Fordham Urban Law Journal Volume 28 | Number 3 Article 6 2000 Law and Disorder: Is Effective Law Enforcement Inconsistent With Good Police-Community Relations? William J. Bratton Andrew G. Celli Paul Chevigny New York University Law School Johnnie L. Cochran Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj Part of the Law Enforcement and Corrections Commons Recommended Citation William J. Bratton, Andrew G. Celli, Paul Chevigny, and Johnnie L. Cochran, Law and Disorder: Is Effective Law Enforcement Inconsistent With Good Police-Community Relations?, 28 Fordham Urb. L.J. 363 (2001). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol28/iss3/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Urban Law Journal by an authorized editor of FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LAW AND DISORDER: IS EFFECTIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT INCONSISTENT WITH GOOD POLICE-COMMUNITY RELATIONS? Moderator Ronald Tabak Special Counsel Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Panelists William J. Bratton Johnnie L. Cochran Jr. former Commissioner Partner New York City Police Department Cochran, Cherry, Givens, Smith & Sistrunk, P. C. Andrew G. Celli Jr. Loretta E. Lynch Chief, Civil Rights Bureau United States Attorney for the Office of the New York State Eastern District of New York Attorney General Paul Chevigny Michael Meyers Professor Executive Director New York University Law School New York Civil Rights Coalition MR. TABAK: Some of you may be wondering why we called this program Law and Disorder? Is Effective Law Enforcement Inconsistent with Good Police-Community Relations? Some may wonder, "How could the answer to that question be yes?" Yet many people in this city and elsewhere in the country have been lead to believe that the answer is yes-that you cannot reduce serious crime without also exacerbating police-community relations. We want to explore the extent to which that is or is not true. We have six speakers, plus excerpts from a report co-authored by a speaker who could not be here, followed by questions and answers. Our first speaker is Professor Paul Chevigny of New York University Law School. He has been a professor there since 1981, and previously was involved with police conduct as the director of the Police Practices Project and as a staff attorney with the New York Civil Liberties Union. He was writing on the subject of police abuses in New York City as long ago as 1969 and, more recently, has been working on a comparative analysis of the 364 FORDHAM URBAN LAW JOURNAL [Vol. XXVIII problems of police violence in Third World cities. In the 1990s, he prepared a critique of the failure of the United States federal government to deal with police violence in American cities for Human Rights Watch.' PROFESSOR CHEVIGNY: At the outset, I want to say a word about tonight's question. Clearly, it can have only one answer. We can not conduct government by violating people's rights. If we believe violations to be inevitable in the law enforcement process, then something is wrong with the organization of policing, or even, society. We must take the view that effective law enforcement can coincide with good police-community relations. The proposition in question tonight stems from a popular saying that I'm sure everyone is familiar with: "If you have to kick a little butt to keep order and reduce crime, so be it." Millions believe this, including many, many police. If you are familiar with the Mollen Commission report,2 the officers who were interviewed in connection with the commission's investigation mentioned that the abuses in which they had engaged were done for the purpose of showing people who was boss-in other words, to keep order. Their belief was that violence was necessary to establish their authority. That proposition is unacceptable because it implies that the police must disregard rights to keep order. We discovered after the shooting in the famous Diallo case 3 that there were 40,000 stop and frisks by the Street Crime Unit alone in two years, and the State Attorney General's Office has examined many more cases.4 Those cases could not have all met the reasonable suspicion standard, as is required by the Supreme Court. Attorney General Spitzer inevitably found discrimination in stop and frisks,5 and a case has 1. PAUL CHEVIGNY, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, POLICE BRUTALITY IN THE UNITED STATES: A POLICY STATEMENT ON THE NEED FOR FEDERAL OVERSIGHT (1991). 2. CITY OF N.Y. COMM'N TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF POLICE CORRUPTION & THE ANTI-CORRUPTION PROCEDURES OF THE POLICE DEP'T, REPORT OF NEW YORK COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF POLICE CORRUPTION AND THE ANTI-CORRUPTION PROCEDURES OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT (1994). The Commission is popularly known as the "Mollen Commission," after its chair, the Hon. Milton Mollen. 