A MUTATED RULE: LackLack ofof EnforcementEnforcement inin thethe FaceFace of ofPersistent Persistent Chokehold Chokehold Complaints Incidents inin NewNew YorkYork CityCity An Evaluation of Chokehold Allegations Against Members of the NYPD from January 2009 through June 2014 CIVILIAN COMPLAINT REVIEW BOARD BILL DE BLASIO Mayor RICHARD D. EMERY Chair A Mutated Rule CCRB Mission and Values The New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) is an independent agency, created by Chapter 18-A of the New York City Charter. The Board is empowered to receive, investigate, mediate, hear, make findings, and recommend action on complaints against New York City police officers alleging the use of excessive or unnecessary force, abuse of authority, discourtesy, or the use of offensive language. In fulfillment of its mission, the Board has pledged: • To report apparent patterns of misconduct, relevant issues and policy matters to the police commissioner and the public. Published 2014 by the New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board 100 Church Street, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10007 CCRB URL: http://www.nyc.gov/ccrb To order CCRB reports or to obtain additional information, contact General Information: Telephone: (212)912-2061 or (800)341-2272 Or visit, www.nyc.gov/ccrb i New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board – www.nyc.gov/ccrb Preface___________________________________________________ In July 2014, CCRB Board Chair Richard Emery, in the wake of the tragic death of Eric Garner and on behalf of his fellow Board members, asked the CCRB staff to undertake an objective, comprehensive assessment of chokehold complaints made to the CCRB. This study investigates chokehold complaints, primarily from January 2009 until June 2014, in order to report findings and make recommendations to the Police Commissioner and the public. After documenting and evaluating five and a half years of chokehold complaints, their patterns and the likely causes of their persistence, this report recommends ways in which the CCRB and the NYPD can collaborate to reduce chokehold incidents and eliminate future chokehold tragedies. This report is an agency report prepared by staff as directed by the Chair. ii Contents______________________________________ Preface . ii Contents . .iii Figures . iv Statistical Tables and Charts . v Executive Summary . viii Abbreviations . xv CHAPTER ONE Chokehold Incidents: Defining the Scope of the Study .. 1 Introduction . 1 Organization of this Report . 3 Purpose, Population and Methodology . .4 Policy and Legal Framework . 6 CHAPTER TWO Analysis of Chokehold Complaints . 19 Descriptive Statistics . 20 Application of the Descriptive Statistics . 45 CHAPTER THREE Police Department Discipline . .. 57 The NYPD Disciplinary System . .. .. .. .. 58 Analysis of Discipline: Four Distinct Periods . 62 CCRB Substantiated Cases and the Disciplinary Process . .. .. .. 70 Conclusion . .. .. .. 83 CHAPTER FOUR Audit of Investigative Practices . .. .. 85 Efficiency: The Time it Takes to Resolve a Chokehold Complaint . 86 Investigative Practices and Training . 89 Chokehold Incidents and the Lack of Evidence: Unsubstantiated Cases . 100 CHAPTER FIVE Policy Recommendation . .. 107 Appendix to Chapter 2 . .. .. .. 109 iii Figures____________________________________________________________ 1.1. Police Student’s Guide, “Use of Force: Scale of Escalating Force,” . 8 iv Statistical Tables and Charts_________________________________ Chart 2.1: Number of chokehold complaints received, 2001 – 2013 . 21 Chart 2.2: Number of chokehold complaints received per six-month periods, January 2009 - June 2014 . .. 22 Chart 2.3: Chokehold complaints received as a percentage of force complaints received, with a trend line added, 2001 - June 2014 . 23 Chart 2.4: Chokehold complaints received per six-month periods as a percentage of force complaints received, with a trend line added, January 2009 - June 2014 . 24 Chart 2.5: Disposition of fully investigated allegations, January 2009 - June 2014 . 26 Chart 2.6: Rates at which cases are substantiated and unsubstantiated, January 2009 - June 2014 . 27 Chart 2.7: By precinct of occurrence, precincts with 5 or fewer chokehold allegations, January 2009 - June 2014 . 29 Chart 2.8: By precinct of occurrence, precincts with 20 or more chokehold allegations, January 2009 - June 2014 . 30 Chart 2.9: Ratio of chokehold allegations to force complaints by precinct of occurrence, 1:12 or lower ratio, January 2009 -June 2014 . 31 Chart 2.10: Ratio of chokehold allegations to force complaints by precinct of occurrence, 1:20 or higher ratio, January 2009 - June 2014 . 32 Chart 2.11: Charges and summonses information, January 2009 – June 2014 . 34 Chart 2.12: Chokehold incidents and stop and frisk allegations, January 2009 – June 2014 . 