prosecution Subscribe to RSS - prosecution

Adopted Rules: Closed to Comments

Adopted Rules Content: 

 

 

Statement of Basis and Purpose of Rules Changes

 

Overview

 

The existing Subchapter E of Title 38-A, the Rules of the CCRB, took effect on June 25, 2001. It was adopted pursuant to a memorandum of understanding ("MOU") made between the then-Chair and Police Commissioner on April 27, 2001 and provided for the administrative prosecution by the Board of civilian complaints substantiated by the Board, before the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings ("OATH").

 

The 2001 MOU was not implemented, because a panel of the First Department of the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court held that state law requires that such administrative prosecutions take place before a person employed by the Police Commissioner and OATH judges are not employed by the Police Commissioner.

 

Because the 2001 MOU could not be implemented, since June 25, 2001, administrative prosecutions of civilian complaints substantiated by the Board have continued to be handled by attorneys employed by the Police Department.  They are heard by the Trial Commissioner of the Police Department as required by state law.

 

A new Subchapter E of the Rules of the CCRB is now adopted as contemplated by an MOU made between the current Chair and Police Commissioner on April 2, 2012. The new Subchapter E replaces the existing Subchapter E and implements the terms of the new MOU which provides for the Board to conduct the administrative prosecution of certain of the Board's substantiated cases, before the Trial Commissioner of the Police Department.

 

In the course of undertaking the necessary rule changes, the Board conducted a review of its other rules. The Board determined that those sections dealing with jurisdiction, filing complaints, recording investigative interviews, letters to complainants, mediation and re-opening closed cases, should be revised to provide greater clarity and consistency.

 

The New Subchapter E

 

Rule § 1-41 explains the purpose of Subchapter E and contains a definition of terms.

 

Rule § 1-42 sets out the procedure to be followed when the Board substantiates an allegation against an officer and recommends that charges and specifications be brought against such officer. In limited cases where, in the view of the Police Commissioner, the interests of justice would not be served by the bringing of charges against an officer, the Police Commissioner may request in writing that the Board refrain from prosecuting such charges.

 

Rule § 1-43 sets out the procedure to be followed when a prosecution ought to be expedited.

 

Rule § 1-44 sets out the procedure to be followed when during the course of a prosecution the Board identifies possible misconduct falling outside its jurisdiction.

 

Rule § 1-45 restates the principle that the Police Commissioner retains in all respects the authority and discretion to make final disciplinary determinations; and requires that there be co-operation between the Board and the Police Department Advocate.

 

Rule § 1-46 sets out certain other matters relating to administrative prosecution, including several procedures to be followed.

 

Other Changes

 

Rule § 1-02 conforms the jurisdictional language in the Rules with the jurisdictional language in the New York City Charter, which provides that the Board has the power to receive, investigate, hear, make findings and recommend action upon complaints by members of the public against members of the Police Department that allege misconduct involving excessive use of force, abuse of authority, discourtesy, or use of offensive language including, but not limited to, slurs relating to race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation and disability. Such change, involving the addition of the words "have the power to" to the language currently contained in Rule §1-02, brings consistency to the language contained in the Rules and in the City Charter. It also reflects that under the City Charter the Board is not required to receive, investigate, hear, make findings and recommend action upon all such complaints.

 

Rule § 1-11 codifies the Board's current practice of accepting complaints received by email or through the Board's website, and makes clear that the Board may decide to accept complaints submitted by other means.

 

Rule § 1-24(i) codifies the Board's current practice of prohibiting interviewees and others from recording the Board's investigative interviews. To permit the recording of interviews would increase the risk that future evidence might be tailored to conform to statements made in an interview, and so threaten the integrity of the Board's investigations. The reference to recordings' being made either mechanically or by means of stenographer is deleted as it is archaic and redundant.

 

Rules § 1-46 through 50 are renumbered §1-51 through 56 to accommodate Subchapter E and maintain consistency with the current numbering system. The succeeding paragraphs of this Statement of Basis and Purpose use the new numberings for easier reference.

 

Rules § 1-53 (b) and (c) are deleted because to write to a complainant after forty-five and ninety days of the receipt of a complaint serves no useful purpose, as few investigations are completed within those periods and those time frames do not correspond to any meaningful stages or benchmarks in the investigative process.

 

Rule § 1-53 (b) (as renumbered) is split to make it easier to read. The second part of what was in Rule § 1-53 (b) (as renumbered) thus becomes § 1-53 (c).

 

Rule § 1-53 (c) (as renumbered) is amended to take account of the fact that not all allegations substantiated by the Board will be administratively prosecuted by the Board.

 

Rule § 1-53 (d) (as renumbered) is amended so that the term "Police Commissioner" is used consistently throughout the Rules and to reflect the new procedures introduced by the new Subchapter E of the Rules.

 

Rule § 1-53 (f) is deleted as §§ 1-53 (b) and (c) are deleted and § 1-53 (d) (renumbered as § 1-53 (b)) could not apply to a case resolved through mediation.

