New Paltz Police Reform and Reinvention Committee Recommendations Working Document
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
New Paltz Police
Reform and Reinvention Committee
Recommendations
Working Document
As part of the Reform and Reinvention process, the Town Board acting as Police Commission
will review two recommendations from the NPPRRC Final Report at their monthly meeting.
The Chief of Police will speak to the recommendations and provide the Commission with the
Department’s progress in fulfilling and/or any issues or concerns about the recommendations.
This document contains public comment specific to the recommendation as well as the Chief of
Police’s comments. The public input is from material directly sent to the Town Clerk as part of
the record and from the meeting minutes.
May 20, 2021 Police Commission Meeting
1. Recommendation of the NPPRRC: The NPPD should immediately begin aggregating
data based upon race, ethnicity, and language. There is no other means by which we as a
community can hold the Department accountable for bias, or laud officers for a lack
thereof. This data should be reviewed regularly, no less than once each budget year.
a. Public Comment
i. I’m Tom Jelliffe and I’m here as a member of U-Act and the New Paltz
Coalition for Community Safety and Wellbeing.
I’d like to comment on the final EO203 report recommendation on
aggregating data based on race, ethnicity and language.
First, while we agree that this improvement in data collection should be a
top priority, we urge the Town and the Police Department to move on this
with due consideration, taking into account experiences gained elsewhere
and best practices laid out in various reports. One report in particular, by
NYU Law School and others, “Collecting, Analyzing, and Responding to
Stop Data: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement Agencies, Government,
and Communities,” lays out cookbook-level detail for the whole life-cycle
of the project: clarifying the benefits of data collection, deciding what to
collect and when, developing and testing the data collection procedures,
assuring the integrity of the data, analyzing it, communicating results of
the analysis, and responding to those results. It talks about the importance
of involving community members and patrol officers at nearly every step
of the process. I will email the link (COPS-Guidebook+Final+Release+Version.pdf) to Supervisor Bettez in case the
Commission members and Chief Lucchesi have not seen it yet. As I’m
sure the Chief has experienced before, this kind of project can sound easy,
but it represents a significant, complex and long term change process for
the Department.
My second set of comments is to indicate that, as important as stop data is,
it falls well short of what is needed to gain appropriate transparency into
the operations of the NPPD.
Other information that should be made easily accessible to the public are:
Index crimes data as reported to the state and the FBI to reveal
crime trends,
Arrest data by severity of offense and race/ethnicity as is currently
reported to the State and FBI
Dispositions of arrests, e.g. court outcomes, by offense severity
and race/ethnicity. While dispositions occur at later times than the
original crimes and arrests, comparison of trends can indicate the
effectiveness of the police in resolving different types of crime.
These data as well as Incident data (included in the new annual report)
should be published on the Town website at least annually, while data
currently included in the Chief’s monthly reports to the Police
Commission should be published on the Town website monthly.
Data published on the town website should be presented in formats that
facilitate trend reviews and should be downloadable.
This is a challenging set of tasks. As someone who has worked in
government and as an instructor of public policy, I can suggest the
Commission reach out to a local university to gain paid or unpaid support
during implementation of these data collection, analysis, and presentation
efforts.
b. Chief of Police Comment
i. This recommendation refers to collection of demographic data for vehicle
and traffic stops and field interviews. NPPD began collecting this data in
August when the committee identified this in their review.
ii. Officers indicate the race and gender, or the vehicle operator or person
interviewed as well as the reason for the stop in their incident
supplemental report regardless of whether a ticket or arrest is made.
This is based upon the officer’s observation. We do not ask the
race, ethnicity or gender of the person stopped/interviewed.iii. This data will be part of the annual police report
iv. Demographic data related to arrests and use of force are already collected
and published in the department annual report
v. Data from September 1, 2020 to September 1, 2021 will be presented to
the Police Commission at the September meeting
2. Recommendation of the NPPRRC: The New Paltz Police Department should remove
the chokehold policy from its continuum use of force policy in accordance with state law.
In addition, NPPRRC recommends that carotid restraint be removed from the continuum
use of force policy as well. The carotid restraint is a technique used by officers to restrict
blood flow to a person’s brain by compressing the sides of the neck where the carotid
arteries are located. It is recommended that chokeholds and carotid restraint training
materials be removed from training programs in the New Paltz Police Department.
a. Public Comment
i. Maggie Veve- Commended the Board on the “Compassionate New York
Legislative Agenda” resolution. She spoke about the EO203 Plan as it
relates to the chokeholds and carotid restraints and the Board’s
consideration to create a more independent Police Commission.
b. Chief of Police Comment
i. The Chief of Police disagrees with the Committee’s findings. Chokeholds
have always been prohibited in NPPD use of force policy unless deadly
physical force was authorized. They have never been part of the
department training curriculum.
ii. The NPPRRC Committee recommended the word, “chokehold” be
completely removed from policy. It currently appears under definition
section, the prohibition section and another section authorizing officers to
use any means other than a chokehold to defend themselves or others.
