----

**PolicePractices and Civil Rights in New York City**

----

**Appendix C**

**U.S. Commission on Civil Rights,Office of General Counsel, Response to NYPD Comments on Draft �PolicePractices and Civil Rights in New York� Report**

----

Thismemorandum responds to the Affected Agency Comments submitted by the New YorkPolice Department (NYPD) regarding the draft report entitled �Police Practicesand Civil Rights in New York City*�*(�DraftReport�). The Comments were reviewed by OGC staff and the contractor,resulting in this response. After addressing a few general points, thememorandum sets out, in point form, suggested responses to each NYPD Comment inthe NYPD Response.

First,we believe that many of the NYPD affected agency comments are unfounded,immaterial, or not relevant to the points to which they allegedly respond. TheNYPD comments, at times with a shrillness that reveals a lack of objectivity,unfairly attack the Draft Report. These attacks often begin by mischaracterizingthe Draft Report, which allows the NYPD to respond to �straw-man� arguments.In other instances, the NYPD clearly just disagrees with the conclusionsreached, and uses inflammatory language rather than logic or fact to support itsposition. Despite these problems, however, there are a number of points raisedin the NYPD Comments that merit consideration. 

Second,these comments are extremely critical of the Draft Report�s reliance onstatements of various witnesses made during Commission hearings. However, theCommission has historically cited the sworn testimony of hearing witnesses inits reports to ensure that there is some consideration of the views andperceptions of members of the community about tensions that perpetuate problemsof discrimination and inequality.

Third,the NYPD Response contains considerable information that was not previouslyavailable to the Commission. Although it may be the case that much or all ofthis information should have been provided by the NYPD to the Commission priorto the NYPD Response (pursuant to the subpoena), it nevertheless remains truethat in order for the Commission to produce the most accurate and balancedreport possible much of this new information should be included in the DraftReport. In deciding whether and in what form to include the new information, weemphasize that most of the new information provided does not undermine the DraftReport�s conclusions. We also have taken into consideration the fact that muchof the information is not supported by any underlying documentation�the NYPDResponse contains primarily assertions of fact without citation. Still, for muchof the new information, there is no reason to question its accuracy or validityand, in such cases, it will simply be added.

Fourth,the NYPD Response alleges certain errors and inconsistencies in the statisticsand other facts included in the Draft Report. In most cases, these errors andinconsistencies are apparently the result of erroneous information contained inNYPD documents relied upon by the contractor in writing the initial version ofthe Draft Report. Regardless, the following point-by-point discussion of theNYPD comments indicates, among other things, instances where it appears thatthese comments have accurately asserted errors of fact and inconsistencies thatshould be corrected in the Draft Report.

**POINT-BY-POINTOGC RESPONSES**

 **I.********INTRODUCTION**

NYPDComment #1 (p. 4; re: p. 6, �1):*The Draft Report states that according tothe NYPD, the use of deadly force by the city�s police officers is no moreprevalent than in other major cities. The NYPD asserts that the use of deadlyforce is substantially lower than in other major cities.*

OGCResponse: **The Draft Report will berevised to add the following statement: According to New York police officials,the use of deadly force by the city�s police officers occurs less than inother major cities, when measured in terms of fatal shootings per 1,000officers.**

NYPDComment #2 (p. 7; re: p. 9, �2):*The NYPD has correctly stated that allCity Council members represent distinct districts. None of the City Councilmembers represent an entire borough. Also, the President of the City Council isthe Public Advocate.*

OGCResponse: **The Draft Report will bechanged to reflect the NYPD�s Comments.**

NYPDComment #3 (p. 7; re: p. 12, �2):*The NYPD offers information about itsnewly developed �Streetwise� cultural diversity curriculum.*

OGCResponse: **The information provided hereby the NYPD is not necessarily relevant to the statements that are being made bythe Commission. The Commission�s statements remain accurate and thisinformation is not required to be added. No change in the Draft Report isnecessary.**

NYPDComment #4 (p. 7; re: p. 14, line 1): *TheNYPD correctly notes that the Commission should amend the 4,000,000 number to400,000 population figure.*

OGCResponse: **The Draft Report will berevised to reflect the correct population figure.**

NYPDComment #5 (p. 7; re: p. 14, �2):*The Draft Report states that the NYPD isone of the largest police departments in the country. The NYPD points out thatthey are at least three times larger than the next largest department.*

OGCResponse: **The Draft Report will berevised to state that the NYPD is the largest police department in the UnitedStates.**

NYPDComment #6 (p. 7; re: p. 15, �2):*The NYPD essentially argues and disagreeswith the Commission�s characterization of the Department�s emphasis onquality of life crimes. The NYPD also notes that quality of life initiatives areroutinely demanded by the communities.*

OGCResponse: **No change to the Draft Reportis necessary.**

NYPDComment #7 (p. 8; re: p.16, �1):*The NYPD has provided updated numbersconcerning crime rates.*

OGCResponse: **The numbers in the Draft Reportare accurate. The NYPD�s updated numbers, however, will be substituted.**

NYPDComment #8 (p. 8; re: pp. 16�17): *The NYPD offers information that provides a more favorable picture ofthe number of civilian complaints the Department has faced and attempts toexplain these numbers.*

OGCResponse: **This NYPD Comment is moredirectly relevant to Chapter 4 where they are addressed.**

NYPDComment #9: (p. 13; re: p. 16, �2):*The main criticism here is that the DraftReport does not reflect the fact that an increasing percentage of cases referredto the NYPD by the CCRB have resulted in disciplinary action.*

OGCResponse: **The NYPD Comment does notcontradict or alter anything stated in the Draft Report. No change in the DraftReport is necessary.**

NYPDComment #10 (p. 15; re: p. 17, �2):*The NYPD is essentially asserting that theCommission has failed to make the NYPD�s defense in this section.*

OGCResponse: **The information presented doesnot contradict any facts in this section of the Draft Report. No change in theDraft Report****is necessary.**

NYPDComment #11 (p. 16; re: p. 17, �3):*The NYPD asserts that this passage wronglyimplies that complaints are increasing and that the NYPD�s programs are new.*

OGCResponse: **The paragraph is accurate andrequires no revision. No change in the Draft Report is necessary.**

NYPDComment #12: (p. 16; re: p. 18, �2):*The NYPD asserts that the Draft Reportmischaracterizes the 48-hour rule.*

OGCResponse: **The statement in this sectionconcerning the 48-hour rule is accurate as drafted. No change in the DraftReport is necessary.**

NYPDComment #13 (p. 17; re: p. 18, �2):*The NYPD asserts that they have respondedto the OGC Response here about bi- or multilingual receptionists in precinctswith large non-English-speaking populations.*

OGCResponse: **While the information providedby the NYPD is interesting, the point raised by the Commission is accurate asdrafted. No change in the Draft Report is necessary. This information will beadded into the Police-Community Relations section as a footnote.**

NYPDComment #13a (p. 17 re: p. 18, �3):*The NYPD points out that the MollenCommission was prompted by the discovery that several officers, not entireprecincts, were selling drugs and beating suspects.*

OGCResponse: **The Draft Report will berevised to state: NYPD officers in several New York precincts were discoveredselling drugs and beating suspects.**

NYPDComment #14 (p. 17; re: p. 19, �1):*The NYPD asserts that the Draft Reportfails to include the Mollen Commission�s strong endorsement of internalreforms that were put in place by the Department. While accurate, this NYPDComment is not related to the point being made in the Draft Report.*

OGCResponse: **The Draft Report is accurateand the proposed insertion by the NYPD is not necessary. No change in the DraftReport is necessary.**

NYPDComment #15 (p. 17; re: p. 23): *The NYPD asserts that the Commission�s discussion of the New YorkAttorney General�s Report fails to include numerous objections raised by theNYPD. Although a number of specific objections are raised, none of them makesany of the Draft Report�s statements incorrect or false.*

OGCResponse: **No change in the Draft Reportis necessary. However, the following footnote will be inserted: Notsurprisingly, the NYPD objects to much of the analysis and conclusions in theAttorney General�s Report.**

