The recent arrest of former Mount Vernon Deputy Police Commissioner Jennifer Lackard on attempted-murder and conspiracy charges was shocking. Prosecutors allege that Lackard helped coordinate and flee a drive-by shooting involving her son outside the Bronx Hall of Justice. She was terminated, and the charges remain allegations that must be proven in court.
In that case, the system responded quickly. But what happens when serious findings against an officer emerge only after that person has participated in arrests, supplied evidence, or testified in criminal cases?
Too often in New York, the answer is unclear, and promises of reform either make our communities less safe, or undermine the civil rights of the very communities they’re meant to protect.
New York has an institution designed to identify patterns of police misconduct. Under Executive Law Section 75, a police agency must refer an officer to the Attorney General’s Law Enforcement Misconduct Investigative Office after receiving at least five complaints from five people involving five separate incidents within two years.
The Law Enforcement Misconduct Investigative Office (LEMIO) then determines whether the officer engaged in a pattern of misconduct, excessive force or dishonesty. But the law does not establish a uniform statewide process for reviewing criminal cases in which an officer with a formal pattern finding played a material role.
Westchester County provides a direct example. LEMIO concluded that former New Rochelle Police Officer Lane Schlesinger engaged in a pattern of misconduct involving abuse of authority. The Attorney General’s findings state that Schlesinger had been disciplined for 25 complaints of misconduct and minor infractions since 2008.
Yet no statewide law required authorities to identify cases in which Schlesinger’s conduct, evidence, or credibility may have affected the outcome. A report identified the pattern, but potentially affected people were left to raise questions themselves.
Brooklyn has shown that a more responsible approach is possible.
In 2022, Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez reviewed cases involving 13 former NYPD officers who were later convicted of crimes committed while on duty. His office moved to dismiss 378 convictions—47 felonies and 331 misdemeanors—that relied directly on those officers’ work.
Prosecutors did not assume that every officer was dishonest or every defendant innocent. They examined the cases and concluded that convictions directly dependent on the discredited officers could no longer be defended.
That is not anti-police. It is responsible prosecution.
The proposed Pattern Misconduct Case Review Act would make that approach consistent statewide. Following a formal pattern finding, the appropriate authority would identify cases in which the officer played a material role, conduct an individualized review and issue a written determination.
The measure would not reopen every case an officer merely touched, but rather focus on cases in which the officer’s arrest, testimony, evidence, or conduct could have materially affected the outcome. It would not require automatic dismissals or reversals.
Critics may reasonably question whether mandatory reviews would overwhelm district attorneys. A materiality standard addresses that concern by focusing resources where an officer’s role actually mattered.
Public safety and accountability are not competing principles. Communities are safer when residents trust legitimate police work and convictions can withstand scrutiny.
James Christopher is the Founder and CEO of the political communications firm James Christopher Communications, LLC, and advisor for the Protect New Yorkers advocacy initiative.
