPD
supports witnesses being able to
view video prior to making formal
statements when making a
complaint against an individual
officer, and NYPD is currently
discussing the practical aspects of
this recommendation with relevant
parties.

Accepted in Principle.

Subject to the caveats above, NYPD
is currently deciding on a time
period for retention that
appropriately balances transparency
and privacy.

Under Consideration.

7 On Public Access

8 On Retention and Purging
(8.1) NYPD should establish a
minimum retention period of
at least 18 months.

23

 OIG-NYPD SECOND ANNUAL REPORT

(8.2) NYPD should ensure
expeditious purging of
archived BWC footage that
no longer holds evidentiary
value.
9 NYPD should incorporate
government and public input
in continuing to develop the
BWC program.

APRIL 2016

Subject to the caveats above, NYPD
is currently deciding on a time
period for retention that
appropriately balances transparency
and privacy.

Under Consideration.

NYPD states that is currently
meeting with and collecting input
from a variety of government and
non-government stakeholders
regarding the revision of NYPD’s
Body-Worn Camera Program.

Implemented.

24

OIG-NYPD welcomes NYPD’s
acceptance of this
recommendation and is aware of
the discussions that NYPD has
had with various stakeholders
regarding a revised Body-Worn
Camera Program. OIG-NYPD
looks forward to the release of a
revised Body-Worn Camera
policy that incorporates this
input.

 OIG-NYPD SECOND ANNUAL REPORT

APRIL 2016

POLICE USE OF FORCE IN NEW YORK CITY: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON NYPD’S
POLICIES AND PRACTICES
October 2015
On October 1, 2015, OIG-NYPD issued its first
comprehensive Report on the Use of Force by NYPD. The
Report examined five important aspects of NYPD use of
force: (1) trends; (2) reporting; (3) de-escalation; (4) training;
and (5) discipline.
As part of the investigation, OIG-NYPD conducted a
detailed analysis of 179 cases from 2010 to 2014 where CCRB
determined that excessive force was used by officers, as well
as the accompanying NYPD disciplinary records for over 100 cases where a final disciplinary
disposition was issued. Investigators also assessed NYPD’s Patrol Guide procedures on use of
force and observed and evaluated NYPD training at the Police Academy and in-service training
modules. OIG-NYPD investigators found that:


In 36% of cases where the NYPD Commissioner was presented with evidence of
excessive force, as independently verified by OIG-NYPD, the Police Commissioner
nonetheless refused to impose any form of discipline with respect to excessive
force allegations.



NYPD has no centralized form for reporting use of force and no Department-wide
system for tracking use of force in order to monitor problems, identify trends,
and take corrective action with officers who chronically use excessive force.
25

 OIG-NYPD SECOND ANNUAL REPORT



APRIL 2016

NYPD has insufficient training on de-escalation tactics that are necessary to
prevent excessive force in the first instance.

OIG-NYPD also determined that in the five-year period reviewed, despite confirmation
that officers used unwarranted force, NYPD imposed no discipline for excessive force in 37 of
104 substantiated allegations, or 36 percent of the cases. In addition, prior to January 2014,
NYPD declined to impose discipline for excessive force 44 percent of the time (34 of 77
allegations) and after January 2014 — a smaller universe of cases — NYPD declined discipline
11 percent of the time (3 of 27 allegations).
NYPD also downgraded CCRB’s disciplinary recommendation in substantiated use-offorce cases and imposed a lesser penalty or no penalty for excessive force 67 percent of the
time. Recently, the rate of disciplinary downgrading has been reduced (20 percent in the last
18 months) as NYPD has begun making changes in its interactions with CCRB, including the
introduction of a new reconsideration process that sends some cases back to CCRB for further
review.
On the same day that OIG-NYPD released its Report in early October 2015, NYPD
announced the adoption of newly revised use-of-force policies and procedures, including new
Patrol Guide provisions regarding the use of force. The announced areas of revision include
updated definitions concerning force, new policies regarding de-escalation, responsibilities of
witness officers in use-of-force incidents, reporting obligations regarding force incidents, and
data analysis on use-of-force incidents. NYPD has also created a dedicated Force Investigations
Division to investigate all firearm discharges, deaths in custody, and use-of-force incidents that
are likely to cause death. Some of these changes dovetail with the recommendations in OIG26

