NYPD Inspector General: Chokehold Cops Face Few Consequences

In its inaugural report [PDF], the Office of the Inspector General for the NYPD examined 10 substantiated cases since 2009 in which officers used illegal chokeholds against New Yorkers and found that in several of the incidents, police "employed prohibited chokeholds—whether neck grabs or headlocks or some other contact with the neck or throat—as a first act of physical force in response to verbal resistance, as opposed to first attempting to defuse the situation."

Additionally, the IG's report found (perhaps not surprisingly) that the department routinely flouted the recommendations of the Civilian Complaint Review Board when disciplining the officers involved. "In fact, there was no indication from the records reviewed that NYPD seriously contemplated CCRB’s disciplinary recommendations or that CCRB’s input added any value to the disciplinary process," the report stated.

The IG's report follows the work of the CCRB, which produced a report on the roughly 1,000 chokehold complaints it received since 2009. Ten were ultimately substantiated, and in nine, the CCRB recommended that departmental charges be brought against the officers involved, the most serious suggestion the CCRB can make (in one of the cases they recommended that the officer face a reprimand from their command).

But the NYPD treated the CCRB's suggestions as such; the department's own disciplinary arm, the Department Advocate Office (DAO), recommended that no internal charges be brought against any of the officers, sought to have four officers read "instructions" on chokeholds, use command discipline in one case, and no discipline in another.

"Of the six chokehold cases reviewed for this study where the Police Commissioner made a final disciplinary determination, the Police Commissioner departed from the disciplinary recommendation of CCRB every time, imposing a less severe penalty or, in two cases, no penalty at all," the report reads. "In one of those cases, the Police Commissioner’s imposed penalty was even lower than the reduced penalty recommended by DAO."

That last case involved a 19-year-old girl who was being disciplined at her Bronx High School.

As the young woman began to walk away from the confrontation, school administrators elicited the assistance of a school safety officer to stop her from walking away. According to the complainant, when the subject officer, P.O. A, approached her, P.O. A threw her against the wall and grasped the front of the complainant’s neck for three to four seconds. Relying heavily on video footage of the incident, CCRB substantiated the chokehold allegation and recommended Administrative Charges against P.O. A. DAO recommended that P.O. A receive Instructions at the command level. The Police Commissioner disapproved both the CCRB and DAO recommendations and directed that no disciplinary action be taken against P.O. A.

That case had the "benefit" of the officer in question using the illegal chokehold in the midst of a violent confrontation. "The fact that several of the subject officers in the ten cases reviewed by OIG-NYPD used chokeholds as a first act of physical force and in response to mere verbal confrontation is particularly alarming."

In one such case, a man was waiting for an elevator inside the Bronx NYCHA building where his girlfriend lived.

He was approached by two officers who inquired if he resided in the building. When the complainant responded that he did not live there but his girlfriend was a resident, the officers said that they wanted to search him and the newspaper tucked under his arm. According to the complainant, he shook the newspaper in front of the officers to show them that he was not concealing anything, and the officers responded by grabbing his arms and neck.

As the officers were trying to pull the man’s arms behind his body, the subject officer, P.O. J, placed him in a headlock and took him down to the ground. The complainant further alleged that while on the ground, one of the officers placed a stick around his neck from behind that prevented him from breathing. Although CCRB investigators recommended that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the chokehold allegation, the CCRB panel substantiated the chokehold and recommended Administrative Charges against P.O. J. The APU [the CCRB's panel for adjudicating cases], however, declined to prosecute the chokehold charge and decided to prosecute only charges for an improper stop.

In another case in the Bronx, a man was walking out of a convenience store when he was approached by cops who asked him for his ID, and explained that they were responding to a 911 call.

After the complainant explained that he was not involved in any illegal activity, the subject officer, P.O. D, grabbed him by the arm, pushed him against the front of the store, and handcuffed him. When the complainant told P.O. D that he was not doing his job properly, the officer placed his hand and forearm on the complainant’s throat, which constricted his airway. CCRB found the statements provided by the complainant and a witness to be credible and substantiated the chokehold allegation. CCRB recommended Command Discipline for P.O. D, but there was no DAO recommendation or final disposition because P.O. D died while NYPD was reviewing the case.

The CCRB noted in that case, "The force was not used to gain control of the situation, but to establish and command the respect that [P.O. D] believed he deserved as an officer.”

Another case in Brooklyn illustrates how quickly some officers are willing to use illegal chokeholds to enforce an air of respect for authority:

According to a male complainant, on August 26, 2009, while he was “rapping” with friends in front of a NYCHA building in Brooklyn, he made a comment which prompted passing police officers to stop. When the officers approached the complainant to question him, the subject officer, P.O. E, grabbed him, wrapped his arm around the young man’s neck, and placed him in a headlock.

The complainant alleged that the headlock restricted his breathing. Upon the conclusion of its investigation, CCRB substantiated the chokehold allegation and recommended Administrative Charges against P.O. E. Although P.O. E admitted to having placed the complainant in a headlock, DAO recommended that the officer receive only Instructions. The Police Commissioner agreed and Instructions were imposed.

The Inspector General, Philip Eure, recommends [PDF] more "coordination and collaboration" between the CCRB and the NYPD, and for more transparency regarding the NYPD Commissioner's decisions to override civilian recommendations. Three of the cases reviewed by the IG are still pending under Commissioner Bratton.