**II.RECRUITMENT, SELECTION, AND TRAINING**

NYPDComment #1 (p. 23; re: p. 25, �2):*This NYPD Comment misrepresents the DraftReport, which explicitly notes numerous factors important to effective policing(see, e.g., Commission Report, p. 25). The NYPD Comment is correct that nospecific proposal is made regarding the form of affirmative action.*

OGCResponse: **No change in the Draft Reportis necessary. However, in response to a request by Commissioners, there will bespecific OGC Responses regarding the form of affirmative action that the NYPDmight use added to the Draft Report.**

NYPDComment #2 (p. 24; re: p. 26, �2):*The statistics on pages 11 and 26 of theDraft Report are somewhat inconsistent.*

OGCResponse: **This inconsistency will beeliminated.**

NYPDComment #3 (p. 24; re: p. 26, graph): *TheDraft Report is accurate. If anything, the Draft Report�s numbers are morefavorable to the NYPD than those of the NYPD Comments.*

* *OGCResponse: **No change in the Draft Reportis necessary.**

NYPDComment #4 (p. 24; re: p. 27, �1):*The Draft Report is accurate.*

OGCResponse: **A statement will be addedregarding the representation of recruits of color in the Police Academy.**

NYPDComment #5 (p. 26; re: p. 27, �2):*The Draft Report is correct; the updatednumbers reflected no material change. The statistics included in the NYPDComments do not suggest that �Minorities are appointed to discretionary ranksin greater proportion than their representation in the Department,� e.g., 13%of officers are African American, but only 2.4% of captains are AfricanAmericans. New statistics are included regarding the shorter time for promotionof minorities.*

OGCResponse: **The new information forwardedby the NYPD pointing out the shorter time period for promotion of officers ofcolor and women will be added.**

NYPDComment #6 (p. 29; re: p. 29, �3):*The NYPD Comment suggests that the DraftReport misstates the pass rate for minority takers of the 1999 exam, andincludes new statistics for the October 1999 exam.*

OGCResponse: **The correct minority pass ratefor the January 1999 exam (43.66%) will be substituted and the new informationregarding the October 1999 minority pass rate (68.12%) will be added.**

NYPDComment #7 (p. 29; re: pp. 31 and 32): *ThisNYPD Comment is critical of the Draft Report�s use of statements by a sergeantwithin the NYPD about the Department�s hiring process.*

OGCResponse: **The sworn testimony of thisNYPD insider is not offered to prove the truth of the statement asserted but toreveal the perceptions of officers of color within the NYPD. The Draft Reportclearly provides sufficient detailed information about these processes for areasonable person to reach proper conclusions about the witness� perceptions.No changes are necessary.**

NYPDComment #8 (p. 31; re: p. 32, �2):*This NYPD Comment is semantic.*

OGCResponse: **No change in the Draft Reportis necessary.**

NYPDComment #9 (p. 31; re: p. 33, �1):*This NYPD Comment addresses a sectionregarding college education requirements for officers.*

OGCResponse: **This section of the DraftReport will be revised consistent with the comments of Commissioners.**

NYPDComment #10: (p. 33; re: p. 35, �2):*Thisobjection contains statistics of questionable relevance.*

OGCResponse: **No change in the Draft Reportis necessary.**

NYPDComment #11 (p. 35; re: p. 37): *The Draft Report clearly addresses the 1998 recruitment drive. Thatdrive was the last drive for which the Commission was provided information. TheNYPD Comment contains a detailed account of the 1999 drive.*

OGCResponse: **A section will be addeddescribing the 1999 recruitment drive, which appears to have helped to increasethe level of minority exam filers.**

NYPDComment #12 (p. 50; re: p. 39, �2):*The Draft Report is accurate.*

OGCResponse: **No change in the Draft Reportis necessary.**

NYPDComment #13 (p. 51; re: p. 40, �3):*The NYPD provides more information aboutits Recruitment Drive and points out that the services by the advertising agencywere a gift to the City.*

OGCResponse: A summary of this additional information will be added and the agencyservices will be properly referred to as �a gift to the city.�

NYPDComment #14 (p. 51; re: p. 41, �1):*The NYPD argues that the policecommissioner did not contradict his own statement as a witness claimed.*

OGCResponse: **The text in this section willbe clarified to show that the Department disputes the witness� assertion.**

NYPDComment #15 (p. 51; re: p. 42, ��1,2): *This NYPD Comment addresses thediscussion in the Draft Report regarding proposals for a police officerresidency requirement.*

OGCResponse: **This section of the DraftReport will be revised in accordance with comments on this point byCommissioners.**

NYPDComment #16 (p. 52; re: p. 45, �4):*This NYPD Comment states that theMayor�s proposal to establish a Law Enforcement High School is already inplace. No details are provided.*

OGCResponse: **A footnote will be inserted topoint out that the NYPD states that the proposal is already in place.**

NYPDComment #17 (p. 52; re: p. 48, �3):*The NYPD Comment includes new informationabout the writing of the promotional exams.*

OGCResponse: **Thisnewly presented information will be incorporated into the Draft Report.**

NYPDComment #18 (p. 53; re: p. 49, �3):*The NYPD Comment includes new informationabout the writing of the promotional exams.*

OGCResponse: **A footnote will be added to theDraft Report incorporating the new information.**

NYPDComment #19 (p. 53; re: p. 49, �4):*The NYPD Response�s conclusion thatthere is �no evidence� of bias in the promotion system is contradicted bythe statistics. Additional information is given regarding the criteriaconsidered for promotion.*

OGCResponse: **New information regardingpromotion will be added to the Draft Report.**

NYPDComment #20 (p. 54; re: p. 50, �2):*This NYPD Comment argues against andmisinterprets statements in this section of the Draft Report by claiming thatthese statements imply that police officers are rewarded for abusing the public.*

OGCResponse: **Instead, the statements of thiswitness, who is an officer in the NYPD, are clear about the types of policeconduct that engender incentives and those that do not. No changes arenecessary.**

NYPDComment #21 (p. 54; re: pp. 51, 52): *ThisNYPD Comment disputes the sworn testimony of Commission witnesses, who areemployed by the NYPD.*

OGCResponse: **The Draft Report will clarifythat these statements are unsubstantiated but that they are relevant to anunderstanding of the perceptions and tensions within the NYPD involving officersof color.**

NYPDComment #22 (p. 56; re: p. 53, �1):*The NYPD Comment indicates that theCommission did not request additional data on OEEO complaints The NYPD Commentincludes 1999 data. Why is no data provided for 1997 and 1998? The statisticsprovided are of limited usefulness without more information about each complaintand disposition.*

OGCResponse: **The Commission�s subpoena *ducestecum*issued to the NYPD encompassed this additional data. A footnote willbe added to the Draft Report discussing the 1999 statistics and noting theirlimitations.**

NYPDComment #23 (p. 57; re: p. 53, �1):*This NYPD Comment discusses measures takenby the Department to reduce retaliation for making complaints. These measuresare not particularly strong, and no statistics are provided.*

OGCResponse: **A footnote will be added todiscuss these measures.**

NYPDComment #24 (p. 58; re: p. 53, �1):*The NYPD indicates that such surveys havebeen conducted. This information was not provided to the Commission.*

OGCResponse: **The Report will indicate that,according to the NYPD, �the OEEO has elected to conduct written confidentialinquiries of controlled groups to ascertain if employment discrimination hasoccurred,� but that the results were not provided to the Commission.**

NYPDComment #25 (p. 58; re: p. 55, �2):*The NYPD provides information aboutadditional measures to reduce sexual harassment; none of these measures isparticularly significant.*

OGCResponse: **A listing of these measureswill be added to the Report.**

NYPDComment #26 (p. 60; re: p. 58, �1):*The Draft Report is accurate. TheCommission issued a subpoena duces tecum to the NYPD for the followingdocuments: Any document, including but not limited to, reports, studies,compilations, press releases, orders or special orders, regulations, rules,directives, guidelines, and policy statements generated, issued, and/orcollected by the NYPD relating to the number of harassment and/or discriminationcomplaints based on gender, race, or ethnicity within the NYPD from 1993 to thepresent. The Department agreed to comply with the subpoena and was legallyobligated to submit the requested information.*