 OIG-NYPD SECOND ANNUAL REPORT

APRIL 2016

NYPD’s Report, which had been provided to the NYPD a number of weeks prior to its public
release.
OIG-NYPD welcomes NYPD’s new changes to its use-of-force policies and looks forward
to further improvements by NYPD. Although NYPD announced the changes in October 2015,
NYPD has not formally released the new policy, including the new Patrol Guide provision and the
new use-of-force form. As a result, NYPD has not yet implemented most of OIG-NYPD’s
recommendations – even where NYPD agrees with OIG-NYPD’s recommendation in principle.
While OIG-NYPD was anticipating NYPD’s revised use-of-force policies would be complete by now
– along with the implementation of several OIG-NYPD recommendations – NYPD has indicated
that it needs more time to complete the process. OIG-NYPD will continue to monitor the issue
and will further assess NYPD’s implementation of the Report’s recommendations once NYPD’s
revised use-of-force policies are final. We have asked the NYPD for a date by which this
implementation will be completed. NYPD has advised that the new use-of-force policy and new
use-of-force form will be released in or around April 2016, and related changes will be
subsequently implemented.
As for NYPD’s specific progress on OIG-NYPD’s 15 recommendations, NYPD has accepted
in principle all of OIG-NYPD’s recommendations regarding revisions to the Patrol Guide and
regarding use-of-force documentation and reporting. NYPD has taken a mixed approach to
OIG-NYPD’s recommendations regarding training, by implementing one, partially
implementing one, rejecting one, keeping one under consideration, and accepting one in
principle.

Likewise, NYPD has partially accepted two recommendations regarding the

disciplinary process and rejected two recommendations regarding the disciplinary process.
27

 OIG-NYPD SECOND ANNUAL REPORT

APRIL 2016

POLICE USE OF FORCE IN NEW YORK CITY: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON NYPD’S
POLICIES AND PRACTICES
(OCTOBER 2015)
NYPD RESPONSE
RECOMMENDATION MADE
OIG-NYPD ASSESMENT OF
REGARDING
BY OIG-NYPD
NYPD RESPONSE
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS
A. On Use of Force Policy
1 The NYPD Patrol Guide
should include
definitional language that
provides officers and the
public with greater clarity
regarding what is meant
by “force,” “excessive
force,” and “deadly
physical force.”

According to NYPD, the new
Patrol Guide provisions
regarding use of force, which
NYPD announced in October
2015, are still under
development.
However, the new guidelines
will include clarifying
definitions.

Accepted in Principle.
Although NYPD announced its
efforts to revise the use-of-force
guidelines in October 2015, the
new Guidelines have not been
released. NYPD anticipates
releasing the new policy in or
around April 2016.
OIG-NYPD nevertheless welcomes
NYPD’s commitment to include
clarifying definitions in its
forthcoming revised use-of-force
guidelines. Once the new
guidelines are released, OIG-NYPD
will assess NYPD’s implementation
of this recommendation.

2 NYPD should update
Patrol Guide §203‐11
governing use of force
and require officers to
de‐escalate all
encounters where
appropriate.

According to NYPD, the new
Patrol Guide provisions
regarding use of force, which
NYPD announced in October
2015, are still under
development.
However, the new guidelines
will include guidance regarding
de-escalation where
appropriate.

28

Accepted in Principle.

 OIG-NYPD SECOND ANNUAL REPORT

APRIL 2016

B. On Reporting and Documentation
3 NYPD should create a
separate, uniform use‐of‐
force reporting form.

According to NYPD, the new
Patrol Guide provisions
regarding use of force, which
NYPD announced in October
2015, are still under
development.

