THIS IS WHAT TRANSPARENCY LOOKS LIKE: AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF NYPD MISCONDUCT AFTER THE REPEAL OF 50-A

THIS IS WHAT TRANSPARENCY LOOKS LIKE: AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF NYPD MISCONDUCT AFTER THE REPEAL OF 50-A

This Note presents the first empirical study of the implications of the repeal of Civil Rights Law section 50-a (50-a), which made public New York Police Department (NYPD) personnel records, including disciplinary investigations. These data demonstrate the limited potential of transparency reforms, which are lauded as an important step toward increasing police accountability but do little to impact the actual behavior of police officers. Using a version of regression discontinuity design known as interrupted time series, this Note demonstrates that the repeal of 50-a did not live up to its promise of reducing police misconduct. These findings illuminate the disconnect between the professed purpose of this legal change and its actual impact. But as this Note also demonstrates through a text-mining approach called topic modeling, journalistic coverage of NYPD misconduct did increase after the repeal. This is framed as a second-order effect of the transparency measure—not reducing police misconduct ex ante but instead publicizing it after the fact. These data show that transparency on its own cannot bring meaningful change in policing, but it can lead to a more informed public, thus playing an important argumentative role in conceiving and implementing policies that will reduce the harms of policing.

The full text of this Note can be found by clicking the PDF link to the left.

Introduction

On May 29, 2020, a group of friends attended a Black Lives Matter protest in Brooklyn. 1 The details of this story follow those described in the closing report from Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) Case #202003770. The names of complainants, protesters, and unaffiliated parties are redacted in the public version of the report and thus do not appear here. The names of police officers involved in the incident are not redacted, so officers’ names are included throughout this Note. While they processed down Fifth Avenue between Bergen Street and Saint Marks Place, a lieutenant and several police offic­ers from the 72nd and 78th Precincts of the New York Police Department (NYPD) arrived at the protest. 2 CCRB Investigative Recommendation: Case #202003770, at 1 (2021), https://www.nyc.gov/assets/ccrb/downloads/pdf/closing-reports/202003770_RedactedClosingReport.pdf [https://perma.cc/5GM8-6Z5B] [hereinafter CCRB, Case 1]. Immediately upon exiting from an unmarked vehicle, Lieutenant Eduardo Silva approached the protesters, yelling at them to get onto the curb and “indiscriminately pushing approx­imately five protesters, some of whom had their backs turned to him.” 3 Id. at 1–2. At least one of the people the lieutenant shoved fell to the ground; another stumbled forward, turned around to see who pushed him, and was shoved again by Lieutenant Silva. 4 See id. The lieutenant also (though this part is dis­puted) “struck another unidentified protestor with an asp.” 5 See id. at 1 (using the word “allegedly” to describe Silva’s strike). “Asp” is the common term for an expandable baton, most famously manufactured by Armament Systems and Procedures, Inc. (ASP). See, e.g., Batons, Armament Sys. & Procs., https://www.asp-usa.com/ collections/batons [https://perma.cc/U88B-KNY7] (last visited Aug. 14, 2025). All “properly trained” NYPD officers are required to carry a baton; only “qualified” officers are given expandable batons. See NYPD, Administrative Guide 108–09 (2024), https://www.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloads/pdf/public_information/public-adminguide1.pdf [https://perma.cc/8RF3-4Q5P]. He never turned on his body-worn camera. 6 See CCRB, Case 1, supra note 2, at 3 (“Lieutenant Silva did not activate his body-worn camera during this incident.”).