OGCResponse: **No change in the Draft Reportis necessary.**

NYPDComment # 27 (p. 60; re: p. 58, �2):*This NYPD Comment contains additionalinformation about training requirements for OEEO investigators.*

OGCResponse: **The new information will besummarized in the Draft Report.**

NYPDComment #28 (p. 60; re: p. 59, �1):*The NYPD includes new information aboutadditional OEEO staffing.*

OGCResponse: **The new information will beadded to the Draft Report.**

NYPDComment #29 (p. 61; re: p. 59, �2):*The Draft Report is accurate.*

OGCResponse: **No change in the Draft Reportis necessary.**

NYPDComment #30 (p. 61; re: p. 59, �2):*The NYPD Comment contains alternativeexplanations for an increase in complaints to outside agencies.*

OGCResponse: **These alternate explanationswill be summarized in the Draft Report.**

NYPDComment #31 (p. 61; re: p. 60, �1):*This NYPD Comment states that noinformation was requested on this point. Otherwise, the Draft Report isaccurate.*

OGCResponse: **No change in the Draft Reportis necessary.**

NYPDComment #32 (p. 62; re: p. 60, �2):*The NYPD Comment states that noinformation was requested on this point. OEEO reports, from which this data maybe culled, were clearly covered by the Commission�s subpoena duces tecumissued to the NYPD. The NYPD Comment includes additional statistics regardingdisposition of OEEO complaints; however, these statistics are of littlerelevance without knowing the basis of the claims.*

OGCResponse: **TheDraft Report will be revised to include a discussion of the new statistics.**

NYPDComment #33 (p. 62; re: p. 62, �1):*The Draft Report is accurate. Some newstatistics are provided in the NYPD Comment.*

OGCResponse: **TheDraft Report will be revised to include a discussion of the new statistics.**

NYPDComment #34 (p. 63; re: p. 62, �3):*The NYPD updates information contained inthe Draft Report.*

OGCResponse: **The updated information will beincluded in the Report.**

NYPDComment #35 (p. 63; re: pp. 64�67): *TheNYPD mentions the �Visiting Professors Program� and �Behavioral ScienceAdvisory Board,� but no detail is given.*

OGCResponse: **No change in the Draft Reportis necessary.**

NYPDComment #36 (p. 63; re: p. 65): *The NYPD provides some new information about the training materials,including information about different forms of training.*

OGCResponse: **Althoughthe Draft Report contains a fair and accurate description of NYPD diversitytraining, new information contained in the NYPD Comment will be added.**

NYPDComment #37 (p. 67; re: p. 66): *The Draft Report is accurate.*

OGCResponse: **No change in the Draft Reportis necessary.**

NYPDComment #38 (p. 67; re: p. 66, �2):*The Draft Report is accurate.*

OGCResponse: **No change in the Draft Reportis necessary.**

NYPDComments #39 (p. 67; re: pp. 66�68): *TheDraft Report is accurate.*

OGCResponse: **No change in the Draft Reportis necessary.**

NYPDComment #40 (p. 68; re: p. 68): *The NYPD claims that references to assimilation are no longer includedin the training materials.*

OGCResponse: **A clarification will be addedin the text that the �assimilation� references existed in the trainingmaterials until May 1998.**

NYPDComment #41 (p. 68; re: p. 68): *The NYPD offers additional information about the development of trainingmaterials, and claims regarding their specific purpose. These appear to be expost facto rationalizations of materials that contain ridiculous racialstereotypes.*

OGCResponse: **No change in the Draft Reportis necessary.**

NYPDComment #42 (p. 69; re: pp. 68�69): *TheNYPD Comment claims that negative references to certain ethnic groups are nolonger included in the training materials.*

OGCResponse: **A clarification will be addedin the text that the negative references existed in the training materials untilMay 1998.**

NYPDComment #43 (p. 69; re: p. 69): *The Draft Report is accurate.*

OGCResponse: **No change in the Draft Reportis necessary.**

NYPDComment #44 (p. 69; re: p. 70): *The Draft Report is accurate.*

OGCResponse: **No change in the Draft Reportis necessary.**

NYPDComment #45 (p. 69; re: p. 70): *This comment focuses on a criticism by Norman Siegel about the limitedinformation about Dominicans contained in NYPD training materials.*

OGCResponse: **Mr. Siegel�s comments areaccurate. The Report will be revised, however, to indicate that, according tothe NYPD, all recruit officers are �require[d] . . . to purchase and read *NewImmigrants in NY*(Foner, 1988), which includes an entire chapter on theDominican immigrant (27 pages of text).**

NYPDComment #46 (p. 70; re: p. 71, �1):*The Draft Report is accurate*.

OGCResponse: **No change in the Draft Reportis necessary.**

NYPDComment #47 (p. 70; re: p. 72, �1):*The NYPD alleges that the Draft Reportalleges inconsistency without support.*

OGCResponse: **The first paragraph on page 72of the Draft Report will be revised to read: � . . . the materials areinternally inconsistent because they send a confusing message�should officerstreat each individual differently according to the training he or she hasreceived about the individual�s ethnicity, or should the officer treateveryone the same?�**

NYPDComment #48 (p. 70; re: p. 73): *The NYPD states that the Draft Report expresses the need for �culturaland language sensitivity training,� but fails to include the currentcurriculum consisting of the �Interactive Language Workshop.� In addition,the Response points out that the NYPD provides all recruits with a book ofSpanish phrases at Department expense.*

OGCResponse: **A footnote will be added toinclude this new information.**

NYPDComment #49 (p. 70; re: p. 74, �1):*The NYPD takes issue with a witness�sclaim that instructors are not qualified and some only get one day of trainingprior to teaching.*

OGCResponse: **The Draft Report will berevised to add that the NYPD maintains that each Police Academy instructor hascompleted a two-week method of instruction class and is certified by New YorkState Division of Criminal Justice Services, Bureau of Municipal Police.**

NYPDComment #50 (p. 70; re: p. 74, �2):*The NYPD attempts to explain a witness�sobservation that officer trainers in an audience for a hate crimes seminarappeared to be unfamiliar with the material presented, by stating that thisseminar was a new training initiative, and the material was being presented tothe audience for the first time.*

OGCResponse:**The witness�s statement willbe eliminated.**

NYPDComment #51 (p. 71; re: p. 74, �2):*The NYPD notes that the Draft Report failsto point out that all officers, including veterans, have been trained in�Verbal Judo, which is essentially a course built on respect�; further, theNYPD claims that there is a cultural awareness component in every trainingcourse and that the �NYPD has conducted training courses for new promotees formay years.�*

OGCResponse: **The Draft Report will berevised to address these points.**

NYPDComment #52 (p. 71; re: p. 74, �3):*This comment contains new informationregarding the role of minority community members and �specialists in variousethnic and cultural groups within the City� in the preparation of trainingmaterials.*

OGCResponse: **This information will beincorporated into the Draft Report.**

NYPDComment #53 (p. 73; re: p. 75, �2):*The NYPD offers additional informationabout the Streetwise program.*

OGCResponse: **A sentence will be added to theDraft Report explaining that almost 3,000 newly graduated officers in the June1998, February 1999, and April 1999 recruit classes received the �Streetwise:Language, Culture and Police Work in New York City� training, which includesrole plays, videotapes, and language-training audio tapes.**

NYPDComment #54 (p. 74; re: p. 77, �2):*The NYPD argues that characterizations ofNYPD diversity training efforts as inadequate by Department critics are withoutfactual support.*

OGCResponse: **This section of the DraftReport includes the perceptions of community representatives who are familiarwith NYPD training efforts. No change to the Draft Report is necessary.**

NYPDComment #55 (p. 74; re: pp. 78�79): *Thiscomment lists types of sexual harassment training provided to officers, but doesnot make clear whether this training is the same as or different from thetraining listed on pages 79 to 80 of the Draft Report.*

