Plan to curb police response to protests can go ahead, judge rules

New York City can move forward with an agreement to overhaul how police handle demonstrations, a federal judge ruled Wednesday, rejecting arguments from the police officers' union that the changes would endanger officers and the public.

The judge, Colleen McMahon of the US District Court in Manhattan, said in her ruling that the union, the Police Benevolent Association, had failed to show that safety would be jeopardized by the agreement, which calls for a gradual response to demonstrations rather than immediate action. show of strength.

“There is simply no evidence, let alone substantial evidence, that the public interest would be harmed if the settlement were approved,” she said.

Judge McMahon said the methods the union proposed – quickly responding to protests with escalated violence – would most likely be “counterproductive.”

The judge's decision came as the city was engulfed in a new round of protests. There have been hundreds since Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, and on Wednesday authorities prepared for disruptions to President Biden's visit to New York.

The police union reacted angrily to the decision to go ahead with the settlement. “The next time a peaceful protest is hijacked by rioters, the next time our roads, bridges or subways are shut down by troublemakers, New Yorkers should remember that their city has chosen to encourage these disruptions by joining this misleading scheme,” said Patrick Hendry. , president of the PBA, in a statement.

Judge McMahon had approved the agreement last September after more than a year and a half of negotiations between the city and the office of Letitia James, New York's attorney general. Ms. James had sued the department in January 2021 after an investigation found widespread abuse during Black Lives Matter protests following the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis in the summer of 2020.

But Judge McMahon revoked the approval at the request of the police union, which had asked for a chance to argue against the agreement in court. The union, which was not charged in the case but intervened in the lawsuit, said it had “veto power” over the settlement because of its “interest in officer safety.”

The union's action had threatened to nullify the agreement reached by the city, Ms. James' office, two other police unions, the protesters who sued the department, the Legal Aid Society and the New York Civil Liberties Union. The latter two groups also filed lawsuits against the department after more than 2,000 protesters were arrested during the 2020 protests, most while demonstrating peacefully.

The images of violent clashes stunned residents and municipal leaders, who called for dramatic changes in the way the department responds to peaceful demonstrations.

In September, Mayor Eric Adams and Edward Caban, the police commissioner, issued a press release supporting the agreement. Mr. Adams called it “the result of a collaborative process that aims to build consensus, balance safety and justice, and protect protesters, bystanders and law enforcement personnel.”

But the PBA objected to the deal's four-stage de-escalation system, which would prevent officers from being deployed immediately.

In December, Mr. Adams withdrew his support. “As soon as I read the settlement, I said, 'This is a problem.'” Mr Adams said this during a press conference.

The deal moving forward would end the tactic of boxing protesters and then arresting them, a practice known as “kettling” that has produced images of officers locking protesters in tight spaces and then rushing at them or hit with clubs.

It also provides for a four-stage response to protests. First, for peaceful protests, community affairs unit officers would be dispatched to communicate directly with leaders and explain to them what action might be taken.

The response will intensify in cases where officers believe illegal activity will take place or when the protest would block “critical infrastructure.” It would be increased even further if crimes were likely committed.

The fourth phase, in which police would move in to end the protest, would be triggered if demonstrators tried to enter or block access to “sensitive locations” such as a precinct, courthouse or hospital, or when crimes were so widespread that de-escalation or “targeted enforcement has not worked or cannot work.” Commanders on site would have to obtain permission from a supervisor to deploy officers.

The system is cumbersome and would prevent officers from responding quickly, the union said in court filings. It ignores how quickly a protest can “rapidly and unpredictably degenerate into a violent encounter or riot,” union lawyers said in the letter, referring to the riot on Capitol Hill on Jan. 6, 2021.

At a hearing in federal court on Jan. 29, attorneys for the city and civil liberties groups said the union misrepresented the plan.

Police will have the discretion to deploy officers if they determine a protest has become dangerous, Corey Stoughton, a Legal Aid attorney, told Judge McMahon.

The union has made so many incorrect statements about the agreement, “to be honest, it often feels like they haven't read it” said Ms. Stoughton, who now works for Selendy Gay in Manhattan.