CCRB Management Information Systems Staff Win Two NYC Excellence in Technology Awards
   October 12, 2007: The New York City Excellence in Technology Awards Program announced that Yuriy Gregorev, Director of the CCRB’s Management Information Systems Unit (MIS), had won the 2007 “Excellence in IT Support and Service” award for a manager. Sarah Ho, MIS’s Local Area Network administrator, won the “Excellence in IT Support and Service” award for a technical support staffer.
    The awards recognized Mr. Gregorev and Mrs. Ho for their outstanding work in “providing superior operational and customer service” for the CCRB’s computer systems. Congratulations to them both!

CCRB Names Joan Thompson new Executive Director
   September 18, 2007: After conducting a nationwide search, the Civilian Complaint Review Board has named Joan Thompson, the Director of Equal Opportunity for the Department of Education, as its new Executive Director. Ms. Thompson, who will arrive at the CCRB on October 15, 2007, has worked for years fighting discrimination in housing, policing, and education. Ms. Thompson stated, "I will promote accountability and communication between our agency, the NYPD and all the diverse communities of New York."
    Before joining the Department of Education, Ms. Thompson served as the Director of Equal Employment Opportunity at the Baltimore Police Department. Ms. Thompson's experience also extends to the New York City Commission on Human Rights, where her work on fair housing issues resulted in a revision to New York City Human Rights Law. In addition, she served as the Assistant Commissioner for Equal Employment Opportunity at the NYPD from 1988-1990, under Police Commissioners Benjamin Ward, Richard Condon, and Lee Brown, where she authored the department's first sexual harassment policy statement. Ms. Thompson is no stranger to the Civilian Complaint Review Board, as she served as a board member during her tenure at the NYPD.

Executive Director Florence L. Finkle Departs Civilian Complaint Review Board
   May 25, 2007: Florence L. Finkle, the executive director of the Civilian Complaint Review Board, left the agency to join the New York State Attorney General’s Office as the first assistant attorney general for operations of the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit.
    Ms. Finkle joined the CCRB in June 1996 as the deputy executive director for investigations; she increased the competence of investigative staff by implementing rigorous hiring criteria, developed an investigator training program and manual, and reorganized the investigative process as a vertical system in which supervisors closely tracked investigations to increase quality and productivity. As a result of her efforts, the average number of days it took to complete a full investigation dropped by 41%, the proportion of the agency’s docket more than one year old dropped from 23% to 5%, and the rate at which the board reached findings on the merits of investigations rose from 30% to 65%.
    Ms. Finkle was appointed executive director of the agency in 2002. As the executive director, she increased investigator productivity by 38%, reduced the per-case closing cost by 42%, and focused agency resources on the Investigations Division, enabling the agency to absorb a 66% rise in complaint filings without compromising timeliness or quality of investigations significantly. She also expanded and improved the agency’s mediation program and directed and supervised the redesign of the agency’s website and public materials. In addition, she conceived of and contributed to board recommendations that led to the creation of a search warrant database, along with the issuance of directives regarding proper strip search procedures and officers’ obligation to identify themselves to civilians.

In his State of the City Address on January 17, 2007, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg announced:
    "As we step up the fight against crime, we’re also going to make sure that the NYPD treats every New Yorker equally and with dignity and that all complaints are taken seriously. We call our police "New York's Finest." That's our term of respect for those who have sworn to protect us. And we must always insist that such respect flows in both directions! This year, we will expand the resources and staffing at the Civilian Complaint Review Board to ensure that all complaints are dealt with swiftly and seriously."
    The increase in funding, which reflects the importance of the CCRB’s mission, will be used to hire additional staff members. Budgetary increases should enable the agency to build upon the efficiency and productivity improvements it has already made to its operations, permitting it to responsibly investigate and mediate the large number of complaints it is receiving.