OGCResponse: **No change in the Draft Reportis necessary.**

NYPDComment #56 (p. 74; re: pp. 80�81): *TheNYPD provides information about the ethnic and gender makeup of the BehavioralScience Department of the Police Academy and the qualifications of certainmembers of the academy.*

OGCResponse: **The Draft Report will berevised to discuss the ethnic and gender makeup of the academy�s BehavioralScience Department, noting that minority staff in this Department is far greaterthan in the Police Academy generally.**

***[NYPD Comments ##57�66 (NYPDComments pages 76� 81) See Response to Chapter 5]***

NYPDComment #67 (p. 81; re: p. 89): *The NYPD discusses measures already taken by the NYPD to implementcertain suggestions of the Mayor�s Task Force Report.*

OGCResponse: **The Draft Report will berevised to indicate what new information has been provided by the NYPD regardingthe progress it has made in implementing the Mayor�s Task Force OGC Responseslisted on pages 89 to 90.**

NYPDComment #68 (p. 83, re: p. 90): *This comment is argumentative.*

OGCResponse: **No change in the Draft Reportis necessary.**

**III.POLICE-COMMUNITY RELATIONS**

NYPDComment #1 (p. 84; re: p. 94, fn. 412): *TheNYPD asserts that it provided all requested information to the Commission. TheNYPD misses the point of footnote 412. Footnote 412 states that the informationprovided by the NYPD lacked specificity.*

OGCResponse: **No change in the Draft Reportis required. However, the Draft Report will be revised to reflect newinformation submitted by the NYPD.**

NYPDComment #2 (p. 84; re: p. 97, �3):*The NYPD has provided additional andupdated information concerning Precinct Community Councils. The NYPD Commentdoes not contradict any information contained in the Report.*

OGCResponse: **The Draft Report is accurate.No change in the Draft Report is necessary. The information provided here and inAttachment K by the NYPD would seem to show the NYPD�s commitment to thisprogram. The new information provided by the NYPD will be addressed below wherecertain OGC Responses concerning Precinct Community Councils are discussed.**

NYPDComment #3 (p. 85; re: p. 99, �2):*The NYPD has provided additionalinformation concerning the Model Block Program. The information does notcontradict anything in the Draft Report. The NYPD Comments provided here by theNYPD appear factual in nature and could be used by the Commission to addinformation to the Model Block section.*

OGCResponse: **While no change in the DraftReport is necessary, some of the information provided on pages 85�86 of theNYPD Comments will be added to the Draft Report.**

NYPDComment #4 (p. 86; re: pp. 102�03): *TheNYPD asserts that the Commission�s criticisms of the CPR program must beviewed in light of the purported drop in the number of civilian complaints. TheCommission�s points in the Draft Report are not contradicted by thisinformation. Moreover, there is no way to determine at this juncture whether thenumbers are accurate or are being accurately portrayed. The Draft Report remainsaccurate without change. The NYPD also attaches its Code of ProfessionalStandards at Attachment L. Nothing in this �Code� contradicts anything thatthe Commission has stated in this section.*

OGCResponse: **No change is necessary.**

NYPDComment #5 (p. 86; re: p. 103, �2):*The Draft Report states that there was a99% acceptability rating in testing for the CPR program. The NYPD asserts thatthe number is slightly more than 98%. Regardless, the Commission�s substantivepoint remains accurate. The NYPD also provides additional information aboutdisciplinary actions taken in the cases of NYPD CPR test failures. Thisinformation is new; however it does not change the Commission�s substantivepoint.*

OGCResponse: **The Draft Report will berevised to substitute �slightly over 98%� for 99%. The new informationprovided by the NYPD will be added in a footnote.**

NYPDComment #6 (p. 87; re: p. 105, �2):*TheNYPD states that they have drafted a procedures manual for Precinct CommunityCouncils. This was one of the comments discussed in the Draft Report.*

OGCResponse: **A footnote will be added inthis section that states: Since the hearing in this matter, the NYPD has adopteda mandatory polices and procedures manual for Precinct Community Councils thataddress many of the points raised by the Mayor�s Task Force. No changes to thetext are necessary.**

NYPDComment #7 (p. 87; re: p. 106, �4):*This NYPD Comment discusses the YouthAcademy. No new information is presented here and no changes are necessary.*

OGCResponse: **No change in the Draft Reportis necessary.**

NYPDComment #8 (p. 87; re: p. 107, �1):*This NYPD Comment provides informationconcerning some preliminary steps that the Department is taking relating to roleplaying interactions between youth and the police. Nothing in this NYPD Commentcontradicts anything in the Draft Report.*

OGCResponse: **No change in the Draft Reportis necessary. However, a footnote will be added to the Draft Report to addressthe post-hearing, preliminary steps by the NYPD relating to police/youthrelations.**

NYPDComment #9: (p. 87; re: p. 107, �2):*This NYPD Comment lists several newinitiatives taken by the NYPD in the community policing area.*

OGCResponse: **While no change in the DraftReport is necessary, the Draft Report will be revised to add the informationhere into the text since these represent new community policing initiativestaken by the NYPD since the hearing.**

NYPDComment #10 (p. 90; re: p. 108, �2):*This NYPD Comment does not provide anyrelevant information for this section.*

OGCResponse: **No change in the Draft Reportis necessary.**

**IV.MONITORING OF CIVILIAN COMPLAINTS**

NYPDComment #1 (p. 110; re: p. 117, �1):*This technical NYPD Comment concerning thestructure of the NYPD appears to be correct.*

OGCResponse: **The first sentence of theparagraph will be modified to read: �The New York City Police Department andexternal oversight entities share. . . .�**

NYPDComment #2 (pp. 110, 112 n.476, 114; re: pp. 117, �1,119 n.476, 121): *Although the NYPD assertsthat data concerning IAB and the Commission to Combat Police Corruption werenever requested from the Department, the subpoena duces tecum issued to theMayor encompassed �[a]ny document . . . relating to allegations of excessiveforce, harassment or mistreatment of residents of New York City by [NYPD]officers, broken down by race, ethnicity, and gender of officer(s) andcomplainants.�*

OGCResponse: **The Draft Report will berevised to add to the discussion in footnote 476 some mention of the specificattempt by the Commission to obtain this information from the Mayor�s office.**

NYPDComment #3 (p. 111; re: p. 118, �2):*This objection correctly notes that a newunit within the NYPD has become responsible for investigation of retaliationcomplaints.*

OGCResponse: **The sentence beginning at thebottom of page 118 will be modified to read: �The NYPD has authorized itsEmployee Relations Section to investigate allegations of retaliation. . . .�**

NYPDComment #4 (p. 112; re: p. 120, �1):*The Department�s contention that theCommission never sought information concerning the role of IAB is contrary toour understanding.*

OGCResponse: **Addressed above in response toNYPD Comment #2.**

NYPDComment #5 (p. 113; re: p. 120): *The Department appears to be correct that Mayor Giuliani authorizedcreation of a Commission to Combat Police Corruption (CCPC). However, theMayor�s Office was asked to provide information on this subject, butapparently declined to do so.*

OGCResponse: **Immediately following footnote481, a sentence will be added, stating: �The Mayor, however, vetoed thatlegislation.� Following that sentence, the following footnote will be added todiscuss the CCPC:**

**�Althoughthere has been no completely independent oversight of IAB, a mayoral commissiondoes review IAB procedures. In 1995, Mayor Giuliani created the Commission toCombat Police Corruption (CCPC) to assess the Department�s anti-corruptionefforts. Although critics have criticized the CCPC as in its most recent annualreport, the CCPC gave IAB only a �passing grade� in investigating officermisconduct. See N.Y. L.J. at 1 (Nov. 17, 1999). More recently, the CCPC foundthat although IAB did a �reasonably good job� of investigating misconduct,IAB was an undesirable assignment that officers were �anxious� to leave. See�IAB Cops Can�t Wait to Get Out, Study Says,� *N.Y.Daily News*, Mar. 24, 2000, p. 7. Although the CCPC has been criticized asineffective, the Department appears to have been somewhat responsive to CCPCreports. For example, in response to a CCPC report documenting theDepartment�s failure to punish officers who lie under oath, the Departmentpromised to terminate officers who lie. See �See-No-Evil Officers ShouldPay,� *New York Times*, Aug. 24, 1997,sec. 4, p. 3. Finally, the last two sentences of this paragraph that currentlyfollow footnote 481 will be removed.**