Accepted in Principle.

However, the new guidelines
will include a new use-of-force
reporting form that will be
comprehensive and will
capture meaningful data about
use-of-force encounters.
4 With respect to the
newly created form,
NYPD should require all
officers—whether the
subject of a force
investigation or a witness
to a use of force—to
document and report all
force incidents. When
completing this
document, officers
should use descriptive
language to articulate the
events leading up to the
use of force in
encounters with the
public, the reason why
the force was used, and
the level and type of
force used.

According to NYPD, the new
Patrol Guide provisions
regarding use of force, which
NYPD announced in October
2015, are still under
development.
However, NYPD states that
both subject and witness
officers will be required to
complete the new use-of-force
form using descriptive
language in all force
encounters. Further, NYPD
anticipates that all officers
involved in a single force
incident will be required to
complete the form.

29

Accepted in Principle.

 OIG-NYPD SECOND ANNUAL REPORT

APRIL 2016

5 NYPD should create a
database to track
comprehensive
Department‐wide
information on use of
force, including data
compiled from the use‐
of‐force forms.

NYPD reports that it is currently Accepted in Principle.
developing a database that will
track the information collected
on the new use-of-force form
and that this database will
allow the Department to
analyze patterns and trends.
The NYPD states that this new
database may be operational in
May or June of 2016.

6 NYPD should compile
data and publish, on an
annual basis, a report
addressing Department‐
wide metrics on use of
force, including but not
limited to information
from the new use‐of‐
force reporting form.
This report would track
and collect various
components related to
the issue of use of force,
including those
addressed in this Report,
such as officer tenure,
assignments, age, type of
force used, pertinent
information regarding
members of the public
subjected to force, as
well as officer injuries,
disciplinary trends and
outcomes, and other
data deemed necessary
for a comprehensive
understanding of the
issue.

According to NYPD, its Risk
Management Bureau will
analyze the newly collected
data and publish annual
reports on the NYPD’s use of
force, which will be similar to
NYPD’s publicly released
annual Firearms Discharge
Report. NYPD notes that if the
new use-of-force policy is
released in or around April
2016, then the first such report
would be issued in mid-2017.

30

Accepted in Principle.
OIG-NYPD welcomes NYPD’s
commitment to release an annual
use-of-force report based on data
from the new use-of-force form,
and OIG-NYPD appreciates that
this report cannot be properly
compiled until NYPD has collected
sufficient data from the new useof-force reporting form.

 OIG-NYPD SECOND ANNUAL REPORT

APRIL 2016

C. On Training
7 NYPD training should
place a stronger and
more thorough emphasis
on de‐escalation tactics,
by adding specific Police
Academy and in‐service
courses on de‐escalation
that incorporate both
classroom and scenario‐
based training.

According to NYPD, Recruit and
In-Service training already
places a significant emphasis
on de-escalation strategies
even if there is not a specific
course dedicated solely to deescalation. Nevertheless, NYPD
states that as of October 2015,
the recruit curriculum now
includes Crisis Intervention
Training, which covers deescalation tactics, and the “20K
training,” which contains
scenario-based training. With
respect to in-service training,
the Department states that the
new use-of-force policy will be
accompanied by a new Physical
Tactics Day training that covers
de-escalation strategies.

Partially Implemented.

8 NYPD should incorporate
a formal evaluation
system for all scenario‐
based trainings
concerning the use of
force.

According to NYPD, it has
conducted an extensive review
of the training practices of peer
law enforcement agencies,
including the use of scenariobased training to evaluate
trainees. NYPD states that,
while informal evaluations
occur, NYPD currently does not
formally evaluate trainees
based on performance in a
scenario because it could lead
students to “artificially” arrive
at a desired outcome in order
to pass the evaluation, and this
risks stifling the real-world
training environment that
NYPD endeavors to simulate.
However, NYPD recently
informed OIG-NYPD that it is
open to considering the use of
formal scenario-based
evaluations.

