NYPD Patrol Guide Secrecy

As protesters across America continue to raise their voices against police violence and the killings of unarmed Black Americans, department’s historic resistance to basic oversight and transparency has drawn greater focus. In New York City, one example is the NYPD’s historic refusal to provide the public information on the rules governing policing in America’s largest city.

One would think that the patrol guide, which regulates nearly every facet of policing, would have always been public. However, the NYPD has only made the voluminous document available to the public since 2017, following an agreement with then-City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverto.[1] Subsequent legislation mandated quarterly publication of the NYPD patrol guide, excluding sections that included confidential information.[2]

 Still, many police practices are not codified in the patrol guide, sections of the guide are restricted from civilian view, and other sections are impossibly vague. NYPD surveillance practices are largely hidden from view, only made public through reporting and open records litigation. For example, the NYPD only publicly added a facial recognition policy to the patrol guide in 2020, after using the technology for at least 10 years, and only when faced with increasing calls for a city-wide ban. Even then, the facial recognition policy didn’t remedy any of the proven problems with the technology, such as with high error rates for New Yorkers of color, but merely codified existing practices.[3]

At the same time, the NYPD withholds policies for other surveillance tools, such as drones, stingrays[4] and millimeter wave vans. The public patrol guide excludes “portions that would reveal non-routine investigative techniques or confidential information or [information] that would compromise the safety of the public or police officers.”[5] Alarmingly, the NYPD has complete discretion in choosing which portions of the patrol guide should be withheld and which should be public.

Even when the terms of the patrol guide are clear, the enforcement remains opaque. Officers who violate the patrol guide face sanctions ranging from loss of vacation days, to suspension or termination.[6]  While officers can face a departmental “trial” for violations of that patrol guide, when they are found guilty, the NYPD Commissioner has complete discretion to waive punishment, a power he frequently uses.[7]

As advocates chip away at the illusion of police infallibility, the constant issue is that the progress is too low and too slow. Publishing copies of the current patrol guide should not have been an advent of the 21st century. Protection against “gang violence” is no excuse for surveillance, and often unwarranted arrest and incarceration, of Black Americans. Perhaps most significant for the hope of ending these bad practices is the conclusion that the NYPD should not be the primary authority that oversees punishment for the NYPD.

The passage of the POST Act and repeal of 50-a mark two landmark victories for increasing civilian oversight of police activity. However, these victories do not negate the fact that the patrol guide, and the processes through which it is enforced, leave ample room for the NYPD to operate above the law. New Yorkers must use these oversight tools to hold the NYPD accountable for its patrol activity, its policies, and its treatment of officers who have been accused of misconduct. We must demand further oversight of these processes to protect our own civil liberties and the liberties of groups traditionally marginalized and mistreated by our criminal justice system.

[1] See Khurshid, S., Gotham Gazette, Council to Hear Bill Mandating Publication of NYPD Patrol Guide, (2016, September 07)  https://www.gothamgazette.com/city/6515-council-to-hear-bill-mandating-publication-of-nypd-patrol-guide

[2] See New York City Council Committee on Public Safety: https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2253285&GUID=9AB6D2CA-2AC6-42A0-832A-45662D092016&Options=&Search=.  The was enacted in lieu of the Right to Know Act, a package of police reform legislation that was popular with City Council and among police reform advocates at that time

[3] See Surveillance Technology Oversight Project press release:  https://www.stopspying.org/latest-news/2020/3/13/stop-condemns-new-nypd-facial-recognition-policy-calls-for-ban-and-mandatory-privacy-reporting

[4] Stingrays, formally known as international mobile subscriber identity-catchers (IMSI-catchers), imitate cellphone towers, fooling nearby phones into transmitting their locations and identifying information.

[5] See New York City Council Committee on Public Safety:  https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2253285&GUID=9AB6D2CA-2AC6-42A0-832A-45662D092016&Options=&Search=

[6] See Surveillance Technology Oversight Project research blog: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5c1bfc7eee175995a4ceb638/t/5d86557e92c75f103f3f12d4/1569084798450/2019-9-21+CCRB+Blog+Post.pdf

[7] See Ibid.