After Repeatedly Failing To Document Stops/Frisks, NYPD Ordered To Record All Encounters

The NYPD's stop and frisk program was declared unconstitutional in 2013. As deployed by the NYPD, the program involved high numbers of suspicionless stops disproportionately targeting the city's minorities. Judge Shira Scheindlin heavily modified the program to steer it back in the direction of the Constitution, resulting in claims of a criminal apocalypse that completely failed to materialize.

One of the modifications was the deployment of body cameras. These were supposed to record stops, preserving a record of these incidents. Officers were also given additional paperwork to fill out for each stop/frisk to provide evidence of the perceived suspicion supporting the stop.

Neither of these mandates worked out particularly well. The number of stops was already decreasing rapidly before Judge Scheindlin issued her order. The stops that were still being made, however, weren't by the (new) book. A court monitor report suggested plenty of unconstitutional stops were still being made by officers without filling out the mandated form.

That's where the cameras could have helped, theoretically. The NYPD's body camera program is in full effect, but it appears officers believe certain stops don't need to be recorded. Once again -- a decade into this litigation -- the stop and frisk program is being modified, as Zuri Davis of Reason reports.

[T]he court wants to bring "the NYPD's stop-and-frisk policies and practices into compliance with federal and state law." To that end, [Judge Analisa] Torres has ordered both the NYPD and those who have brought suit over the practices to design a "pilot program" that would record "low-level" police interactions, referred to as "Level 1 and 2 investigative encounters."

Until this modification, the NYPD's body cam mandate only required recordings of Level 3 and 4 stops. Those are stops in which a person is detained (either by force or suggestion) and/or an arrest is likely to occur. Since the NYPD's documentation of the stops central to the lawsuit (low-level stops based on minimal -- if any -- suspicion) has been subpar, this order should result in at least some form of documentation for these stops.

Or not.

The plaintiffs in the stop-and-frisk case have largely supported supported the facilitator's recommendations, with some minor tweaks, while the NYPD has rejected them, saying that they are "neither practical nor feasible."

That's the initial reaction: the pride of US law enforcement finds camera deployment during most police/citizen interactions unfeasible. The NYPD has issued this same reaction to almost every modification of its stop and frisk program: everything's impossible until the department actually starts to make an effort to comply.

It may be difficult to record every stop initiated by an officer, but it's not unfeasible. If the NYPD finds it burdensome, perhaps it should have made sure its officers kept up with their stop/frisk paperwork back when it was only paperwork. Instead, NYPD brass didn't make this a priority for low-level officers so now their body-mounted ride-along buddies will have to provide the documentation officers have avoided filling out for much of the last two years.