The police officers with Lieutenant Silva engaged in similarly—if not more—aggressive behavior. Immediately after an unidentified officer “caus[ed] [a protester] to fall into a parallel parked vehicle and then to the ground,” Officer Adib Algahiti appears on body-worn camera footage yelling at the protester, still on the ground: “Get up, stupid. Bitch ass pussy.” 7 See id. at 8 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Officer Algahiti). Perhaps this goes without saying, but use of such language violates NYPD rules. During a different disciplinary case, the NYPD established that “discourteous statements made with no legitimate purpose but to belittle the civilian are not permissible.” Id. (citing Disciplinary Case 2015-15012 (BR 53)). For the NYPD’s specific ban on disparaging remarks about gender (i.e., prohibiting use of the words “bitch” or “pussy”), see NYPD, Patrol Guide: Public Contact—Prohibited Conduct Procedure No. 203-10, at 1 (2017), https://cao-94612.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/documents/NYPD-Patrol-Guide-Procedure-203-10.pdf [https://perma.cc/B9V7-7DF4]. Nearby, Officers Luis Melendez and Krysta Cosenza arrested a woman who appears in cell phone footage seconds later in handcuffs, cry­ing out: “I’m not okay. They smashed my face on the ground.” 8 CCRB, Case 1, supra note 2, at 11 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting the woman). Other officers, according to witnesses and Lieutenant Silva, used their batons to push protesters out of the street. 9 See id. at 8–9 (“[Redacted] described this as officers placing two hands on opposite ends of their batons and using them to push outward to move protestors around.”); id. at 13 (“Lieutenant Silva testified that officers, whom he could not identify, pushed pro­testors with their batons . . . .”).

This incident was reported to the Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) through its online portal three days after the protest. 10 Id. at 1. Hundreds of other complaints related to the Black Lives Matter protests were also lodged that summer, comprising over 2,000 allegations against 460 identified police officers. See CCRB, CCRB 2020 Protest Data Snapshot—June 21, 2021 (2021), https://www.nyc.gov/assets/ccrb/downloads/pdf/policy_pdf/issue_based/Protest%20Data%20Snapshot%20June%202021.pdf [https://perma.cc/D6UZ-Y2GW]. The CCRB reviewed cell phone and body-worn camera footage and conducted inter­views with officers, witnesses, and victims. 11 See CCRB, 2020 NYC Protests 12–17 (2023), https://www.nyc.gov/assets/ccrb/downloads/pdf/policy_pdf/issue_based/2020NYCProtestReport.pdf [https://perma.cc/NZ5W-SNA9] [hereinafter CCRB, 2020 NYC Protests] (describing the process and chal­lenges of investigating complaints associated with the 2020 protests). It filed its closing report about thirteen months later, on June 30, 2021. 12 See CCRB, Case 1, supra note 2, at 16. The report concluded that the majority of claims were substantiated, 13 The final dataset is available on request from the Columbia Law Review. meaning that the investi­gation estab­lished that the alleged conduct both occurred and violated NYPD rules. 14 See CCRB Conclusions, 50-a, https://www.50-a.org/conclusions [https://perma.cc/4R3P-ZH2Y] (last visited Aug. 14, 2025) (“‘Substantiated’: The conduct occurred and it violated the rules set by the NYPD in their Patrol Guide and the officer should receive some sort of discipline. The NYPD can choose to ignore CCRB recommendations and has discretion over what, if any, discipline is imposed.” (emphasis omitted)). The CCRB recommended a range of penalties for the various offic­ers involved, including prosecution by the Administrative Prosecution Unit (APU). 15 The final dataset is available on request from the Columbia Law Review. The APU is deployed in “serious cases” to con­duct a trial that may end in a range of penalties, including termination from the police force. 16 See The Administrative Prosecution Unit (APU), CCRB, https://www.nyc.gov/site/ccrb/prosecution/administrative-prosecution-unit-apu.page [https://perma.cc/BU4F-QTM7] (last visited Aug. 14, 2025). But by the end of the saga, two of the officers involved had retired and thus received no reprimand, several others received no formal NYPD penalty (against CCRB recommendations), and only one—Officer Algahiti—received any formal penalty at all. 17 The final dataset is available on request from the Columbia Law Review. The CCRB recommended bringing charges against Officer Algahiti, and he eventually received com­mand discipline and forfeited ten vacation days. 18 Interested readers can also reconstruct their own version of this data online from the Law Enforcement Lookup database, Law Enforcement Lookup, Legal Aid Soc’y, https://legalaidnyc.org/law-enforcement-look-up/ [https://perma.cc/848J-MYZ8] [hereinafter CAP, LELU] (last visited Aug. 14, 2025), and the city’s OpenData platform, Civilian Complaint Review Board, NYC OpenData, https://data.cityofnewyork.us/browse?Dataset-Information_Agency=Civilian+Complaint+Review+Board+%28CCRB%29 [https://perma.cc/DV4Y-F9QW] (last updated Aug. 13, 2025).

