Queens prosecutors have been tracking at least 82 NYPD officers whose credibility have been challenged in court, according to documents obtained by Gothamist/WNYC as part of a two-year fight to get the information released under the state’s public records law.
The documents flag past incidents of suspected police dishonesty and previously unreported details of officers who remained on the force despite criminal convictions.
It is the latest development in a string of revelations that began in 2019 when Gothamist/WNYC reported all five New York City district attorneys had been building databases to track officers suspected of lying in court and other integrity breaches. Since then, the media organization has been fighting to get access to the records. The Queens release is one of the biggest disclosures thus far and expands on a more limited release by Queens prosecutors in 2019.
District attorneys collect these records in part because courts have ruled defendants have a right to know about information that could undermine the credibility of government witnesses, including and especially police witnesses, even if that evidence could unravel a prosecution.
“From the beginning of her administration, [District Attorney Melinda] Katz has stressed her commitment to strengthening community trust,” said Christopher Policano, a spokesperson for the Queens District Attorney’s Office. “This (release) is part of that continuing effort."
The documents show an array of potentially worrisome behavior by cops.
One of the officers cited in the documents testified that he arrested a suspect after seeing him with what the officer suspected was a small bag of heroin. But a judge found the officer did not have the legal justification to make the arrest because he did not believe the officer’s testimony that he clearly saw a bag of drugs from his vantage point, which was one to two car lengths away.
Two detectives also cited in the documents had their credibility challenged in court after inconsistencies in their testimony about how they found an illegal gun during a search warrant execution.
In both cases, the judges tossed out evidence the police had recovered, hobbling the prosecutions based on that evidence.
When contacted about the documents, a NYPD spokeswoman argued that an adverse credibility finding does not mean that an officer has an integrity problem.
“Often, these findings are the result of insufficient preparation for testimony of the officer or the judge substituting her perception of the facts for the officer’s firsthand knowledge,” Detective Denise Moroney said. “Additionally, there is no mechanism to appeal a finding of adverse credibility against one of our officers.”
The NYPD also said that it reviews such findings to decide whether they merit further investigation and discipline or other responses, such as enhanced training and officer reassignment.
In addition to showing how Queens prosecutors kept track of officers suspected of lying under oath, the newly released trove also yields some information about NYPD officers’ criminal histories and how little those convictions affected their careers.
For example, according to the documents, one officer pleaded guilty to driving while under the influence in 2008. Yet, city payroll records show the officer was promoted to the rank of lieutenant around 2018, and was still active in the NYPD in Queens as of last summer.
Another NYPD officer pleaded guilty to a harassment charge in 2017 in Suffolk County. His prosecution was deferred and he received an order of protection against his ex-wife, the documents say. As of last summer, he was still listed as an active officer in Queens.
The NYPD did not respond to questions about continuing to employ officers with criminal convictions.
The Queens District Attorney’s documents redacted references to disciplinary proceedings and misconduct allegations investigated by the NYPD for violations of department rules.
But all told, the documents raise questions about prosecutors’ willingness to continue to rely on officers who have exhibited a lack of professional integrity.
The Queens documents are the latest trickle in a response to the push nationwide from journalists for more transparency around police disciplinary records.
In June 2020, New York’s state Legislature repealed a law, Civil Rights Law 50-a, which had kept many such disciplinary records secret for decades. A coalition of police and other unions went to court challenging New York City’s plans to release the records. That fight is ongoing.
Gothamist/WNYC secured the documents only after filing a Freedom of Information Law appeal. But the disclosures are not comprehensive. The DA refused to turn over numerous records on NYPD disciplinary proceedings and misconduct allegations, citing the unions’ pending court challenge.
Editor's note, February 26, 2021: Following publication of this story, The Queens District Attorney notified Gothamist/WNYC that the original officer list it released wrongly included the name of Deputy Inspector Christopher Flanagan. In addition to disclosing the error, The District Attorney sent a new, slightly longer list which includes one non-NYPD officer. Gothamist/WNYC has updated the list.
George Joseph reported this story for the Gothamist/WNYC Race & Justice Unit. If you have a tip, or if you work or have worked in a prosecutor's office, a law enforcement agency or the courts, email reporter George Joseph at [email protected]. You can also text him tips via the encrypted phone app Signal, or otherwise, at 929-486-4865.
