Judge Orders NYPD Study Requiring Officers to Use Body Cameras Earlier in Encounters
U.S. District Judge Torres called for the program after a May report recommended officers begin recording during the lowest level of encounters with people.
August 10, 2018 at 02:42 PM
4 minute read
A federal judge in Manhattan has ordered the first steps of a new body-worn camera pilot program for the New York City Police Department, which will study requiring officers to engage their cameras at an earlier stage in encounters with people.
Late Thursday, U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres ordered the parties in the set of cases under Floyd v. City of New York to submit a joint proposal for a new pilot to study the impact of officers activating cameras during so-called Level 1 stops.
These stops are the most basic interactions police can have, requiring only an objective credible reason to approach a person. Yet, as Torres noted, the pilot program currently in place with the department does not require officers to engage their cameras until a Level 2 stop, where officers have a founded suspicion of criminality.
Advocates and attorneys for the plaintiffs in the collected cases call the order a win in their efforts to ensure the police department is complying with the court's orders on the department's stops policy.
“There's clearly an underreporting, and I would even say a massive underreporting, of stops,” said Beldock Levine & Hoffman partner Jonathan Moore, an attorney for the Floyd plaintiffs. “I think it reflects the court's understanding … that there's a serious underreporting problem, and it's got to be addressed somehow.”
A report to the court in May on the recent history of police and community relations recommended that patrol officers be required to activate their cameras during Level 1 encounters. As Torres noted, the report's author stated that Level 1 encounters feel like detaining stops to those approached by the police, and that “many investigative encounters quickly escalate” to higher-level encounters requiring body-camera activation.
The NYPD opposed the recommendation, arguing in a filing quoted by Torres that “[r]ecording Level 1 encounters has serious privacy implications and may have a chilling effect on community-police interactions.”
Torres' order, then, sets Oct. 19 for the joint proposal, which will include a plan to assess whether activation at Level 1 enhances the department's ability to capture encounters that escalate and a plan for considering the concerns expressed by the department.
Spokesmen for the NYPD and the city's Law Department did not provide a comment when requested.
The body-worn camera pilot program was implemented after the court found in 2013 that the NYPD had violated the constitutional rights of people subjected to its stop-and-frisk program. Specifically, the decision, by retired U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin, said the department engaged in a policy of indirect racial profiling.
As part of the remedies, the department was instructed to start a pilot program for the use of body-worn cameras, which has been supervised by the monitor overseeing the court's order, Peter Zimroth.
Under Mayor Bill de Blasio, the use of body-worn cameras has been on a fast track, with the mayor's office announcing in January that all officers on patrol would be equipped with the cameras by the end of 2018, a year earlier than planned.
Torres' order on the body-camera pilot program comes on the heels of another order in July for another pilot program based on a recommendation from the May report to the court regarding the documentation of Level 1 and 2 police encounters. Currently, only encounters at the top two levels in the four-level framework are required. The author's report indicated doing so was essential to understanding “the extent to which police are initiating encounters on the basis of race.”
For Beldock Levine's Moore, the two recommendations are tandem efforts by the court to determine, four years after Floyd was decided, whether the police department was fully complying with the court's orders.
“Everybody accepts the proposition in these cases that there's no reliability of the [stop] statistic that are occurring on a yearly basis,” Moore said. “These two pilot programs that [Torres has] ordered are really designed to determine if there's a way to create a reporting scheme that ensures all stops are being recorded, that all encounters are being reported.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMore Big Law Firms Rush to Match Associate Bonuses, While Some Offer Potential for Even More
Lululemon Faces Legal Fire Over Its DEI Program After Bias Complaints Surface
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Will Trump Be a Boost to Quinn Emanuel's Fortunes in China?
- 2Legaltech Rundown: LexisNexis Releases Lexis+ AI Mobile App, Hotshot Launches New M&A Training Simulation, and More
- 3Perkins Coie Boasts Diverse Partner Class
- 4NY Judge Indefinitely Delays Sentencing in Trump Hush Money Case
- 5US Supreme Court Tries to Define a 'Crime of Violence'
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250