35 Chart 2.13: Tenure of subject officers, January 2009 – June 2014 . 38 Table 2.14 Attribution of chokehold complaint and all complaints to Patrol Boroughs and Other Commands . 39 Table 2.15 Attribution of chokehold complaint and force complaints to Patrol Boroughs and Other Commands . 40 Chart 2.16: Number of CCRB complaints for officers with chokehold complaints, January 2009 – June 2014 . 42 Chart 2.17 Number of CCRB substantiated complaints for officers with chokehold complaints, January 2009 – June 2014 . 44 Table 2.18: History of force complaints by officers with chokehold incidents . 51 Table 2.19: History of arrest complaints by officers with chokehold incidents . 53 Table 2.20: History of proactive contact complaints by officers with chokehold incidents … ………………………………………………………………………. ………. 54 v Chart 6.1: Chokehold complaints received as a percentage of total complaints received, with a trend line added, January 2009 – June 2014 . 110 Chart 6.2: Disposition of not fully investigated allegations, January 2009 - June 2014 ………………………………………………………………………………………………... 111 Chart 6.3: Rate at which chokehold cases are fully investigated, January 2009 - June 2014 . 112 Chart 6.4: Where chokehold complaints were initially filed, January 2009 - June 2014 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… .113 Chart 6.5: Day of the week when alleged chokehold incidents occurred, January 2009 - June 2014 ……………………………………………………………. ………. 114 Chart 6.6: Month when alleged chokehold incidents occurred, January 2009 - June 2014 …………………………………………………………………. ……. 115 Chart 6.7: Time of the day when alleged chokehold incidents occurred, January 2009 - June 2014 ………………………………………………………………….……….. 116 Chart 6.8: Time of the day when alleged chokehold incidents occurred versus all incidents, January 2009 - June 2014 ……………………………. ………. 117 Chart 6.9: Location where alleged chokehold incidents occurred, January 2009 - June 2014 …………………………………………………………………. ………. 118 Chart 6.10: Borough where the alleged chokehold incidents occurred, January 2009 – June 2014 ………………………………………………………………….……… . 119 Chart 6.11: Reason listed for civilian-police contact, January 2009 – June 2014 . 120 Chart 6.12: Detailed charges and summonses information, January 2009 - June 2014 . ……… …………………………………………………………. ………. 121 Chart 6.13: Allegations of misconduct in chokehold cases, January 2009 – June 2014 (50 or more allegations) …………………………………………………. ………. 123 Chart 6.14: Allegations of misconduct in chokehold cases, January 2009 – June 2014 (49 or fewer allegations) …………………………………………………. ………. 124 Chart 6.15: Total allegations of misconduct in chokehold cases, January 2009 – June 2014 …………………………………………………. ………. 125 Chart 6.16: Number of force allegations in chokehold cases, January 2009 - June 2014 …………………………………………………. ………. 126 Chart 6.17: Gender of complainants in chokehold incidents, January 2009 - June 2014 …………………………………………………. ………. 128 Chart 6.18: Race of complainants, January 2009 - June 2014 . 129 Chart 6.19: Age of complainants, January 2009 - June 2014 . 130 Chart 6.20 Residence of complainants, by zip code, January 2009 – June 2014 (21 or more) . 132 Chart 6.21 Residence of complainants, by zip code, January 2009 – June 2014 (20 or fewer) . 133 Chart 6.22: Rank of subject officers, January 2009 – June 2014 . 135 Chart 6.23: Race of subject officers, January 2009 – June 2014 . 137 vi Chart 6.24: Gender of subject officers, January 2009 – June 2014 . 138 Chart 6.25: Age of subject officers, January 2009 – June 2014 . 139 vii Executive Summary_____________________________ For more than 20 years, the NYPD Patrol Guide has prohibited the use of chokeholds, relying on a Police Department rule that unequivocally forbids any pressure to the neck, throat or windpipe that may inhibit breathing. This rule was plainly intended to prohibit all chokeholds. As defined, chokeholds, though not illegal, are unambiguously prohibited by Department policy. This report reveals that officers have continued to perform chokeholds and, based on the complaints the CCRB received from the public, the use of chokeholds appears to be increasing despite the Patrol Guide prohibition. It also reveals that this crystal clear prohibition has been degraded over the course of the last decade. Put simply, during the last decade, the NYPD disciplinary decisions in NYPD administrative trials of chokehold allegations failed to enforce the clear mandate of the Patrol Guide chokehold rule. In response to these decisions which failed to hold offending officers accountable, the CCRB and NYPD Department Advocate’s Office failed to charge officers with chokehold violations pursuant to the mandate of the Patrol Guide chokehold rule. In essence, in their respective charging decisions, the CCRB and the Department