The Chief of Police disagrees with this position. This is a
proscribed use of force and as such, the word chokehold as it
appears in the policy is necessary.
iii. The current policy was made in consultation with Committee and the
Chief does not believe this recommendation is supported by the majority
of the Committee. This recommendation was made after revisions to the current
which was drafted in consultation with the Committee.
iv. Defensive Action Policy from February 10, 2016 to September 25, 2020:
Policy prohibited the use of chokeholds unless the use of deadly
force is authorized. This appears in two sections. Meaning it was
only authorized in the instances in which an officer would be
authorized to use their firearm.
This aligned with best policing practices at the time and complies
with the NYS DCJS Model policy that was issued in September
2020 after the new policing legislation was enacted prohibiting
chokehold unless deadly physical force is authorized.
The word chokehold appeared in the definition section under
“Force”
v. Defensive Action Policy from September 25, 2020 to February 1, 2021:
The use of chokeholds remained prohibited unless deadly force is
authorized as described above.
Procedures section F(2)(a) was amended to reflect changes in
NYS Penal Law and model DCJS policy issued in September
2020.
o The section revised to read, “Chokeholds - Any
chokeholds, with or without a device, that restricts a
person’s airway or any intentional application of pressure
to the throat, windpipe, neck, or intentional blocking of the
mouth or nose of a person in a manner that may hinder
breathing, reduce intake of air or obstruct blood circulation
is prohibited.
The word chokehold was added to section I, “Use of Force
Reporting” to comply with NYS DCJS reporting requirements.
In total the word chokehold appeared 4X in the policy, none of
which condoned the use of a chokehold in anything other than a
deadly force encounter. There was extensive discussion about the use of a chokehold in a
deadly force encounter.
o During one such discussion Committee member Randal
Leverette went through a hypothetical deadly force
scenario and asked if a chokehold would be authorized.
The Chief explained that if the officer would be authorized
to use their gun in the given scenario, then they would be
authorized by law to use a chokehold.
o Committee members were concerned that the policy
provided officers with a loophole to use a chokehold and
how that would be perceived by the public. After extensive
conversations, the policy was revised to reflect the current
policy issued on February 1, 2021 to the satisfaction of
most of the Committee.
The word chokehold appears in the current Defensive Action
Policy:
o Definition of force
o Procedures section F(2) – “Chokeholds - Any chokeholds,
with or without a device, that restricts a person’s airway or
any intentional application of pressure to the throat,
windpipe, neck, or intentional blocking of the mouth or
nose of a person in a manner that may hinder breathing,
reduce intake of air or obstruct blood circulation is
prohibited.
o Procedures section F(4) Non-Deadly Force Exceptions –
Members are only authorized to use Department approved,
nondeadly force techniques and authorized weapons.
However, when a sudden confrontation prevents a member
from using department approved, non-deadly force
techniques and escalates to a deadly force incident, the
member may use any means, other than a chokehold, to
defend themselves, another person, or to bring a situation
under control when in light of the circumstances
surrounding the member, at the time, it was found
reasonably necessary to do so and as long as the level of
defensive action is objectively reasonable given the
existing circumstances. Policy exceeds DCJS and NYS Penal Law
o Procedures section I (2) Use of Force Reporting - Using a
chokehold or similar restraint that applies pressure to the
throat or windpipe of a person in a manner that may hinder
breathing or reduce intake of air;
DCJS requires agencies to report the use of
chokeholds because they are authorized in deadly
force encounters and agencies are still required to
report if used in non-deadly force encounter.
o The Chief of Police does not know what training material
the committee is referencing in the report.
NPPD has never taught a chokehold nor issued any
training material authorizing it.
We issued a training advisement ceasing the use of
the DCJS instructed Shoulder Pin unless deadly
physical force is authorized in June of 2020. Prior
to DCJS releasing updated training memo and
model policy.
The September 25, 2020 revised Defensive Action
Policy was reviewed with officers and sergeants at
the October DT/Firearms training cycle.
Chokehold have never been a part of NPPD use of
force lesson plans and training materials.
DT/Firearm Lesson plans were not reviewed by the
Committee as part of their evaluation process.
vi. Public Comment related to Defensive Action Policy from June 17, 2021,
Meeting
Tom Jelliffe (U-Act and New Paltz Coalition for Community Safety & Wellbeing)-“I’d like to
comment on the NPPRRC recommendation regarding misuse of force, I quote: “The NPPD
develop a practice of decrying misuse of force incidents anywhere in clear language and
articulate how this department avoids similar acts through training, policy, and ethical
commitments.” The NPPD policy and regulation webpage contains a 15-page policy on Officer
Defensive Action, meaning use of force. While this policy is arguably the keystone in any effortto prevent the worst types of police violence against citizens, the NPPRRC unfortunately did not
provide any real analysis of it. In my admittedly brief review I could confirm that the current
policy includes many of the common sense elements recommended by the Police Use of Force
Project. Three limitations that do not appear to be included are:
1. Failing to require officers to intervene and stop excessive force used by other offices and
report these incidents immediately to a supervisor. In this connection, the Chief and the
Police Commission should also consider whether New Paltz should join the City of
Buffalo in adopting what has been called Cariol’s law, which enshrines these
requirements and associated penalties in law. Current policies (14.1 Rules of Conduct
Section 30) only state: “Employees shall not interfere with cases being handled by other
employees of the department or by any other governmental agencies unless: a. Ordered to
intervene by a superior employee, or b. The intervening employee believes beyond a
reasonable doubt that a manifest injustice would result from failure to take immediate
action.”