Under Consideration.

31

OIG-NYPD welcomes the increased
focus on de-escalation in the
Police Academy and In-Service
training programs. Although
NYPD has some new scenariobased training, OIG-NYPD has not
yet seen evidence of de-escalation
instruction through this type of
training.

OIG-NYPD maintains that formal
evaluations of scenario-based
trainings can benefit the
Department. OIG-NYPD looks
forward to NYPD’s further
consideration of this
recommendation and will
continue to advocate that officers
are formally evaluated (perhaps
on a pass-fail basis) when they
undergo scenario-based training.

 OIG-NYPD SECOND ANNUAL REPORT

9 NYPD should increase
funding and personnel at
the Police Academy with
respect to training for
both recruits and in‐
service officers.

APRIL 2016

NYPD states that it has made
significant increases in Police
Academy funding and
personnel assigned to provide
in-service and recruit training
in various areas. According to
NYPD, the overall Police
Academy staff increased by
38% in the past year.

Implemented.

10 NYPD should implement
training to instruct
officers to intervene in
situations where
other officers escalate
encounters, use
excessive force, and/or
commit other
misconduct.

According to NYPD, the new
Patrol Guide provisions
regarding use of force that
were announced in October
2015 are still under
development.

Accepted in Principle.

11 NYPD should review use‐
of‐force trends to
identify which categories
of officers (e.g., by years
of service and/or duty
assignments) are most in
need of de‐escalation
and use‐of‐force in‐
service training, and then
implement such
instruction.

NYPD reports that it has had a
Force Monitoring Program,
even prior to October 1, 2015,
to identify officers engaged in
anomalous behavior. Officers
identified as requiring
additional instruction are
provided with training and are
monitored, as appropriate.

OIG-NYPD commends NYPD’s
efforts to dedicate additional
funding and resources to training.

However, NYPD states that
addressing an officer’s failure
to intervene when appropriate
is a critical component of the
new use-of-force policies, and
NYPD will conduct in-service
training on the new use-offorce policies.

32

Rejected.
The NYPD Force Monitoring
Program pre-dates OIG-NYPD’s
October 1, 2015 report, and NYPD
has provided no information to
suggest that the Force Monitoring
Program will be revised to account
for the new use-of-force policies.

 OIG-NYPD SECOND ANNUAL REPORT

APRIL 2016

D. On Discipline
12 In disciplinary cases
where there are multiple
disciplinary counts, each
count should have an
accompanying distinct
penalty, as opposed to an
aggregated penalty for all
counts.

NYPD reports that it examines
the totality of the actions of
each officer in a given situation
to determine the appropriate
penalty.

13 NYPD should collect,
review, and compare
data regarding
disciplinary penalties
imposed in use‐of‐force
cases and report on the
effects of disciplinary
penalties on the
frequency of incidents of
excessive force. NYPD
should publish data in
the previously mentioned
annual report
(Recommendation #6) on
the number and
percentage of cases in
which the Police
Commissioner reduces or
declines discipline.

According to NYPD, the factors
that result in a police officer’s
use of force, and the
determination of the question
of whether that force was
proportional or excessive, are
impacted by several variables.
NYPD states that attempting to
measure the Department-wide
impact of excessive force
penalties on new excessive
force incidents would not be a
useful endeavor.

Rejected.
OIG-NYPD maintains that
attaching distinct penalties to
individual counts will increase
transparency and accountability.
OIG-NYPD expects to revisit
NYPD’s disciplinary process in
future reports and will be
particularly attuned to instances
where officers are not given
penalties for particular
substantiated charges (such as
excessive force) and those officers
subsequently re-commit the same
type of offense.

33

Rejected.
OIG-NYPD is concerned with
NYPD’s conclusory determination
regarding the effectiveness of
collecting and reviewing such
data. OIG-NYPD maintains that
the collection, analysis, and
reporting of the data outlined in
the recommendation would
promote transparency and
accountability. Furthermore, it
would potentially allow NYPD to
discern systemic issues that it
might otherwise miss. OIG-NYPD
will continue to review and report
on systemic issues concerning
NYPD use of force in future
reports.

