To fulfill its mandate, the Panel consulted with an array of stakeholders, some of whom operate within, or work closely with, the Department, and others who are outside the Department, but have a strong interest in the functioning of its disciplinary system. Each of those stakeholders provided valuable information to the Panel.
Within the Department, the Panel met with members from the Department’s Legal Bureau, Internal Affairs Bureau (“IAB”), DAO, Risk Management Bureau (“RMB”), the Deputy Chief of Information Technology, the Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Trials (“DCT”), and the Offices of the First Deputy Commissioner and of the Police Commissioner, including with the First Deputy Commissioner and the Police Commissioner themselves. The Panel observed trial proceedings and the Commissioner’s bi-weekly review of disciplinary cases.
Not surprisingly, the Panel learned a great deal by meeting with external stakeholders, including individuals from the Office of the Inspector General of the NYPD (“OIG-NYPD”), the New York City Law Department, CCRB, the Commission to Combat Police Corruption (“CCPC”), District Attorneys for New York, Queens, Kings, and Richmond Counties, as well as Peter L. Zimroth, the federal monitor appointed as a result of stop-and-frisk litigation against the NYPD, and his team. It had very useful meetings with elected officials and experts in the field. It also gained valuable insights from former NYPD police commissioners and officers and from representatives of the NYPD officers’ unions, the Legal Aid Society, the New York Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Communities United for Police Reform, other state and city officials, and the media.
The Panel examined statutes, rules, and court decisions that, together, govern or set limits on the Department’s disciplinary process. This review included analysis of the protections and restrictions imposed by Civil Rights Law § 50–a, which was the subject of an important New York Court of Appeals decision issued shortly before the release of this Report. The Panel also examined provisions of the New York City Charter that govern the Commissioner’s authority over the disciplinary process, and reviewed relevant agreements establishing the jurisdiction of CCRB and DAO in disciplinary cases.
The Panel examined disciplinary case files, organizational charts, variance memoranda and letters, data concerning disciplinary outcomes, reports detailing IAB investigations, DAO charging and other memoranda, bulletins to officers, staff rosters, and written procedures. It also reviewed information that agencies and organizations outside of the Department prepared. Of
 The Panel notes that these § 50–a restrictions govern not only the extent to which the Department may release information on disciplinary outcomes, but also the discussion of relevant cases and other information in this Report where the Panel was given access to and received information subject to the disclosure restrictions of § 50–a.