NYPDComment #6 (p. 114; re: p. 122, �1):*The NYPD incorrectly states that theCommission never requested information concerning OCD and IAB investigations.The information that the NYPD has provided in its response, however, isconsistent with the Report.*

OGCResponse: **The following additionalinformation will be added to the Report in a footnote at the end of the firstparagraph on p. 122: �Although the Mayor�s office initially declined toprovide the Commission with additional information concerning OCDinvestigations, some information has been provided to the Commission followingthe initial drafting of this Report. In particular, the Department noted thatabout 25% of civilian complaints are referred to the OCD for review. After beingreferred to the subject officer�s borough command, the subject officer�scommanding officer is then usually designated to conduct an investigation of thecomplaint. The NYPD also contends that dispositional data for all OCD claims iskept by the Department. This data, however, have not been provided to theCommission.�**

NYPDComment #7 (p. 118; re: p. 125, �2):*This objection concerns a quote by thePublic Advocate citing a 44% increase in civilian complaints from 1992 to 1998without noting the increased numbers of police officers from 1992 to 1998,suggesting that the rise in complaints may be attributable to the increased sizeof the police force. However, the Report cites directly to Mayor**Giuliani�stestimony on the increased size of the police force.*

OGCResponse: **No change is necessary;however, a footnote will be added to acknowledge the increased size of thepolice force over the same period of time.**

NYPDComment #8 (pp. 118�19; re: p. 125): *TheNYPD contends here that citation to the high number of complaints is unfairbecause most were not substantiated.*

OGCResponse: **No changes are necessary.**

NYPDComment #9 (p. 119; re: p. 126, �2):*This objection to the discussion of the48-hour rule is baseless and fails to address the fundamental objection to therule, that it gives officers the opportunity to get their stories straight.*

OGCResponse: **No changes are necessary.**

NYPDComment #10 (p. 121; re: p. 128, �2):*This objection is directed to the statement that the NYPD rarelydisciplines officers.*

OGCResponse: **The statement is the sworntestimony of a single witness under a section of the Report concerningperceptions of police misconduct. A footnote will be added to explain that theofficers involved in the Diallo shooting have been involved in previous shootingincidents, yet, according to NYPD records, that prior to the Diallo shooting,none of the officers involved ever received charges and specifications or werethe subject of any formal discipline.**

NYPDComment #11 (p. 122; re: p. 129, �1):*This objection is to the �factors involved in police misconduct,�which are provided through the sworn testimony of witnesses in a section of theReport that concerns perceptions of police misconduct.*

OGCResponse: **The Draft Report will berevised to emphasize that these factors represent the collective perceptions ofknowledgeable witnesses.**

NYPDComment #12 (p. 125, n.521; re: p. 133, n.521): *TheNYPD objection that the officer receiving a civilian complaint must report it tothe CCRB, if the complaint falls within CCRB jurisdiction, misses the point ofthis footnote, which is that it is still the officer who makes the initialdetermination whether the CCRB has jurisdiction.*

OGCResponse: **The footnote is entirelyaccurate, but can be clarified easily. The footnote will be revised by changingthe period to a semicolon at the end of the last substantive sentence of thisfootnote, and add the following text: �if the officer determines that thecomplaint is within the jurisdiction of the CCRB, then he must forward thatcomplaint directly to the CCRB.�**

NYPDComment #13 (p. 127; re: p. 134, �2):*This objection lacks substance, as the information the NYPD seeks toprovide is squarely within the text of the Report.*

OGCResponse: **No change is necessary.**

NYPDComment #14 (p. 130; re: p. 137, �2):*The NYPD is correct that mediated complaints remain on the officer�srecord as mediated, with the allegations removed.*

OGCResponse: **That information, however, isalready contained in the Report, at n.534. No change is necessary.**

NYPDComment #15 (p. 131; re: p. 138, �1):*The NYPD correctly notes that the CCRB discontinued conciliation ofcomplaints last year.*

OGCResponse: **Although the Report does notcontain any factual inaccuracies, the following clarification will be added atthe top of footnote 538, after the �Ibid.� cite: �The CCRB suspended theconciliation process on May 12, 1999.�**

NYPDComment #16 (p. 133; re: p. 140, �2):*This NYPD objection incorrectly states that the Report discusses theCCRB�s adjudication of cases not within its jurisdiction. In fact, the Reportstates exactly the opposite�when the CCRB concludes that an officer hascommitted misconduct not within its jurisdiction, the Report states, thatinformation is forwarded to the Department.*

OGCResponse: **No change is necessary.**

NYPDComment #17 (p. 134; re: p. 134, �2):*This objection concerns the Draft Report�s description of a PoliceDepartment team making comments regarding disciplinary action. The descriptionis based on information from the Public Advocate�s Interim Report.*

OGCResponse: **A statement will be added toshow the different description provided by the NYPD.**

NYPDComment #18 (p. 135; re: p. 142, �1):*The NYPD contends that the description of the DAO as advocate for theofficers is misleading. The Report correctly states that the DAO is charged withmaking sure that charges filed against an officer are legally sufficient.However, the Report can be misinterpreted because the use of the term�advocate� might suggest (incorrectly) that the DAO actually representsofficers when charges are filed against them. The Department also asserts thatPatrol Guide section 118-05 has been superseded by Patrol Guide section 206-05,but the Department did not provide that section with its Response, so it isimpossible to evaluate the validity of this assertion.*

OGCResponse: **The phrase �acts as advocatefor the officer since it� will be deleted from the first sentence in thisparagraph on page 142.**

NYPDComment #19 (p. 136; re: p. 143, �1):*The NYPD contends that it no longer reinvestigates substantiatedcomplaints, due to the improved nature of CCRB investigations; however, the NYPDhas not provided any documentation to back up this assertion.*

OGCResponse: **The following text to footnote557 will be added: �Following the initial drafting of this Report, the NYPDinformed the Commission that the Department discontinued its practice ofreinvestigating substantiated complaints in September of 1999. The Departmentcontends that this change in policy is due to the improved quality of CCRBinvestigations. The Department, however, did not produce any documents tosubstantiate these contentions.�**

NYPDComment #20 (p. 136; p. 143, �3):*The NYPD objection seeks to clarify theofficials responsible for conducting administrative trials of officers chargedwith misconduct.*

OGCResponse: **This paragraph will beclarified. Following the first sentence on page 143,****�****3, the following additional text will be inserted to state: �The DeputyCommissioner, Trials also conducts formal disciplinary hearings. Once a trialhas been conducted, those findings are reviewed by the Department.� Inaddition the end of next sentence, will be modified to read: �the first deputycommissioner reviews the findings.� Finally, the fourth sentence will beedited to read: �In all cases, the commissioner has final authority todetermine the discipline that will be imposed, if any.�**

NYPDComment #21 (p. 137; re: p. 144, �2):*This NYPD Comment by the Department seeks to introduce new informationconcerning the Department�s cooperation with the CCRB.*

OGCResponse: **Although some of theinformation in this NYPD Comment is, in essence, contained in the Report, muchof the new information is not. In order to reflect fully the steps that theDepartment has taken to cooperate with the CCRB, the following footnote will beadded at the end of the first sentence on page 158: �Following the initialdrafting of this Report, the Department informed the Commission that it hadundertaken additional steps to assist the CCRB. In particular, the Departmenthas assigned a police Lieutenant to serve as a full-time liaison to the CCRB,the Department has instituted a four-day training program for newly assignedCCRB investigators, and CCRB investigators now participate in the InternalInvestigations course that IAB conducts.�**