 OIG-NYPD SECOND ANNUAL REPORT

14 NYPD should set forth, in
writing, in its disciplinary
paperwork, the extent to
which an officer’s
placement on force
monitoring has or has
not impacted the penalty
imposed.

15 NYPD should share a
subject officer’s force
monitoring history with
CCRB’s Administrative
Prosecution Unit (APU)
since this information is a
critical element that
must be taken into
consideration when CCRB
recommends penalties.

APRIL 2016

NYPD states that several
factors – including the results
of prior substantiated
complaints against an officer,
an officer’s performance
history, and other aspects of
the officer’s professional career
– are taken into account when
assessing a penalty in a
disciplinary case (though the
extent to which they are taken
into account is not specifically
documented in writing).
However, although similar
factors are used to place an
officer on monitoring, NYPD
states that the fact that an
officer is placed on monitoring
is not relevant to assessing
disciplinary penalties.

Partial Agreement in Principle.

According to NYPD, its force
monitoring program is a
predictive analytics tool to
address officers who might be
in need of closer supervision
and instruction. It is not a
penalty. NYPD states that it
shares with CCRB some of the
information that results in
officers being placed on
monitoring (including prior
substantiated allegations and
performance evaluation
histories), but it does not share
the fact that an officer has
been placed on monitoring.

Partial Agreement in Principle.

34

OIG-NYPD welcomes NYPD’s
efforts to consider various
performance criteria when
assessing disciplinary penalties for
officers. OIG-NYPD will continue
to examine the potential benefits
of including monitoring in the
disciplinary analysis.
With respect to NYPD’s
declination to document the
degree to which these factors
impact individual penalty
assessments, OIG-NYPD maintains
that such information is important
for transparency, and OIG-NYPD
will continue to monitor this issue.

OIG-NYPD welcomes NYPD’s
efforts to share with CCRB
information that is relevant to
assessing disciplinary penalties for
officers. OIG-NYPD will continue
to examine the potential benefits
of NYPD providing CCRB with
officers’ full monitoring history.

 OIG-NYPD SECOND ANNUAL REPORT

APRIL 2016

*

*

*

*

*

Pursuant to § 803(d) (3) of the New York City Charter, as of December 31, 2015, OIG-NYPD had
one investigation that was open for more than one year, and two investigations that were open for
more than 6 months.

35

 OIG-NYPD SECOND ANNUAL REPORT

III.

APRIL 2016

COMPLAINTS
Local Law 70 underscores the importance of allowing members of the public to make

complaints to OIG-NYPD regarding problems and deficiencies relating to NYPD’s operations,
policies, practices, and programs. OIG-NYPD has been receiving such complaints since its
inception. By reviewing complaints, investigating allegations, speaking to complainants, and
liaising with other government agencies, OIG-NYPD can both address individual concerns raised
by members of the public and identify potential systemic issues facing NYPD.
The complaints received by OIG-NYPD in 2015 covered a range of issues that fell into
several categories. First, some complaints alleged that individual NYPD uniformed officers had
used force, abused their authority, acted discourteously, or used offensive language when
interacting with members of the public. These allegations ranged from officers using crude
language during routine street encounters and traffic stops to claims of officers using excessive
force to remove tenants during evictions. Some complaints also alleged that NYPD officers
engaged in other forms of misconduct, such as failure to take criminal complaint reports, the
wrongful arrest of people, issuance of unlawful parking tickets, and other forms of misconduct.
Where appropriate (usually because they involved individualized rather than systemic issues),
and after discussions with complainants in non-anonymous complaints, OIG-NYPD referred these
complaints to CCRB or the NYPD Internal Affairs Bureau for further review or informed
complainants how to file complaints with those agencies.