3. People v. Boss, 701 N.Y.S.2d 342 (App. Div. 1999); see generally David Kociensievsky, Success of Elite Unit Exacts a Toll on the Streets, N.Y. TIMES, Feb. 15, 1999, at A4 (describing the aggressive approach of the street crime unit). 4. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GEN. OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT'S "STOP & FRISK" PRACTICES (1999) [hereinafter A.G. REPORT]. 5. Id. at ch. 5. 20001 LAW AND DISORDER been brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights concerning this discrimination.6 This would be unacceptable even if it were effective law enforcement because it violates rights. It is easy to conceive of systems that would violate rights and probably be very effective. I don't know whether they really would be "law" enforcement. Nevertheless, it is very important to take a position of zero tolerance of unconstitutional action and the violation of people's rights, even if such misconduct effectively decreases crime. Society has to abandon the attitude that kicking a little butt is necessary to keep order. Fortunately, there are alternatives. These are illustrated by the somewhat similar Boston7 and San Diego 8 models. Basically, these are examples of problem-solving policing that emphasize community participation. The police show respect for the population, and the population comes to value the police much more. Recently, the polls show that the Boston Police are very highly regarded by the population, across the board.9 They are highly thought of by minority as well as other citizens. 10 The programs in Boston are not "namby pamby" programs. Boston has some very tough programs in the effort to control deadly violence by youth." There's an Operation Night Light in which probation officers visit youths who are at risk.' 2 The Youth Violence Strike Force works with community and other agencies to identify and counsel at-risk youth.13 Operation Cease Fire carries this out as well.'4 In all of these programs, the Boston Police target youths based on information received from the community. They get a lot of cooperation from the churches, the schools, and a large number of other public agencies. They use a broad-gauged enforcement method. 6. Nat'l Cong. for Puerto Rican Rights v. City of New York, 194 F.R.D. 105 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). 7. Such policies are commonly referred to as "neighborhood policing." OFFICE OF THE POLICE COMM'R, BOSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT 1999 ANNUAL REPORT (1999). 8. CITY OF SAN DIEGO, POLICE DEPARTMENT MISSION STATEMENT (2000). 9. Jose Martinez, Crime Fears Down in a Hub, BOSTON HERALD, April 22, 2000, at 1. 10. Contra id. 11. OFFICE OF THE POLICE COMM'R, supra note 7 at 30. 12. Boston's 'Magic' Formula, BOSTON HERALD, Feb. 20, 1997 at 24. 13. OFFICE OF THE POLICE COMM'R, supra note 7 at 30. 14. Id. at 33. 366 FORDHAM URBAN LAW JOURNAL [Vol. XXVIII The important thing is that the policing programs also include alternatives to getting involved in gang violence: services and jobs for these youths. That is essential. Problem solving policing improves community relations, and it also involves community participation. I want to emphasize that. So-called community policing that does not mean participation by the people isn't really community policing. San Diego's program is less formal.15 The police have been reorganized along neighborhood lines. They also use a system of problem-solving policing and have community groups that identify problems. The police, with the community groups, explore what law enforcement means might be used to solve the identified problems. This might include civil remedies, such as trying to take control of a crack house as a nuisance. 6 Again, participation is the key. In both of these cities, there has been a decrease in arrests and in crime. 7 And also, there are much better police-community relations. San Diego also uses a system that maps the crime in the various districts. This is very similar to the New York City Compstat system,18 which is quite consistent with a problem-solving policing approach. However, the problem in New York is that there isn't enough community cooperation. For example, after last year's scandal about the number of stop and frisks, there was a full page ad in The New York Times in which a long list of mostly private youth services organizations complained that harassment and abuse by police prevented them from doing their work. Why was it necessary for youth service organizations to take out an ad in The New York Times in order to complain about police problems? The police, and city agencies, should reach out to these organizations to try to resolve problems with youths.