Centenial Celebration

Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.

Date: November 25, 2024 Mon

Time: 9:10 pm

Results for legal claims

1 results found

Author: New York (City). Department of Investigation

Title: Using Data from Lawsuits and Legal Claims: Involving NYPD to Improve Policing

Summary: Over the past decade, legal claims and civil lawsuits against the New York City Police Department (NYPD) have been increasing in number. According to NYPD, in the past five fiscal years alone, the City has seen more than 15,000 lawsuits filed against NYPD, a 44% increase in total number, that in sum have cost the City over $202 million. These cases result in a substantial financial burden on New York City taxpayers. The City's response has ranged from removing the most-sued officers from the streets to allocating new and greater resources to the attorneys who must defend these lawsuits. The Mayor recently announced that the New York City Law Department would receive an additional $4.5 million to hire 30 new attorneys and 10 new paralegals to defend the City against such lawsuits. While parties may differ on what has caused this high volume of lawsuits, the byproduct has been a large quantity of lawsuit and claims data which, if used correctly, can assist NYPD and the City with taking necessary corrective action. However, various agencies with responsibility for different aspects of this litigation are not tracking the data from these cases in the most effective way possible. This Report discusses the necessary steps needed for the efficient collection and use of this data. While the high number of legal claims and lawsuits being filed against NYPD is concerning, the careful collection and analysis of data regarding legal claims and civil lawsuits (hereinafter "litigation data") has the potential to reduce costs while improving both officer performance and police-community relations. Although litigation data is not a perfect indicator of police performance, when the correct litigation data is collected and used properly, it can help result in changes that benefit individual officers, the police department, community members, and the City at large. As outlined in this Report, NYPD can use litigation data in three ways: First, a quantitative and qualitative review of litigation data can be used to help law enforcement identify patterns and trends of police misconduct that warrant remediation. Second, by coupling litigation data with "Early Intervention Systems," law enforcement agencies can identify at-risk officers who may be in need of enhanced training or monitoring. Third, litigation data analysis can contribute to improvements and positive shifts in departmental culture. In this Report, OIG-NYPD looks at how law enforcement agencies in other jurisdictions have successfully used litigation data in these three ways to effect change and reduce costs, and how NYPD can do the same. While litigation data has the potential to bring improvements, the limitations of the information must also be taken into account. For example, the fact that a claim or lawsuit is settled is not necessarily proof of liability or improper conduct. Cases are not always resolved on the merits, and non-meritorious cases are sometimes settled for lower amounts to avoid the costs and uncertainties of litigation. Moreover, litigation data cannot, by itself, drive change in how plaintiffs and the City choose to litigate and resolve lawsuits. Separate strategies, independent of this Report, are required to address how claims and lawsuits are managed by agencies and counsel. But when the data is properly gathered and analyzed, litigation data can still be used for positive, proactive improvements in policing. While this Report lists several steps that should be taken, OIG-NYPD notes that NYPD is, in some ways, ahead of many other police departments with respect to tracking and analyzing litigation data. For example, NYPD has been improving its system for using data - including litigation data - to track and monitor the performance of individual officers. NYPD also recently revamped its internal team responsible for reviewing and identifying trends in legal claims and litigation. Finally, NYPD has been exchanging data more regularly with the two agencies that also track litigation data against NYPD and its officers: the Office of the Comptroller of the City of New York (Comptroller's Office) and the New York City Law Department (Law Department). Notwithstanding this progress, more should be done. OIG-NYPD sees several opportunities for enhancing how litigation data is collected and utilized in the long-term. OIGNYPD therefore makes the following three recommendations: 1) NYPD should perform a qualitative review of the most relevant data contained within legal claims and lawsuits against NYPD. A more thoughtful examination of certain litigation metrics generates the greatest benefit from a risk management perspective, police oversight perspective, and accountability perspective. Specifically, NYPD, the Comptroller's Office, and the Law Department need to start tracking more details about the nature of the claims and the core allegations, information about the subject police officer, the location of the alleged incident, and the address of the plaintiff. A more qualitative review of claims and final outcomes will also help to distinguish potentially meritless cases from more substantive claims and, therefore, will help to determine which cases can best help with an Early Intervention System or a trend analysis system. 2) NYPD should more closely coordinate the collection and exchange of litigation data through the creation of an interagency working group with the Comptroller's Office and the Law Department. Beyond the current bilateral discussions that NYPD has with both the Comptroller's Office and the Law Department, an interagency working group would allow all three agencies to better understand the optimal path forward in facilitating and exchanging the review of police-involved litigation data. This includes identifying what data exists and where, how data should be classified, what additional data should be collected, what resources are needed to capture data that is not readily available, and how to best balance the benefits of data review with the practical realities of data collection. 3) NYPD should be more transparent in its emerging work in litigation data analysis so that New York City residents can better understand how the officers serving their community are evaluated and how NYPD is using litigation data to identify trends in the Department as a whole. In addition to revealing details about both officer performance monitoring and litigation data analysis, NYPD should also solicit public comment regarding these systems. With increased transparency and openness to comment will come greater public confidence in NYPD's plan for analyzing litigation data. Reliable data on police activities is a foundation of oversight and review. This Office, as well as NYPD, must therefore take all practical steps to harness the most accurate data from all available sources and render it useful. If the recommendations in this Report are implemented, litigation data analysis may further this goal by helping to reduce the number of legal claims and lawsuits directed towards NYPD, while also reducing costs and improving policing and police-community relations in New York City as a whole.

Details: New York: New York City Department of Investigation, Office of the Inspector General for the NYPD, 2015. 30p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 11, 2016 at: http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/oignypd/downloads/pdf/2015-04-20-litigation-data-report.pdf

Year: 2015

Country: United States

URL: http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/oignypd/downloads/pdf/2015-04-20-litigation-data-report.pdf

Shelf Number: 145427

Keywords:
Legal Claims
Police Accountability
Police Behavior
Police-Community Relations