NYPDComment #22 (p. 138; re: p. 145, �2):*This NYPD Comment provides redone statistics for 1996 CCRBinvestigations.*

OGCResponse: **On page 145 and the top of 146,the percentages for full investigations, ADR, administratively closed, andtruncated will be changed to: 27.4%, 13.7%, 47.0%, and 11.0%, respectively.**

NYPDComment #23 (p. 140; re: p. 147): *This NYPD Comment contends that 81 substantiated complaints from 1995were not referred to the Department until 1998. The Department does not offerany documentation to support this assertion. This assertion, even if true, doesnot undermine anything in the Report.*

OGCResponse: **No change is necessary.**

NYPDComment #24 (p. 143; re: p. 150, �1):*The Department contends that this paragraph contains incorrectstatistics. The data contained in the Report, however, are taken directly fromthe Department�s own CCRB statistical analysis.*

OGCResponse: **No change is necessary.**

NYPDComment #25 (p. 144; re: p. 150, �2):*This NYPD Comment that the Department takes strong measures againstofficers guilty of misconduct is simply argumentative; nothing in the Report isincorrect or misleading.*

OGCResponse: **No change is necessary.**

NYPDComment #26 (p. 144; re: p. 151, �3):*This comment clarifies that the percentages of dismissals based onstatute of limitations grounds were for closed cases, not for all substantiatedcomplaints.*

OGCResponse: **At the bottom of page 151, andthe top of page 152, the Draft Report will change �substantiated complaintsreferred to the Department� and �substantiated referrals� to �casesclosed by the Department.�**

NYPDComment #27 (p. 145; re: p. 152, �2):*This NYPD Comment states that the Report�s statistics are incorrect.According to the semiannual CCRB reports, however, the Department�s statisticsappear, for the most part, to be incorrect. The numbers in the Report matchexactly the Department�s own data from its CCRB Statistical Summary, which wasprepared last year by the DAU. The Department has offered no documents thatcontradict that report.*

OGCResponse: **No change is necessary.**

NYPDComment #28 (p. 150; re: p. 157, �1):*The NYPD states that the Report should contain additional detailsconcerning disposition of substantiated complaints.*

OGCResponse: **Material will be added tofootnote 610 to reflect the fact that the low percentage of cases disciplined in1996 and 1997 may have been the result of poor investigations by the CCRB beforeit improved its investigations. Text will be added to the end of the footnote:�For much of the first 2 years of the Giuliani administration, the Departmentdisciplined officers based on complaints substantiated by the �old� CCRBthat was part of the Department. The low percentage of cases in which disciplineimposed over the next 2 years may have been caused, in part, by untimely andrelatively poor quality investigations from the newly independent CCRB.�**

NYPDComment #29 (p. 150; re: p. 157, �3):*The NYPD objects to the assertion that the police commissioner does notexplain cases in which no discipline is imposed. *

OGCResponse: **Most of this objection lackssubstance, but the Report should be modified to reflect the Department�s newpractice of providing disposition data to the CCRB. Furthermore, the Report, innote 622, acknowledges the agreement to provide the CCRB with information. Inthe interest of removing any possible objection to this part of the Report,however, this fact will be mentioned earlier on in the Report. At the end offootnote 611, the new text will be added to state: �During 1999, however, theDepartment did initiate the practice of providing the CCRB with disposition datapertaining to the specific penalties imposed on officers with complaintssubstantiated against them.�**

NYPDComment #30 (p. 151; re: p. 158, �1):*This objection notes new data for disciplined officers.*

OGCResponse: **At the end of footnote 613,additional text will be inserted to reflect more recent figures: �Followingthe initial drafting of this Report, the Department informed the Commission thatthe percentage of cases in which discipline was imposed rose significantly againin 1999. According to Department statistics, 292 out of 482 officers (60.5%)received some form of discipline in cases closed last year.�**

NYPDComment #31 (p. 152; re: p. 159): *The NYPD states that the Draft Report should reflect that the policecommissioner was responsible for creation of the DAU within the DepartmentAdvocate�s office.*

OGCResponse: **In paragraph 1, page 159, thefourth sentence will be revised to read: �During the same year, the policecommissioner created a Disciplinary Assessment Unit (DAU) to coordinate thedisciplinary system and act as liaison to the CCRB.� **

NYPDComment #32 (p. 153; re: p. 160, �2):*The NYPD objects to the Draft Report�s statement that the DAO oftenfails to discipline officers in substantiated cases. The objection provides newdata suggesting that discipline is imposed more than half the time; however, theNYPD does not contend that the numbers contained in the Report are incorrect.*

OGCResponse: **Footnote 621 will be revised toreflect the new information. �This was the most recent half-year period forwhich data were available during the initial drafting of this Report. Since thattime, the Department has provided the Commission with data stating that morethan 60% (292 of 482) of closed cases in 1999 resulted in some form ofdiscipline for the officer. Over the last several years, therefore, theDepartment has shown significant improvement in prosecution of misconductcases.�**

NYPDComment #33 (p. 154; re: p. 161, �2):*The Department contention is without merit. Since a commissionerdesignee sits on every CCRB panel, it seems likely that the commissionerdesignee is concurring in at least a majority of substantiated dispositions.Moreover, the Department has offered no evidence to the contrary.*

OGCResponse: **No change is necessary.**

NYPDComment #34 (p. 158; re: p. 165, �2):*This objection concerns an �unsupported allegation from a Commissionhearing witness.� The statement is not offered to prove that this particularincident occurred, but rather to describe the types of complaints that promptelected officials and community leaders to express concerns about theimpartiality of the CCRB.*

OGCResponse: **A statement will be added torefer to this particular anecdote as an unsubstantiated, second-hand account ofan event. **

NYPDComment #35 (pp. 159�60; re: pp. 166�67): *TheNYPD suggests that in that case, the Department dismissed the substantiatedcharge without even interviewing the subject officer. The Department does notoffer any documentation to support this assertion. *

OGCResponse: **No changes are necessary.**

NYPDComment #36 (p. 164; re: p. 171, �1):*The NYPD contends that the statement that an investigation mechanismindependent from the Department would minimize the likelihood of the NYPDmishandling or destroying evidence of police misconduct is simply an unfoundedassertion by an NYPD critic. They fail to point out that this �critic� is anNYPD officer testifying under oath. The NYPD then asserts, withoutdocumentation, that CCRB investigators gather all evidence of police misconductand keep all originals in their files and send only copies to the NYPD. *

OGCResponse: **TheDraft Report will be revised to more fully identify Lt. Adams and to refer tothe NYPD assertion concerning the retention of original evidence by CCRBinvestigators.**

**V.********STOP,QUESTION, AND FRISK**

NYPDComment #1 (p. 76; re: p. 82): *The NYPD argues that the Draft Report fails to provide evidence for theassertion that NYPD�s training fails to instill respect for constitutionalprocedures with regard to stop and frisk.*

OGCResponse: **No change in the Draft Reportis necessary.**

NYPDComment #2 (p. 77; re: p. 83): *This objection claims that NYPD training materials stress the need forbalance between personal safety and individual rights and is not tilted, asalleged in the Draft Report, toward personal safety.*

OGCResponse: **No change in the Draft Reportis necessary.**

NYPDComment #3 (p. 77; re: p. 83): *The NYPD contends that the quoted material is from a study guide, notthe NYPD Patrol Guide.*

OGCResponse: **The citation will be changed.The NYPD does not deny that this study guide is in standard use, so the point isunchanged.**

NYPDComment #4 (p. 77; re: p. 84): *This objection concerns the Draft Report�s implication that the listedfactors provide grounds for reasonable suspicion which the Patrol Guide does notdo.*

OGCResponse: **No such implication is made;therefore, no change in the Draft Report is necessary. **

NYPDComment #5 (p. 78; re: p. 85): *The NYPD correctly notes that the wrong court is cited in the text ofthe Draft Report while the footnote is correct.*

OGCResponse:**Thereference in the text to the Court of Appeals will be changed to AppellateDivision.**

NYPDComment #6 (p. 78; re: p. 85): *This NYPD Comment states that the material mentioned as appearing in theLegal Bureau Bulletins is wrongly cited.*