CCRB Releases January-June 2006 Status Report
   December 11, 2006: The CCRB’s January-June 2006 Status Report details the agency’s successful effort to improve its productivity in response to record complaint filings. From January through June 2006, the CCRB received 3,877 complaints falling within its jurisdiction, the most filed during any six-month period in its history as an independent agency. The number of complaint filings first began rising in 2001, and has risen significantly and steadily ever since; compared to the first six months of 2003, for example, the number of complaints filed with the CCRB increased 41%. However, in the first half of 2006, the CCRB closed 4,142 cases, 39% more than the 2,977 it closed in the first half of 2005. In addition, the 135 cases the Mediation Unit closed during the first half of 2006, are the highest number of mediation closures in a six-month period of time, ever.
   The report also reveals the New York City Police Department’s decision to more frequently issue instructions rather than more serious discipline against officers the board found committed misconduct. Although the NYPD imposed discipline against 77% of the officers whose substantiated CCRB cases it resolved from January through June 2006, an all-time high, the NYPD imposed instructions against 75% of the officers it disciplined in non-force cases, more than double the rate from 2003 and 2004.

CCRB Recommends that the NYPD Issue an Order Instructing Officers Regarding the Proper Handling of Police Union Courtesy Cards
   November 9, 2006: The CCRB recommended that the New York City Police Department issue an order informing officers of the limited circumstances under which they can seize police union courtesy cards. The recommendation stems from a review of ten cases involving 11 officers who improperly seized police union cards from civilians.
   For many years, New York City police officers have bestowed union “courtesy” cards upon their relatives and friends to identify them as having a special relationship to an officer. The cards list the names of union executives and provide information on how to contact these executives and the unions’ main offices. Although the cards convey no legal benefit, civilians often present them to officers in the hope of receiving one.
   When interviewed by CCRB investigators, the officers in these ten cases expressed the belief that they were entitled to seize the cards, which they did not voucher as required by the Patrol Guide, because in their view, the cards belonged to the union or the police department. However, it is not unlawful to possess the cards—not one of the civilians was charged with a crime—and in the absence of any evidence that the card was acquired illegally, officers have no legal basis to seize them.

Mayor Bloomberg Appoints Franklin H. Stone as Chair of the CCRB
   September 12, 2006: Mayor Bloomberg appointed Franklin H. Stone as chair of the CCRB. The first woman to chair the CCRB, Ms. Stone replaced Hector Gonzalez, who joined the CCRB in 2000 and served as chair from April 2002 to September 2006.
   A board member since 1998, Ms. Stone is an attorney with decades of experience in litigation and government. Since 2004, she has served as executive director of Common Good, a legal advocacy group. Ms. Stone was previously a partner at the law firm of Hunton & Williams, where she specialized in commercial litigation and repeatedly was awarded the firm’s pro bono service award. From 1983 to 1987, Ms. Stone served as an assistant United States attorney for the Southern District of New York. Prior to that, she was an associate at Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler. Ms. Stone is deeply involved in the Cobble Hill community in Brooklyn where she resides. She is a member of the board of directors of the Downtown Brooklyn Waterfront Local Development Corporation and a member of the Citizens Advisory Council at the Brooklyn Bridge Park Local Development Corporation. Additionally, Ms. Stone is first vice president of the Cobble Hill Association.

Investigation of Republican National Convention Complaints Leads CCRB to Recommend that the NYPD Review Its Training for Policing Demonstrations
   May 9, 2006: Based upon its investigation of six complaints involving two separate incidents during the August 2004 Republican National Convention, the CCRB recommended that the department "review the training it provides officers ... for policing demonstrations." In the incidents at issue, two deputy chiefs ordered demonstrators to disperse without the aid of a bullhorn or other amplifying device. Video footage also revealed other problems with the deputy chiefs' orders, including the use of ambiguous terminology and the inability of demonstrators—given time and geographic limitations—to actually comply with the orders to disperse.
   While the board only substantiated an allegation of misconduct against one of the deputy chiefs, it found that if the chiefs "had employed different tactics, the police department may possibly have avoided arresting a large number of people." In its recommendation, the board expressed the hope that "the department can improve and/or reinforce its training to avoid similar situations in the future."