Five years ago, relaying this story would have been impossible. Under New York law, police misconduct records were hidden from the public, and the CCRB was limited in the amount of information it could disclose. But in 2020, the New York State Legislature voted to repeal Civil Rights Law section 50-a (50-a)—commonly known as the police secrecy law—making police personnel information disclosable under New York’s Freedom of Information Law (FOIL). 19 N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 50-a (repealed 2020). Almost immediately, a police union lawsuit attempt­ed to stop the repeal; the Second Circuit rejected its challenge in February 2021. 20 See Uniformed Fire Officers Ass’n v. De Blasio, 846 F. App’x 25, 27, 33 (2d Cir. 2021) (affirming the district court’s decision against the police unions). Several years and multiple lawsuits later, many of these records are publicly available, though their release continues to be contentious. 21 See, e.g., NYCLU v. NYPD, NYCLU (Sep. 30, 2021), https://www.nyclu.org/court-cases/nyclu-v-nypd [https://perma.cc/27KG-69RM] (“The New York Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the NYPD for unlawfully denying the NYCLU’s requests for the full slate of NYPD databases related to police misconduct authorized to be disclosed following the repeal of 50-a.”). Notably, the NYPD continues to fight the release of records, including by vanishing discipline records from its public officer database. See Sergio Hernández, Looking Up an NYPD Officer’s Discipline Record? Many Are There One Day, Gone the Next., ProPublica (May 9, 2024), https://www.propublica.org/article/nypd-police-displicine-records-database-accountability-misconduct [https://perma.cc/452K-UYB4] (“Since May 2021, at least 88% of the disciplinary cases that once appeared in the data have gone missing at some point, though some were later restored.”).

This Note investigates the immediate impact of 50-a’s repeal, analyz­ing NYPD misconduct records to explore whether officers engaged in less misconduct after their personnel records became publicly accessi­ble. To do so, this Note uses a version of regression discontinuity design known as interrupted time series (ITS).

Part I includes three sections of background on NYPD misconduct and transparency. Section I.A traces the NYPD’s history with misconduct and corruption, culminating in the establishment of the CCRB. Section I.B describes how 50-a became law and was incrementally expanded, and section I.C portrays the milieu within which the law was repealed—namely, the COVID-19 pandemic and Black Lives Matter protests in New York City. Part II goes on to describe existing police misconduct research, the meth­odology of this Note’s analysis, and the results of the ITS model. This Note primarily tests whether NYPD officers were, as advocates had hoped, less likely to engage in misconduct after 50-a’s repeal. Then, it investigates whether the repeal of 50-a had any second-order effects beyond changes in police behavior, manifested through public awareness of misconduct that could, in the future, contribute to more accountability for police harm.

Finally, Part III discusses the implications of these findings for trans­parency scholarship and policing policy. This Part focuses on the fact that transparency—though important—cannot on its own remedy the break­down of citizen-government trust that accompanies persistent misconduct, nor can it increase police accountability solely through the fact of being technically available to the public. 22 See Cynthia Conti-Cook, Digging Out From Under Section 50-a: The Initial Impact of Public Access to Police Misconduct Records in New York State, 18 U. Saint Thomas L.J. 43, 47–48 (2022) [hereinafter Conti-Cook, 50-a] (“‘Public access’ . . . refer[s] to information that is in theory legally accessible. But what is legally accessible public information versus what information the public can reasonably and regularly access to form opinions, organize others, and launch campaigns for policy change are two entirely differ­ent matters.”). When coupled with more actionable systemic reforms, however, transparency has the potential to increase citizen participation in policing oversight, as well as ease challenges for people bringing legal cases against officers or departments. This highlights the importance of holistic, rather than piecemeal, changes to policing in New York and beyond.