employment, misuse of a Department computer, failure to safeguard a firearm, and vehicle and traffic violations.

Fast tracked cases could move to immediate resolution once a settlement has been reached, without review by the First Deputy Commissioner’s Office or the Commissioner’s Office. To maintain the Commissioner’s control over disciplinary matters, appropriate reporting of all settlements would be made to both the First Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner. If any troublesome trends or cases emerged, the Commissioner could revisit the fast track process and determine whether it requires modification.

C.             DAO Should Limit Reconsideration Requests

DAO should limit the CCRB cases for which it requests reconsideration. In particular, DAO should not request reconsideration of disciplinary cases in which CCRB recommends Command Discipline, training, or instructions. In addition, DAO should request reconsideration of disciplinary cases in which CCRB recommends Charges and Specifications only when: (1) there are new facts or evidence that were previously not known to the CCRB panel, and such facts or evidence could reasonably lead to a different finding or recommendation in the case; or (2) there are matters of law which are found to have been overlooked, misapprehended, or incorrectly applied to a particular case by the CCRB panel. DAO should not request reconsideration where it merely disagrees with CCRB’s conclusions, when those conclusions were based on a complete evidentiary record and an accurate understanding of the law.

DAO and CCRB should also adopt the change—currently under consideration—to impose a 90-business-day deadline on CCRB’s responses to DAO requests for reconsideration. Currently, no deadline applies to this stage. The Panel believes 90 days should be more than sufficient time for CCRB to assess the request and respond, while still imposing a modicum of efficiency on the process.


To address issues that contribute to the under prosecution of false statement cases, the Panel recommends that the Department issue official guidance to IAB investigators and DAO attorneys concerning when officers who make false statements should be charged under Patrol Guide § 203-08, as opposed to other provisions of the Patrol Guide without a presumptive termination penalty.

The Panel is also encouraged by recent steps the Department has taken to monitor prosecutions and civil proceedings, and maintain open lines of communication with all six local prosecutors, [130] both U.S. Attorney’s Offices, and the Corporation Counsel.[131] According to the

[130] In addition to the District Attorneys in each of the five boroughs of New York City, the Office of the Special Narcotics Prosecutor for the City of New York has citywide jurisdiction.

[131] By this recommendation, the Panel does not suggest that every declination to prosecute, adverse credibility finding by a judge, and civil award by a jury should result in Charges and Specifications. Each of these modalities is beset by its own set of limitations. The Panel does conclude, however, that each instance should be analyzed and critically examined for possible disciplinary action.