azi paybarah

Briefing:

This afternoon, de Blasio will be on the City Hall steps with other lawmakers to announce a plan his office says will “dramatically reduce” the use stop-and-frisk.

De Blasio previewed his plan in an interview with the Times; it entails, among other things, a demand that the mayor “request an internal audit by the Police Department of its statistics on what occurs after each stop-and-frisk episode.”

…

An earlier attempt to curb the use of stop-and-frisks by NYPD officers actually wound up increasing use of the tactic. In a lengthy (and worth-reading, if you haven’t already) look at the NYPD, Chris Smith of New York magazine quoted an unnamed Brooklyn officer who said the paperwork already generated from stop-and-frisks “is an easy way for supervisors to feed the statistical best, to show that action is being taken to deal with spikes in crime.”

A turf war fully comes into the open:

The comments today are the strongest denunciation of the NYPD tactics by a law enforcement official so far. The comments follow complaints from New Jersey governor Chris Christie, Senator Robert Menendez and Newark mayor Cory Booker.

The reactions from New Jersey officials stand in sharp contrast to the the reactions from New York lawmakers, which have ranged from full-throated and strong support for Kelly, to mild statements questioning the practice’s effectiveness.

Which is to say there seems to be a very heavy jurisdictional element to the fight over the surveillance program, in the sense that it has become a turf way between New Jersey and New York and now, publicly, between the F.B.I. and the NYPD.

NYPD spokesman Paul Browne strongly rejected Ward’s characterization.

“Contrary to Mr. Ward’s assertions,” Browne said, “the NYPD has established strong ongoing relations in the Muslim community, and our intelligence gathering has led to the capture of the radical converts.”

The paper also notes — as I did Friday night on NBC New York [no link yet] — that Mayor Michael Bloomberg is fashioning a rather awkward doctrine: the freedom to worship, and the freedom to surveillance that worship.

Overall, the Times puts an emphasis on increasing transparency into the agency, and denounces Bloomberg for lashing out at those who question the department.

What do you think?

Surveying the 2013 candidates:

One group has conspicuously quiet about the whole thing: the Democrats hoping to replace Bloomberg when he leaves office after 2013.

In the absence of public statements from any of them, I reached out to the candidates to get their responses.

Their reactions were measured, ranging from qualified expressions of concern with the department’s execution of the program to outright support.

Read More

A.M. Briefing:

Kate Taylor at the Times writesabout a new coalition that is vowing to make it “impossible to run for citywide office … without taking a position on stop-and-frisk.”

Nearly all the mayoral candidates have taken positions on the issue, saying the policy needs to be modified, but not eliminated. 

In the story, a director of the group said that, like the Democratic mayoral aspirants who have criticized the policy, they’re not seeking an end to stop-and-frisk practice, but a fairer application of it.

But on the group’s web site, under a banner called “The Solution,” they say“We are calling on the New York City Council to pass legislation ending ‘stop and frisk’ and other flawed ‘broken windows’ type policies, ensuring respect for New Yorkers’ rights, and far more vigorous oversight of the NYPD.”