 

Rule § 1-54 is amended to correct typographical errors and to reflect the original intent of the respective rules.

 

Rule § 1-55 is amended to make it easier to read and to permit police officers to request the re-opening of cases closed without a full investigation.

 

 

Effective Date: 
Thu, 04/11/2013

Adopted Rules: Closed to Comments

Adopted Rules Content: 

 

STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE OF RULES CHANGES

 

Chapter 15 of Title 38 of the Rules of the City of New York outlines the rules governing adjudication of disciplinary proceedings applicable to uniform and civilian members of the New York City Police Department. The Rules required amendment due to the execution in April, 2012 of a Memorandum of Understanding by the Civilian Complaint Review Board and the New York City Police Department, concerning the prosecution of substantiated civilian complaints.

 

Subchapter B of Chapter 15, entitled "Substantiated Civilian Complaints Against Uniform Members," was promulgated in 2001 in order to implement the terms of a similar memorandum, executed that year, which ultimately did not take effect. The amendments to Subchapter B update the rules to reflect the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding executed in 2012, which will take effect when these Rule amendments take effect.

 

The Memorandum of Understanding reflects an agreement between the two agencies that the Civilian Complaint Review Board, rather than the New York City Police Department, will conduct administrative prosecutions of substantiated civilian complaints in which the Board has recommended that Charges and Specifications be preferred against a subject officer. The Memorandum of Understanding outlines the responsibilities of the two agencies, including provisions regarding mutual assistance, information sharing, and the procedures to be followed by both agencies as the prosecutions proceed.

 

Conforming changes were also made to Subchapter A of Chapter 15, entitled "Disciplinary Proceedings Against Civilian and Uniform Members before the Deputy Commissioner of Trials," to incorporate the participation of attorneys of the Civilian Complaint Review Board in the disciplinary prosecution process, as well as to update the Rules to reflect current procedures.

 

 

Effective Date: 
Thu, 04/11/2013

Proposed Rules: Closed to Comments

Agency:
Comment By: 
Monday, November 26, 2012
Proposed Rules Content: 

  

 

Statement of Basis and Purpose

 

Chapter 15 of Title 38 of the Rules of the City of New York outlines the rules governing adjudication of disciplinary proceedings applicable to uniform and civilian members of the New York City Police Department. The Rules require amendment due to the execution in April, 2012 of a Memorandum of Understanding by the Civilian Complaint Review Board and the New York City Police Department, concerning the prosecution of substantiated civilian complaints.

 

Subchapter B of Chapter 15, entitled "Substantiated Civilian Complaints Against Uniform Members," was promulgated in 2001 in order to implement the terms of a similar memorandum, executed that year, which ultimately did not take effect. The proposed amendments to Subchapter B would update the rules to reflect the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding executed in 2012, which will take effect when these Rule amendments take effect.

 

The Memorandum of Understanding reflects an agreement between the two agencies that the Civilian Complaint Review Board, rather than the New York City Police Department, will conduct administrative prosecutions of substantiated civilian complaints in which the Board has recommended that Charges and Specifications be preferred against a subject officer. The Memorandum of Understanding outlines the responsibilities of the two agencies, including provisions regarding mutual assistance, information sharing, and the procedures to be followed by both agencies as the prosecutions proceed.

 

Conforming changes are also made to Subchapter A of Chapter 15, entitled "Disciplinary Proceedings Against Civilian and Uniform Members before the Deputy Commissioner of Trials," to incorporate the participation of attorneys of the Civilian Complaint Review Board in the disciplinary prosecution process, as well as to update the Rules to reflect current procedures.

 

 

 

 

 

Subject: 

Opportunity to comment on proposed rule amendment pertaining to displinary proceedings against civilian and uniform members of the Police Department.

Location: 
Brooklyn Borough Hall, The Community Room, 1st Floor
209 Joralemon Street
Brooklyn, NY 11209
Contact: 

Deputy Commissioner, Legal Matters,
One Police Plaza, Room 1406,
New York, New York 10038

Download Copy of Proposed Rule (.pdf): 

Proposed Rules: Closed to Comments

Agency:
Comment By: 
Monday, November 26, 2012
Proposed Rules Content: 

 

 

Statement of Basis and Purpose of Proposed Rules

 

Overview

 

The existing Subchapter E of Title 38-A, the Rules of the CCRB, took effect on June 25, 2001. It was adopted pursuant to a memorandum of understanding ("MOU") made between the then-Chair and Police Commissioner on April 27, 2001 and provided for the administrative prosecution by the Board of civilian complaints substantiated by the Board, before the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings ("OATH").

 

The 2001 MOU was not implemented, because a panel of the First Department of the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court held that state law requires that such administrative prosecutions take place before a person employed by the Police Commissioner and OATH judges are not employed by the Police Commissioner.

 

Because the 2001 MOU could not be implemented, since June 25, 2001, administrative prosecutions of civilian complaints substantiated by the Board have continued to be handled by attorneys employed by the Police Department. They are heard by the Trial Commissioner of the Police Department as required by state law.

