A new report from the Office of the Inspector General for the New York Police Department concluded that officers broke rules when surveilling/investigating political activity.
The IG’s investigation found that local officers were mostly noncompliant with many of the rules governing the conduct of these activities.
“For example, when applying for permission to use an undercover officer or confidential informant, the application must state the particular role of the undercover in that specific investigation, so that the need for this intrusive technique can be evaluated,” read the report titled, “An Investigation of NYPD’s Compliance with Rules Governing Investigations of Political Activity.” “NYPD seldom included such a fact-specific discussion in its applications, but instead repeatedly used generic, boilerplate text to seek such permission.”
“Tellingly, this boilerplate text was so routine that the same typographical error had been cut and pasted into virtually every application OIG-NYPD reviewed, going back over a decade,” continued the report. “Further, among all cases reviewed, NYPD continued its investigations even after legal authorization expired more than half of the time. Often more than a month of unauthorized investigation occurred before NYPD belatedly sought to renew the authorization.”
According to the report, NYPD’s Intelligence Bureau also failed to acquire the proper reauthorization of investigations before its expiration date and continued authorized investigations past their deadline on a regular basis.
The report also noted that all NYPD investigations of political activity are governed by section 212-72 of the NYPD Patrol Guide and are within sole jurisdiction of the NYPD’s Intelligence Bureau. Known as the Handschu Guidelines, they come from a 1971 federal lawsuit brought against the city, the police commissioner and the NYPD. In the suit, plaintiffs claimed that police surveillance and related activities violated the constitutional rights of various political and religious groups and individual New Yorkers.
In a release sent to the AmNews by an NYPD representative, Police Commissioner Bill Bratton said, “The NYPD has never suggested that protecting New York City from terrorism and adhering to the Handschu Guidelines were mutually exclusive outcomes. Rather, it has always been our assertion that we will go where the evidence takes us, and we will do so within the guidelines of the law. I am very pleased the inspector general’s audit has independently confirmed this to be true, and I thank the IG’s office for its work on this audit and report.”
A few elected officials, some who were responsible for the creation of the IG office in the first place, reacted to the report as well.
In a joint statement released by New York City Council Members Brad Lander, Jumaane Williams and Vanessa Gibson, the IG’s report was praised as “data-driven transparency” that shows where the police should direct their attention and how they should do it. They also noted the report’s conclusions on “aggressive” police tactics.
“The report finds no clear link between aggressive enforcement of low-level offenses and reductions in felonies,” read their statement. “Meanwhile, enforcement of these offenses is concentrated in precincts with high proportions of African-American and Latino residents, NYCHA residents and young men, at higher rates than can be explained by the incidence of crime.”
Lander and Williams sponsored the Community Safety Act and Local Law 70, which established the Office of the NYPD Inspector General.
Lander, Williams and Gibson also stated that the disproportionate impact that aggressive enforcement of low-level offenses has on people of color was part of the motivation behind the passage of the Criminal Justice Act. They also said that although they appreciate Bratton, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and New York City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito reducing penalties for low-level offenses, they are still frustrated in other ways.
“However, we were disappointed yesterday with the police commissioner’s quick dismissal of the IG’s report as ‘useless’, and the mayor’s support of that statement,” read their statement. “We do not expect the commissioner and the IG to agree on every issue. The whole purpose of the IG is to have independent oversight that will sometimes be critical. But the issues identified in the report are serious ones, which deserve real attention and thoughtful response.”