After Analysis of February 15, 2003 Anti-war Protest Complaints, CCRB Recommends NYPD Take Measures to Facilitate Identification of Subject Officers
   June 8, 2004: Following a study of the 59 complaints stemming from the February 15, 2003 anti-war protest published in its January-December 2003 Status Report, the CCRB issued three recommendations to the police department that, if implemented, would allow the CCRB to more easily identify officers in complaints arising from large-scale demonstrations: 1) require mounted officers to display identification clearly visible from street level; 2) institute measures to track the location of officers called to respond to a mobilization; and 3) provide the CCRB with unedited video footage made by the department at demonstrations. The recommendations resulted from the unusually high number of subject officers the CCRB could not identify in its investigation of these complaints.
   In October 2004, the police commissioner notified the CCRB that the department had begun to place unique identifying numerals on each of the department's horses when deployed. In addition, the CCRB received relevant, unedited TARU film in connection with its investigation of complaints related to the Republican National Convention.

CCRB Recommends that the NYPD Enhance Its Training of Officers to Ensure Adherence to Patrol Guide Strip Search Procedures
   May 12, 2004:   The CCRB recommended that the New York City Police Department enhance its training of officers, particularly supervisors, to ensure that officers adhere to Patrol Guide strip-search procedures. The CCRB made this recommendation based on a study of sixteen complaints filed since January 2002 (and closed as of April 1, 2004) in which the board, following a full investigation, substantiated one or more strip-search allegations. In 2003, the CCRB substantiated allegations of improper strip-searches in 19% of the instances it reviewed such allegations, nearly double the 10% average.
   Patrol Guide procedure 208-05 provides search guidelines for arrested persons and describes three types of searches: 1) the frisk/field search; 2) the search at a police facility; and 3) the strip search. The Patrol Guide authorizes a strip search only in situations where the arresting officer has reasonable suspicion that the arrested individual is concealing weapons, contraband or evidence that may not be discovered through a normal search at a police facility. Evidence uncovered by CCRB investigators, however, indicates that officers may be conducting improper strip searches more frequently than agency statistics suggest. During interviews with investigators, officers did not recognize the searches they conducted to be strip searches; described strip searches as routine for arrestees brought to the police facility; and/or justified strip searches based on the fact that they chose to transport arrestees from the street to the precinct with individuals whom they had arrested for drug offenses. Though officers did not appear to have intentionally violated the Patrol Guide, they clearly did not understand the department's own search guidelines, specifically the difference between a police facility search and a strip search.
   On May 13, 2004, the department issued a directive, read ten times at every roll call and posted in every command, reminding officers of when strip searches can be conducted. The directive informed officers that a strip search "may not be conducted routinely," that such a search "requires express authorization from a supervisor," and that "any search in which an individual's undergarments … and/or private areas are exposed … is considered a strip search." When the CCRB released its recommendation, the police department also issued a statement that it was developing a training videotape for officers on proper search procedures. To date, the department has not completed the training video.

NYPD Adopts CCRB Recommendation that Officers be Required to Show "No-knock" Search Warrants
   February 13, 2004: The New York City Police Department issued an interim order requiring that officers show a copy of a search warrant, when able to do so safely, to any of the occupants of the premises. The order resulted from a recommendation the board made to the police commissioner on November 20, 2003. The New York Criminal Procedure Law explicitly requires officers, if asked, to show a search warrant when they must identify themselves to the occupant of premises before entering. However, the procedure law does not apply to "no-knock" search warrants-those that permit police to enter premises without giving notice of their purpose or authority. The board recommended that the department establish guidelines to ensure that officers show all search warrants to citizens to provide them with explanations when their homes or businesses are searched.