 

A new Subchapter E of the Rules of the CCRB is now proposed pursuant to an MOU made between the current Chair and Police Commissioner on April 2, 2012. The new Subchapter E would replace the existing Subchapter E and implement the terms of the new MOU which provides for the Board to conduct the administrative prosecution of certain of the Board's substantiated cases, before the Trial Commissioner of the Police Department.

 

In the course of undertaking the necessary rule changes, the Board conducted a review of its other rules. The Board determined that those sections dealing with jurisdiction, filing complaints, recording investigative interviews, letters to complainants, mediation and re-opening closed cases, should be revised to provide greater clarity and consistency.

 

The New Subchapter E

 

Rule § 1-41 explains the purpose of Subchapter E and contains a definition of terms.

 

Rule § 1-42 sets out the procedure to be followed when the Board substantiates an allegation against an officer and recommends that charges and specifications be brought against such officer. In limited cases where, in the view of the Police Commissioner, the interests of justice would not be served by the bringing of charges against an officer, the Police Commissioner may request in writing that the Board refrain from prosecuting such charges.

 

Rule § 1-43 sets out the procedure to be followed when a prosecution ought to be expedited.

 

Rule § 1-44 sets out the procedure to be followed when during the course of a prosecution the Board identifies possible misconduct falling outside its jurisdiction.

 

Rule § 1-45 restates the principle that the Police Commissioner retains in all respects the authority and discretion to make final disciplinary determinations; and requires that there be co-operation between the Board and the Police

 

Department Advocate.

 

Rule § 1-46 sets out certain other matters relating to administrative prosecution, including several procedures to be followed.

 

Other Changes

 

Rule § 1-02 conforms the jurisdictional language in the Rules with the jurisdictional language in the New York City Charter, which provides that the Board has the power to receive, investigate, hear, make findings and recommend action upon complaints by members of the public against members of the Police Department that allege misconduct involving excessive use of force, abuse of authority, discourtesy, or use of offensive language including, but not limited to, slurs relating to race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation and disability. Such change, involving the addition of the words "have the power to" to the language currently contained in Rule §1-02, would bring consistency to the language contained in the Rules and in the City Charter. It would also reflect that under the City Charter the Board is not required to receive, investigate, hear, make findings and recommend action upon all such complaints.

 

Rule § 1-11 codifies the Board's current practice of accepting complaints received by email or through the Board's website, and makes clear that the

 

Board may decide to accept complaints submitted by other means.

 

Rule § 1-24(i) codifies the Board's current practice of prohibiting interviewees and others from recording the Board's investigative interviews. To permit the recording of interviews would increase the risk that future evidence might be tailored to conform to statements made in an interview, and so threaten the integrity of the Board's investigations. The reference to recordings' being made either mechanically or by means of stenographer is deleted as it is archaic and redundant.

 

Rules § 1-46 through 50 are renumbered §1-51 through 56 to accommodate proposed Subchapter E and maintain consistency with the current numbering system. The succeeding paragraphs of this Statement of Basis and Purpose use the proposed new numberings for easier reference.

 

Rules § 1-53 (b) and (c) are deleted because to write to a complainant after forty-five and ninety days of the receipt of a complaint serves no useful purpose, as few investigations are completed within those periods and those time frames do not correspond to any meaningful stages or benchmarks in the investigative process.

 

Rule § 1-53 (b) (as renumbered) is split to make it easier to read. The second part of what was in Rule § 1-53 (b) (as renumbered) thus becomes § 1-53 (c).

 

Rule § 1-53 (c) (as renumbered) is amended to take account of the fact that not all allegations substantiated by the Board will be administratively prosecuted by the Board.

 

Rule § 1-53 (d) (as renumbered) is amended so that the term "Police Commissioner" is used consistently throughout the Rules and to reflect the new procedures introduced by the new Subchapter E of the Rules.

 

Rule § 1-53 (f) is deleted as §§ 1-53 (b) and (c) will be deleted and § 1-53 (d) (to be renumbered as § 1-53 (b)) could not apply to a case resolved through mediation.

 

Rule § 1-54 is amended to correct typographical errors and to reflect the original intent of the respective rules.

 

Rule § 1-55 is amended to make it easier to read and to permit police officers to request the re-opening of cases closed without a full investigation.

 

 

Subject: 

Opportunity to comment on the Civilian Complaint Review Board ("CCRB")’s adoption of revised rules related to administrative prosecution of certain cases substantiated by the Board

Location: 
Brooklyn Borough Hall
209 Joralemon Street The Community Room
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Contact: 

Graham Daw, Esq.
Director of Intergovernmental and Legal Affairs
Office of Intergovernmental and Legal Affairs
Civilian Complaint Review Board
40 Rector Street, 2nd Floor
New York, NY 10006-1740
Tel: 212-676-8591, Fax: 212-442-8800
TTY/TDD: 212-504-4115
gdaw@ccrb.nyc.gov