2. Failing to develop a Force Continuum that limits the types of force and/or weapons that
can be used to respond to specific types of resistance.
3. Failing to require officers to exhaust all other reasonable means before resorting to
deadly force.
As part of your review of this recommendation, please ask the Chief to explain how the reporting
requirements, investigative procedures, and penalties in case of infractions are handled in
practice to assure complete and consistent execution. Secondly, I’d like to comment on the
proposed revision to the NPPD policy on search warrants. Unfortunately, you did not post the
proposed revisions prior to the meeting. This policy contains within it the rules under which
NPPD officers can conduct No-knock warrants, a practice that led to the tragic death of Breonna
Taylor. Do the Chief and the Commission see their way clear to abolishing them entirely for
New Paltz, as so far three (but only 3) states have done? Or do you merely propose to limit their
use and impose limitations on how they are conducted? Again, in my brief research I came
across two frequently mentioned changes: eliminating them when the search is related only to
drugs, and secondly to require a 30-second waiting period between announcing themselves and
entering.
Chief Lucchesi’s Response to Public Comment
Chief Lucchesi addressed some points made by Mr. Jelliffe to avoid the spread of
misinformation. In response to his first claim, the NPPD Officer Defensive Action policy
contains a duty to intervene.
Chief Lucchesi read from page 12, section I, “Use of Force Reporting”, sub-section 1(i)(3). It
reads, “If an officer observes another member of the agency using force that is clearly beyond
that which is objectively reasonable under the circumstances shall, when in a position to do so,
safely intercede to prevent the use of such excessive force. Officers shall report their
observations/actions to their shift supervisor. If no supervisor is working notification will be
made to the next scheduled supervisor.”In response to the claim that NPPD failed to develop a use of force continuum, Chief Lucchesi
explained that the NPPD policy was aligned with the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF)
critical decision-making model. Use of force continuum is a philosophy and one we do not
adhere to or tailor our training towards.
June 17, 2021 Police Commission Meeting
1. Recommendation of the NPPRRC: All New Paltz Government employees; New Paltz
Town Board, Village Board of New Paltz and all entities under these jurisdictions and the
town justices receive training in Undoing Racism presented by the People’s Institute for
Survival and Beyond. It is also recommended that an in-service training be instituted
annually as a refresher course and to capture any new hires by the same presenters. Peter
Heymann heymann.peter@gmail.com, Tracy Givens-Hunter thgivens@gmail.com
(Trainers from the People’s Institute for Survival and Beyond)
a. Chief of Police Comment
i. NPPD is researching the costs of this training and will include in the
proposed 2022 budget. Working with the other entities named may
alleviate costs to NPPD but cannot mandate others to participate in the
assessment.
2. Recommendation of the NPPRRC: The NPPD develop a practice of decrying misuse of
force incidents anywhere in clear language and articulate how this department avoids
similar acts through training, policy, and ethical commitments.
a. Chief of Police Comment
i. NPPD responded publicly in the wake of George Floyd’s murder.
ii. NPPD internally reviews use of force incidents that occur elsewhere and
how our current policies, training and practices address such instances
here.
Example of this was the Daniel Prude death and the pepper
spraying of 9-year-old girl in Rochester, New York.
o Daniel Prude’s death was part of fall training curriculum.
Training focused on reducing physical struggle, if
necessary, time on the ground and access to trained medical
care.
o CIT and Defensive Tactics instructors drafted training
bulletin for all members in the wake of pepper spraying of9-year-old girl in Rochester. Focus was on training we
received that could prevent this outcome. Materials
included video and written document.
iii. NPPD’s response to misuse of force elsewhere should be taken on case-
by-case basis.
3. Recommendation of the NPPRRC: The NPPD as an agency and the officers therein
refrain from and contradict statements such as ‘Blue Lives Matter,’ as there is no such
thing as a ‘blue life,’ there is a uniform which is worn by choice, while BIPOC are often
deprived of choices through historic and current norms of policing. This includes visual
speech such as flags and garments.
a. Chief of Police Comment
i. NPPD personnel are prohibited from wearing unauthorized garments or
patches on their uniform.
For example, the only facial coverings members are authorized to
wear are surgical, N95 or mask with NPPD patch.
ii. NPPD personnel speech is constrained on and off duty and members are
subject to discipline for violations. Members still maintain first
amendment rights. Complaints regarding the statements described above
would be investigated and reviewed by counsel to determine appropriate
You can also read