OGCResponse: **The Draft Report will berevised to cite the material as follows: (for the first quote) New York CityPolice Department Legal Bureau, Street Encounters, NYP 017631; (for the secondquote) NYP 017632.**

NYPDComment #7 (p. 78; re: p. 86): *This objection concerns a statement in the Draft Report, which statesthat it is unclear when officers must attend In-Tactraining. The NYPD maintains that in fact all officers must attend In-Tac, whichsupplanted borough-based training in 1996. Also, the lesson plans quoted makethe point that police officers must make quick decisions while judges maydeliberate.*

OGCResponse: **The first paragraph on page 86will be revised to state that In-Tac training is mandatory for all officersunder designated commands. No other change is necessary.**

NYPDComment #8 (p. 79; re: p. 87): *The NYPD claims that the Commission uses one episode to indict thegeneral system of training in legal standards.*

OGCResponse: **No change in the Draft Reportis necessary. **

NYPDComment #9 (p. 104; re: p. 181): *The response states that the Draft Report discusses the challengingdilemma of balancing individual rights and government duties but does not factorthis into the remainder of the Draft Report.*

OGCResponse: **No change in the Draft Reportis necessary. **

NYPDComment #10 (p. 104; re: p. 181): *The Commission is accused of using �numerous instances ofopinion-based, superficial analysis and defamatory, unsubstantiated anecdotes�in the Report. Also, the response alleges that the Report fails to consider the opinion of some criminal justice experts whoconsider the NYPD an example of proper policing. Examples of these expertopinions were not provided.*

OGCResponse: **A footnote will be added thatsome experts have considered the NYPD an example of proper policing, includingappropriate citations.**

NYPDComment #11 (p. 105; re: pp. 182�89): *TheNYPD argues that the standard for proper stop and frisk actions is unclear andthat the Draft Report is unclear on the subject as well.*

OGCResponse: **A footnote will be inserted,stating that some, such as Governor Pataki and former New York Supreme CourtJudge Harold Rothwax do consider current stop and frisk law unclear, but thatthe latest U.S. Supreme Court decision on the stop and frisk doctrine wasunanimous, not indicative of an unclear doctrine.**

NYPDComment #12 (p. 105; re: p. 183): *The NYPD argues that the Equal Protection Clause has no bearing on theTerry analysis.*

OGCResponse: **The first sentence beginning�The Equal Protection Clause . . .� will be deleted. In the second sentencebeginning �Although neither the Fourth . . .� replace �Constitution�will be substituted for �Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.�**

NYPDComment #13 (p. 106; re: p. 185): *The NYPD states that a quotation in the Draft Report improperly cites alaw review article and represents the quoted material as fact rather thanopinion.*

OGCResponse: **The sentence beginning �Whenpolice officers are permitted to rely heavily on race� will be replaced with�While Oneonta permits police officers to use race as a factor in establishingreasonable suspicion, such reliance creates the potential for police abuse. Although this permissible use of race as an identifying characteristic serves asa necessary and efficient means for police to narrow their investigativeefforts, police often lower their standards of investigation when a suspect hasbeen described as a minority, thus intruding upon a greater number ofindividuals who meet the racial description than if the suspect had beendescribed as white.� The following citation will be inserted: �Developmentsin the Law�Race and the Criminal Process,� Section III: RacialDiscrimination on the Beat: Extending the Racial Critique to Police Conduct, *HarvardLaw Review*, 1988, pp. 1472, 1505. The Sack citation of the same materialwill then be inserted.**

NYPDComment #14 (p. 106; re: p. 187): *This objection argues that the sentence beginning �Likewise, New YorkCourts . . .� has no cite and improperly states the law on the use of lessintrusive means of assuring safety.*

OGCResponse: **The sentence will be deleted.**

NYPDComment #15 (p. 106; re: p. 189): *The NYPD argues that the Draft Report incorrectly states that the degreeof articulable suspicion must increase during a street encounter when the properrule is that the requisite level must exist at the time enhanced police actionis taken.*

OGCResponse: **A simple modification will bemade in the Draft Report text to clarify that the standard is that the degree ofintrusion must be in relation to the degree of articulable suspicion at the timeof the intrusion and that any increased intrusion requires an increased level ofarticulable suspicion.**

NYPDComment #16 (p. 106; re: p. 190): *The NYPD states that the Commission should state that the NYPD rule onwho may be stopped and frisked is above the requirements of the law.*

OGCResponse: **A footnote will be inserted,stating that the NYPD standard is above the Constitutional requirement.**

NYPDComment #17 (p. 107; re: p. 191): *The NYPD maintains that the UF-250 form has been mandated since 1964,not 1986 as stated in the Report.*

OGCResponse: **A footnote will be inserted,stating that the Department has asserted that the UF-250 form has been mandatorysince 1964 and was amended in 1973, but the earliest written reference that theCommission has found on the form is from 1986. Also begin the paragraph textwith �The number of UF-250 forms . . .� eliminating the language before thecomma.**

NYPDComment #18 (p. 107; re: p. 191): *This objection claims that the DraftReport failed to use the UF-250 tabulations from the database, which are moreaccurate than the April 1999 memorandum from the Central Records Division. Thisfailure is indicative of sloppy methodology by the Commission.*

OGCResponse: **A footnote will be added thatthe use of the NYPD�s suggested information does not change the fact of anincrease in UF-250 filings. The source of the NYPD data is unclear since thedatabase contained only information for 1998. The database also uses a differentsystem of tabulation than the data previously used. This makes a 10-year studyinaccurate, as 1997 to 1998 would show an increase that is due to methodologychange. The footnote will also make clear that the number used in the graph maycontain duplicate filings as no system was in place prior to 1998 to determineduplicate filings.**

NYPDComment #19 (p. 109; re: p. 192): *The NYPD objects to the Commission�s assertion, that many stops areunreported, claiming that it should be explained that this is because not allstops require the filing of form UF-250.*

OGCResponse: **The Draft Report will berevised with the insertion of a definition of �unreported stops� as thosefor which a UF-250 should have been filed according to NYPD guidelines but wasnot.**

NYPDComment #20 (p. 109; re: p. 193): *This objection argues that two critics of NYPD conduct cited in theDraft Report make claims that lack evidence and that a more accurate method ofdetermining the behavior of officers would have been to survey a random sampleof officers.*

OGCResponse: **No change in the Draft Reportis necessary. **

NYPDComment #21 (p. 109; re: p. 193): *This NYPD Comment states that the reliability of UF-250 data isquestionable if utilized in ways other than the original intent.*

OGCResponse: **A footnote will be inserted,noting that the Department has stated that data from the UF-250 forms may beinadequate for purposes other than those originally intended.**

NYPDComment #22 (p. 110; re: p. 194): *The NYPD argues that the Department does not maintain quotas on thefiling of form UF-250 as is stated in the Report.*

OGCResponse: **The Draft Report will berevised to note that the NYPD asserts that it does not maintain formal orinformal quotas on the filing of UF-250s.**

NYPDComment #23 (p. 110; re: p. 195): *This NYPD Comment claims that the Draft Report improperly states theprocedure for filling out and recording UF-250s.*

OGCResponse: **A footnote will be inserted,stating that the procedure for the processing of UF-250 forms was changed May 4,2000, after the Draft Report was submitted. The new procedure requires the formsto be completed in units and sent to the precinct for processing. Non-patrolprecinct commands submit forms through the precinct concerned.**

NYPDComment #24 (p. 110; re: p. 195, fn. 782): *TheNYPD asserts that the number of stop and frisk reports stated for the StreetCrime Unit was incorrect in the Report and is available through the database.*

OGCResponse: **A footnote will be added thatthe database breaks down filings into precincts, but does not allow for thescreening of Street Crime Unit filings from other filings within a precinct. Thefootnote will also note that �3,863 in 1997 as of . . .� should read�3,863 in 1999 as of . . .�**

NYPDComment #25 (p. 111; re: pp. 196�97): *Theresponse states that all stop and frisk reports are processed through theprecinct of occurrence regardless of unit.*

