New York Court Rules State Police Can’t Keep Hiding Its Misconduct Records From The Public
from the law's-the-law,-lawbois dept
In 2020, the New York State legislature finally took a tool of opacity out of law enforcement’s hands. For forty years, law enforcement agencies had the option of rejecting officer misconduct records requests by citing 50-a, the law that said these records could be considered exempt from the state’s Freedom of Information Law (FOIL).
Notably, the law did not mandate law enforcement agencies keep these records locked up. All it said was that they could cite this law as a reason for denying records requests. The NYPD finally re-read the law in 2016 and used it as an excuse for its refusal to continue publicly posting information about closed internal investigations. (The other excuse given, believe it or not, was “to save paper.”)
Perhaps the weirdest footnote of the now-dead law is that fact that it was used as the basis of the NYPD’s union’s lawsuit against the NYPD, which cited 50-a as the reason the NYPD could not legally release body camera footage.
As soon as the law went into effect, so did the legal challenges. But law enforcement’s early wins were soon outpaced by their losses. Litigation forced the NYPD to comply with the repeal of 50-a. (I mean… to a point. The NYPD doesn’t really comply with any public records law.)
The NYPD learned the expensive way it was required to follow the law, just like every other law enforcement agency in the state. Now, it’s the state’s own law enforcement agency that’s learning this lesson, as C.J. Ciaramella reports for Reason.
The New York State Police (NYSP) must turn over decades of disciplinary records and complaints against troopers, a New York state judge ruled today.
In response to a Freedom of Information lawsuit filed by the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), acting Supreme Court Justice Keri Savona ruled that the NYSP must begin disclosing misconduct records from 2000 through 2020. (Unlike most states, New York’s Supreme Court is its trial-level court system.) The ruling is the latest defeat for police unions, which have been fighting to limit the scope of a 2020 law that made police disciplinary files public record.
Two decades of misconduct records will be now trickling out of the NYSP’s hands. One assumes it will be a very slow drip, one perhaps interrupted by last-minute admissions the NYSP has, say, destroyed records it was required to retain. A lot can happen over twenty years, but hopefully it won’t take twenty years for records requesters to obtain what they’re entitled to possess.
The Superior Court (basically the first level of state courts in New York) decision [PDF] is short and sweet. It not only directs the NYSP to comply with the law, but draws some other helpful legal conclusions along the way, like this one, which says cop shops can’t withhold information about officers who were investigated for misconduct, but later cleared of wrongdoing.
It is clear that the mere fact that the complaint was determined to be unsubstantiated does not categorically exempt the records from disclosure.
Nice. And the court sends another benchslap to the NYSP with some pointed criticism of its contradictory arguments in favor of ongoing opacity.
When an agency concedes that it is able to locate the requested records, said agency may not deny the request on the grounds that the request was overly broad and that the description of the requested items was insufficient to permit the location and identification of the requested documents.
The State Police have to start providing records on a rolling basis. That’s the upshot. Of course, this is a ruling from the state’s lowest court level, which means it’s certain to be appealed. But rather than waste the court’s time and taxpayers’ money, maybe the NYSP could just comply with the law and give the requester what they’re entitled to. Just a thought.
Filed Under: new york, nypd, nysp, police misconduct, transparency
Comments on “New York Court Rules State Police Can’t Keep Hiding Its Misconduct Records From The Public”
As a New York State resident, let me tell you about our state judiciary: our district courts are elected. However, we have fusion voting, which means that one party can cross-endorse a candidate from another party. While this is great for truly ideological parties like the Working Families Party or the Conservative Party, a drawback is that sometimes in smaller races the Republican and the Democratic candidates are the same. This is usually the case with our elected judges. Also, while the lower courts (confusingly called the Supreme Court) are elected, the highest court in the state (also confusingly called the Court of Appeals) is appointed by the governor. Which means that the people have a more direct say in the lower courts but not the more important higher courts.
The whole problem with FOI laws is that you still have to request a thing. Anything subject to FOI should be in publicly-facing, easy-to-use databases, and FOI lawsuits limited to the stuff the people suspect has not been put into the databases as it should be.
We are well into the paper-is-unnecessary zone at this point.
Don't need to be a prophet to see where this will go...
Strangely enough I suspect that a lot of the responses to requests for data will get a ‘Terribly sorry but the record you requested was destroyed by accident/on purpose during a routine maintenance’ going forward.
That sound you hear is davec grinding his dentures in self-righteous outrage.