For all such complaints regarding

NYPD, OIG-NYPD keeps the complaint on file as a resource that may inform the Office’s
understanding of the operations, policies, practices, and programs of NYPD.

36

 OIG-NYPD SECOND ANNUAL REPORT

APRIL 2016

OIG-NYPD also received complaints alleging misconduct by other government agencies.
For example, the Office received complaints regarding individual employees of the New York City
Housing Authority, the Department of Environmental Protection, and the Department of
Correction. Where appropriate, OIG-NYPD shared these complaints with the relevant agency or
DOI Inspector General responsible for the relevant agency.
Other complaints requested that OIG-NYPD investigate alleged criminal activity by private
citizens, such as illegal drug exchanges or gambling in residential areas. Lastly, many complaints
and inquiries received by OIG-NYPD were unrelated to any government agency, failed to state an
actionable concern, or were simply unintelligible despite the Office’s best efforts to contact the
complainant to get greater clarity.

37

 OIG-NYPD SECOND ANNUAL REPORT

APRIL 2016

COMPLAINTS AND INQUIRIES RECEIVED
BY OIG-NYPD IN 2015
8.9%

8.7%

32.3%

42.5%

7.6%
Incidents Concerning NYPD Uniformed Members of Service (Involving Force, Abuse
of Authority, Discourtesy, Offensive Language)
Incidents Concerning NYPD Uniformed Members of Service (Other)

Incidents Concerning Other Government Agencies (not NYPD)
Other Incidents (unrelated to NYPD or Government Agencies)
Incidents Alleging Criminal Misconduct by Private Individuals

38

 OIG-NYPD SECOND ANNUAL REPORT

APRIL 2016

OIG-NYPD also periodically receives correspondence from public officials, organizations,
and concerned citizens requesting that the Office investigate specific policy-level issues regarding
NYPD.

These are not individual complaints but are instead requests for systemic-level

investigations. OIG-NYPD welcomes such requests as they inform the Office’s understanding of
issues important to the public.

39

 OIG-NYPD SECOND ANNUAL REPORT

IV.

APRIL 2016

COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT
OIG-NYPD recognizes that its mission is enhanced by working with both NYPD and

communities at large. The purpose of community outreach and engagement is to inform the
public about the work and mission of the Office and, in turn, better understand the concerns
and needs of New York City’s many neighborhoods and diverse populations. Through dialogue,
meetings, events, and correspondence, OIG-NYPD has provided the public with a better
understanding of the Office’s work and mission, and has disseminated the Office’s reports and
recommendations to improve transparency, promote stronger police-community relations, and
ultimately enhance police accountability.
Over the last year, OIG-NYPD has hosted, visited, spoken to, and held meetings with
representatives of over 60 organizations and groups. These representatives include local
community advocates, organizations interested in criminal justice reform, and civil rights groups.
OIG-NYPD also makes a concerted effort to reach a broad spectrum of communities, such as
advocates for the mentally ill, new immigrant and non-English speaking populations, youth, and
the homeless.
City officials are also important players when seeking to improve policing and policecommunity relations. OIG-NYPD regularly attends City Council hearings and holds both in-office
and external meetings with members and staff of the New York City Council. Recognizing that
the input of police officers and law enforcement professionals is vital to effective oversight, OIGNYPD likewise conducts outreach to every police union representing NYPD Members of Service

40

 OIG-NYPD SECOND ANNUAL REPORT

APRIL 2016

and has attended several Precinct Community Council Hearings in order to better understand the
relationship between precincts and the neighborhoods they serve.

Please contact us at:

Office of the Inspector General for the New York City Police Department
New York City Department of Investigation
80 Maiden Lane
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (212) 806-5200
www.nyc.gov/oignypd
For general inquiries, please email inquiry@oignypd.nyc.gov
For OIG-NYPD’s Press Office, please call (212) 806-5225 or email
press@oignypd.nyc.gov
For OIG-NYPD’s Community Outreach Unit, please call (212) 806-5234 or email
communityoutreach@oignypd.nyc.gov
41