OGCResponse: **A footnote will be added thatthe NYPD process has now been changed to uniformly process filings through theprecinct of occurrence, but this change did not take place until May 4, 2000.**

NYPDComment #26 (p. 111; re: p. 197): *This objection argues that the Draft Report apparently criticizes unitsof the Department as failing to maintain adequate information; yet the units hadthe appropriate forms and used them as intended.*

OGCResponse: **No change in the Draft Reportis necessary.**

NYPDComment #27 (p. 111; re: pp. 197�98): *TheNYPD argues that the Commission has all UF-250 data but has failed to analyzethe data properly.*

OGCResponse: **A footnote will be insertedthat the data concerning arrests are sporadic and incomplete. Many of the arrestfields of the database were left blank, making an accurate determination ofarrests impossible.**

NYPDComment #28 (p. 112; re: p. 198): *The Department claims here that the Draft Report incorrectly states thatthe number of UF-250 forms filed in 1998 was 147,787 and that this number shouldbe 138,872 because of the erroneous inclusion of duplicate reports.*

OGCResponse:**In the text of the Report, itwill be stated that the Commission will agree to use the NYPD computations forthe total number of unique UF-250 forms filed in 1998. The number of uniquefilings for 1998 is 138,872 out of a total of 147,787 UF-250s filed. But it willalso be noted that for years prior to 1998 no means for the screening ofduplicate reports exists. Therefore, in examining the data for the 10 yearsending 1998, the larger 147,787 figure for 1998 must be used in order toaccurately display the growth trend in the filings. The borough and precinctdata appearing on pages 197�209 will be recalculated to screen out duplicatefilings. These recalculations do not change any of the findings of the DraftReport.**

NYPDComment #29 (p. 112; re: pp. 198�201, 204�09): The response criticizesCommission charts showing the relationship between UF-250 percentage andpercentage population because  "such a depiction completely fails toaddress more complex operational relationships which can better explain what istaking place."

OGCResponse: **The Draft Report will berevised to point out that the Commission was unable to confirm whether stop andfrisks were predicated on victim identifications since the NYPD never providedthe necessary information. The precinct demographics cited were those providedto the Commission by the NYPD, which characterized the census data as precinctnot boroughwide census data.** 

NYPDComment #30 (p. 115; re: p. 202): *The Department criticizes the Draft Report for citing an improper numberof stop and frisk incidents for 1998, using numbers that were subsequentlyrevised, and fails to explain why this was done.*

OGCResponse: **A statement will be added toemphasize that regardless of whether the database numbers are used or not, thetrend of the numbers is substantially upward.**

NYPDComment #31 (p. 116; re: p. 203): *This objection states that the Draft Report implies that the StreetCrime Unit was deployed disproportionally to minority neighborhoods for a�sinister� purpose when in fact the SCU was deployed to these neighborhoodsbecause of higher crime rates there.*

OGCResponse: **No change in the Draft Reportis necessary. **

NYPDComment #32 (p. 116; re: p. 203, fn. 801): *TheNYPD claims that the database should have been used for 1998 stop and frisknumbers rather than using the data from the top 25 precincts in which the SCUwas deployed.*

OGCResponse: **A footnote will be added thatthe Department claims that database information can be used to determine thenumber of stops performed by the Street Crime Unit. However, since according tothe NYPD�s policy this unit should submit reports to the precinct in which theencounter occurred, the stops of the unit could not be separated from those ofthe precinct in the database provided to the Commission. The NYPD providesnumbers that show 9,004 stops by the SCU in 1997 and 15,324 stops in 1998. Evenaccepting these numbers a sharp increase can be seen.**

NYPDComment #33 (p. 117; re: p. 210): *According to the NYPD, the Draft Report fails to state that the policecommissioner has acknowledged that blacks and Hispanics are stopped in numbersgreater than their proportion to the population, but that this can be explainedby officers stopping individuals who meet victim descriptions or �patterndescriptions.�* 

OGCResponse: **It will be noted that theDepartment in its response to the Draft Report gives reasons officers may usefor stopping citizens. One of these reasons is termed �patterndescriptions.� The use of the term �pattern descriptions� appears toindicate the use of profiling. The police commissioner�s acknowledgment willalso be included in the text.**

NYPDComment #34 (p. 118; re: pp. 210�11): *Thisobjection argues that statements in the Draft Report should have been taken froma random sampling of the population rather than just individuals who hadnegative contact with police.*

OGCResponse: **The Commission received randomsworn testimony from persons who had relevant experiences involving the NYPD. Nochange in the Draft Report is necessary. **

NYPDComment #35 (p. 118; re: p. 213): *This objection concerns the deletion of the word �not� fromCommissioner Safir�s quote and the apparent exclusion of evidence of the NYPDposition from the Report.*

OGCResponse: **The word �not� will bereinserted in the text of the quote. A footnote will be added, stating that theword �not� was originally deleted to avoid a double negative, but that thepoint remains the same regardless of the quote.**

NYPDComment #36 (p. 118; re: pp. 213�14): T*heNYPD argues that the Commission fails to understand the nature of police work asofficers make stops based upon observations, �known patterns,� and crimeproblems. Officers who observe quality of life violations certainly havereasonable suspicion for a stop and frisk.*

OGCResponse: **The text of the Draft Reportwill be revised to note that the Department has responded that observations maybe used in tandem with �known patterns� to provide the basis for reasonablesuspicion. The use of the term �known patterns� again may be indicative ofprofiling. It will also be noted that stops or arrests for quality of lifeviolations may show discriminatory enforcement if not uniformly applied to thepopulation.**

NYPDComment #37 (p. 119; re: p. 215): *The NYPD argues here that the standards for a warrant search requiringdescription with particularity do not apply to stop and frisk encounters.*

OGCResponse: **No change in the Draft Reportis necessary. **

NYPDComment #38 (p. 119; re: p. 236): *The Department asserts that the Draft Report�s contention that theNYPD uses racial profiling in stop and frisk practices is without proof andfails to consider that stop and frisk encounters mirror the description given byvictims.*

OGCResponse: **A footnote will be added thatpoints out that the Department argues that the stop and frisk encounters mirrorthe victims� accounts. It will also note that information on the details ofvictim�s accounts was subpoenaed from the NYPD, however, none was provided.The NYPD now criticizes the Draft Report based on victim�s identificationsdata without noting the source of this new information. It will also be noted ina footnote that the NYPD criticizes the Draft Report�s concluding line of theparagraph which mentions �historic crime data� when the Department itselfmust be using such data to create the �crime patterns� mentioned on page 117of the Response. **

NYPDComment #39 (p. 121; re: p. 237): *The Department argues that the assertion in the Draft Report that anincreasing number of declined prosecutions is due to improper arrests iserroneous and that other causes may be to blame.*

OGCResponse: **In the paragraph beginning�In addition� on page 237, the Draft Report will be revised by changing�there is a likelihood� to �it is possible.� **

NYPDComment #40 (p. 123; re: p. 216): *The Department objects to the assertion that increased demands forarrests may result in officers using racial profiling taught to the officersthrough cultural training classes.*

OGCResponse: **The portion of this linementioning the cultural training classes will be modified as follows: �. . .which were introduced to them through . . .� will be replaced with �. . .unless . . .� The remaining portion of the sentence will be replaced with�the Department�s cultural training practices are strengthened� andcomplex police investigative techniques are uniformly employed. **

NYPDComment #41 (p. 123; re: p. 237): *The NYPD objects to the Draft Report�s use of an unsubstantiatedstatement of a Police Department critic that officers routinely call in phony911 calls to supply a description.*

OGCResponse: **The following will be addedafter the quote: �In March of this year, the U.S. Supreme Court, noting theunreliability and unaccountability of anonymous tips, held that an anonymous tipgiving the race, gender, clothing and location of an individual, absent otherinformation, clearly was insufficient to provide reasonable suspicion to stopand search the individual. Florida v. J.L., 120 S.Ct. 1375 (2000).�**