The push for police transparency and accountability in New York City suffered an alarming setback last December: the New York Court of Appeals blocked the New York Civil Liberties Union's lawsuit to release redacted NYPD misconduct records. These records are essential for holding police officers accountable for excessive use of force, fabrication of evidence, unconstitutional stop and frisk practices and other misconduct at a time when such incidents are sparking a growing public outcry. In light of this decision, the New York State Assembly must now, as a first step, introduce legislation to make these records accessible to the public.

However, there's another way that New Yorkers can push for police accountability—and it involves their elected district attorneys. This form of accountability comes from “suppression” hearings held in criminal cases, where a judge decides whether an officer's conduct in a given case was constitutional or not. If the conduct is found unconstitutional, the evidence collected through such conduct is “suppressed,” or kept out of the trial. These hearings hold police accountable by disincentivizing officers from engaging in unconstitutional conduct—or else hurting their case in court.

In fact, even in hearings where the officer's actions are found to be constitutional, the procedure itself urges transparency and accountability: the officers learn that their actions and decisions are scrutinized, which creates an incentive to follow the laws and rules governing their conduct.

Unfortunately, these hearings are not held automatically in every case—each defendant, through their attorney, must ask the judge to conduct one by filing a motion. And even when they are requested, prosecutors across the city nearly always oppose the defense's request to hold them. Their opposition is grounded in the policy of their bosses, the elected district attorney of their respective boroughs.

For example, Staten Island prosecutors do not oppose hearings in misdemeanor cases (although they do oppose these same hearings in felony cases), while Bronx DA Darcel Clark, who entered office on a promise of justice reform, maintains a policy of opposing virtually all forms of suppression hearings in both misdemeanor and felony cases.

When judges deny hearings upon a prosecutor's motion, the officers do not take the stand; they do not testify under oath; they are not subjected to scrutiny by the judge and the litigation process itself. If any misconduct took place, it does not see the light of day, and the officer gets a pass with a clear message: do as you please, no one is watching. In other words, a prosecutor's request to deny a hearing can destroy one of the only reliable mechanisms of police accountability and transparency.

That prosecution offices routinely ask judges to deny hearings is even more jarring in light of prosecutors' special mandate. The Supreme Court has long held that prosecutors hold a unique position in our society as a representative of the government, whose interest in a criminal case is not to win the case but to do justice.

 Indeed, this mission is embedded in the title by which the courts refer to the prosecution in New York State: “the People.” Prosecutors must serve the public interest—one that now, more than ever, recognizes the importance of police oversight. And yet, even while acting on behalf of “the People,” prosecutors regularly shield police actions from scrutiny and block inquiries that could expose gross misconduct.

In New York, district attorneys should be responsive to the concerns of their constituents, and New Yorkers should feel empowered to demand accountability from their district attorneys. It is time that district attorneys consent to suppression hearings in all cases, across all boroughs. They must ensure police accountability with all tools at their disposal. And if not, it is up to New Yorkers to hold their elected district attorneys accountable for their inactions.

Oded Oren is a staff attorney for The Bronx Defenders.