NYPD Adopts CCRB Policy Recommendation to Revise Patrol Guide Procedure Codifying an Officer's Obligation to Provide Identifying Information Upon Request
   June 27, 2003: At the recommendation of the CCRB, the New York City Police Department issued an interim order revising Patrol Guide procedure 203-09 (Public Contact-General). The revision clarifies an officer's affirmative obligation to provide upon a civilian's request his or her name, badge number, or other identifying information. The new interim order stems from a study the CCRB conducted and included in its January - December 2002 Status Report entitled, "Refusal to Provide Name and/or Shield Number: An Analysis of an Allegation". The study, based upon complaints raising this allegation which were closed during the first six months of 2002, found that the board substantiated this allegation 16% of the time, almost three times the 6% rate the board substantiated other allegations during this same six-month time period.

NYPD Adopts CCRB Policy Recommendation to Create a Search Warrant Database
   May 27, 2003: At the recommendation of the CCRB, the New York City Police Department announced that it planned to implement a database to track information on search warrants from the time the warrant was obtained through the warrant's execution. "Part of the CCRB's mission is to report to the police commissioner relevant issues and policy matters coming to the board's attention," said CCRB Chairman Hector Gonzalez. " We are excited that the department agreed with our recommendation and is implementing it so quickly." The CCRB made its recommendation to the police department in January 2003, after investigation of a specific CCRB complaint made clear that the department maintained no centralized database to record information regarding the issuance and execution of search warrants. The development of such a database is important for two reasons. First, computerized and centralized data will help police executives assess their officers' and units' performance. Second, a comprehensive database will significantly reduce the time it takes to identify officers and access records, thereby speeding the CCRB investigative process.

   July 1, 2003: The New York City Police Department issued an interim order announcing that it had created the database. The order requires officers to notify and provide relevant information to the Intelligence Division upon receipt of a search warrant and upon execution or expiration of the warrant. The database, maintained by the Intelligence Division, tracks key aspects of the search warrant process, including the name of the supervising officer, the prosecutor assigned to the case, the judge who issued the warrant, and the results of the executed warrant.

Administrative Prosecution Unit Litigation
   January 2001: Former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and former Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik proposed that the CCRB be given the authority to prosecute its own substantiated cases. Under the proposal, the disciplinary hearings would be conducted by administrative judges employed by the city's Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH). While all cases would be prosecuted by the CCRB instead of the NYPD's Advocate's Office, the police commissioner would retain the ultimate authority to impose discipline.

   April 2001: The New York City Law Department rendered an opinion stating that the CCRB could assume prosecutorial power by changing its rules. The CCRB and the police department then entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) and the CCRB changed its rules; the MOU and rules would have transferred prosecutorial authority to the CCRB beginning on June 25, 2001. Before the new rules could take effect, however, the police unions sued the city, the police department, and the CCRB to block the implementation of the terms of the MOU and the amendments to the agency's rules.

   July 16, 2001: The New York Supreme Court ruled that granting the CCRB the power to prosecute "enhances its ability to make detailed findings and informed recommendations, and thereby furthers its mandate."* However, the court ruled that only a member of the police department could preside over hearings that might result in the officer's termination.

   January 7, 2003: The New York State Appellate Division, First Department, ruled that all disciplinary charges stemming from substantiated cases must be filed before the NYPD's deputy commissioner of trials rather than with OATH. However, the court stated, "We uphold that aspect of the MOU and the amendments to the Rules of the City of New York which grant the CCRB the revocable authority to administratively prosecute police officers for certain enumerated offenses."** The CCRB is currently waiting to see whether the city or the police unions will request that the New York Court of Appeals hear an appeal.

* Lynch v. Giuliani, No. 1114361/01, slip op. at 7 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. July 16, 2001) (emphasis in orginal).

^** Lynch v. Giuliani, No. 10051, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 68 at *7 (1st Dep't. Jan. 7, 2003).