NEW YORK (CBSNewYork/AP) — After years of burnishing a reputation as one of the nation’s most potent police forces, the NYPD appears poised to become one of the most closely monitored.
City lawmakers are readying for a final vote Thursday on creating an inspector general for the NYPD and widening the legal path for pursuing claims of police bias after a federal judge appointed a monitor to direct changes of the department’s stop-and-frisk policy.
It’s a one-two punch of outside tinkering that will muddy police work, a pair of complementary steps to protect civil rights or a rash of policymaking that may end up meaning little on the street, depending on who gets asked.
But from any perspective, it would be the onset of a new era of oversight for the country’s biggest police department, though the impacts would be defined by particulars and politics still in play.
The City Council, if it succeeds in overriding a mayoral veto, would establish a monitor but not select the person or specify exactly what gets investigated. And a new mayor will take office next year, which could well mean new police leadership.
“The complexity, at this point, is that there are so many moving parts,” said John Jay College of Criminal Justice professor Eugene O’Donnell, who isn’t involved in the litigation or legislation. “And it doesn’t help that it became very adversarial.”
Some other police forces, including the Los Angeles Police Department, also have had both court monitoring and an inspector general.
The NYPD was under a 1980s federal consent decree that involved undercover and surveillance techniques, but this would be an unprecedented level of outside scrutiny for the agency.
Advocates see distinct roles for each of the prospective new NYPD watchdogs, who would have different scopes and powers. They wouldn’t directly intersect, deriving their authority from different parts of government.
The court monitor could compel changes, via the judge, but only concerning stop-and-frisk.
City officials filed a notice of appeal Friday against the ruling. Lawyers have about three months to file the formal brief.
“It’s not the judge’s job to go and to run these city agencies,” Mayor Michael Bloomberg said last week. “Some judges think they can get in and run the city — it cannot end well.”
If the ruling stands after the expected appeal, the monitor will flesh out details of U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin’s calls for changes to officer training, supervision and discipline.
“The purpose of the remedies addressed in this opinion is to ensure that the practice is carried out in a manner that protects the rights and liberties of all New Yorkers, while still providing much-needed police protection,” Scheindlin wrote.
The monitor also would keep tabs on specific initiatives Scheindlin required: revising forms that document stops and testing body-worn cameras for officers.
The inspector general could look at many aspects of policing — surveillance of Muslims or officers’ response to the mentally ill, for instance.
But the inspector could issue only recommendations, not orders, though the mayor or council could make them mandatory.
The court’s monitoring would end when the judge saw no further need for it, while the inspector general’s position would be permanent.
“Both are essential elements in creating transparency and accountability in the NYPD,” said Chauniqua Young of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which brought the federal case and is among groups backing the city legislation.
But Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly have bitterly resisted the push to impose more outside input on the NYPD, pressure that built amid anger over the department’s heavy use of the stop-and-frisk tactic and concerns about extensive NYPD surveillance of Muslims.
As CBS 2’s John Slattery reported, in announcing what they said was the largest gun bust in the city’s history Monday, Bloomberg and Kelly made the argument that stop-and-frisk should be maintained as is. Suspect Earl Campbell of South Carolina, who allegedly moved the guns north to New York City by bus, was caught talking about the program on a wiretap, Kelly said.
“‘I can’t take them to my house. I can’t have them in Brownsville. Because they have whatchamacallit — stop and frisk,’” Kelly quoted Campbell.
Bloomberg said Monday that the proof is in the numbers.
“And that includes stop, question and frisk has taken 8,000 guns over the past year, and 80,000 weapons,” the mayor said.
Furthermore, the mayor and commissioner said police already get plenty of scrutiny from entities ranging from a 700-person internal investigations staff to a civilian complaint board. The new monitors would layer on confusing, overlapping oversight, the officials said.
“We think the judge could not be more wrong. The Supreme Court has ruled, we follow the rules,” Bloomberg said. “This would be a disaster for the city.”
Bloomberg has raised the specter of the police force becoming so policed by watchdogs and lawsuits that officers might hesitate to defend themselves, with deadly consequences.
“I’d like to see you go to the funeral and explain to the family,” he snapped at a news conference Monday.
Kelly also decried the court ruling during news show appearances Sunday.
“The judge in this case has indicted an entire police department – almost 36,000 police officers – for racial profiling based on what we believe is very flimsy information, flimsy evidence,” he told CBS News’ Bob Schieffer on “Face The Nation.”
Supporters hope Scheindlin’s ruling will embolden lawmakers to back what could be an extremely close veto override vote Thursday; sponsors expect it to succeed.
Bloomberg, meanwhile, suggested Scheindlin’s ruling should give lawmakers pause about adding more monitoring.
The legislation also would make it easier to bring suits claiming discriminatory policing — cases like the one Scheindlin decided.
She found police systematically and unjustly singled out black and Hispanic men for stop and frisks, about 90 percent of which don’t result in arrests or tickets.
The legislation would apply only in state court, easing some legal standards the advocates faced in the federal case, City Councilman Brad Lander said.
To some, the question isn’t whether to add the new watchdogs, but how much they could accomplish.
Police Sgt. Ed Mullins sees the inspector general as a bureaucratic add-on and the court monitor as “an easy way out for a judge.”
Changing the dynamic between police and minority communities takes more than “coming in here and saying, ‘You gotta do this,”’ said Mullins, who leads the Sergeants Benevolent Association union.
In Harlem, Edgar Sanchez, 34, digested the idea of new NYPD monitors with something of a shrug.
“They’ll still do whatever they want to do, and they’ll use the excuse that they’re protecting the people,” he said. “The police will always have that freedom.”
Check Out These Other Stories From CBSNewYork.com:
[display-posts category=”news” wrapper=”ul” posts_per_page=”4″]
(TM and © Copyright 2013 CBS Radio Inc. and its relevant subsidiaries. CBS RADIO and EYE Logo TM and Copyright 2013 CBS Broadcasting Inc. Used under license. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.)