Taking back our police

This year's graduation weekend seemed louder than most -- I was awakened around 4:30 in the morning by the sounds of partying, partying so widespread that I couldn't even pinpoint its location.  It's rare that I call in a noise complaint, but I didn't want to have to wait until past sunrise to get back to sleep, so I didn't see another option.  I heard the police arrive and start using their amplification system to get the attention of the revelers, and the effect was like throwing water on an oil fire -- the kids got louder every time the cops spoke.  It took awhile to settle them down.

I suppose I could have called the university police instead, but experience tells me that they would have kept me on the phone longer (I wasn't asked my name or specific address, just where the noise was), and they would have been less helpful.  It's not that the men and women who work on that force are less professional, they just have zero obligation to respond to me, because they don't work for me. The town police do work for town residents, and the difference is striking.

Try this experiment, like I did a couple of years ago:  identify an intersection that is patrolled by both town and SUNY police, and try to submit a FOIL request for data about arrests and traffic stops nearby.  When I attempted this, the town police accepted my request, told me it could take up to seven days to process, and had my detailed report in less than two.  Over at SUNY, I spent fifteen minutes on the phone with a sergeant who interrogated me about what I wanted the data for, tried to talk me out of it, and wouldn't even give up the identity of the information officer for the college.  I was so aggravated that I submitted a written complaint about the SUNY officer, and a written compliment about the dispatcher to processed my request for the town.

The difference, of course, is that the town police has a citizen police commission, and five elected officials, overseeing it.  SUNY cops have . . . some kind of structure, which goes up the line to the chancellor or the state police, but with no input from the community.  Which might be fine, if they didn't patrol beyond the borders of the campus.

But the officers want to widen their jurisdiction even more, and statewide their union is holding communities hostage until the state legislature acts.  Here in New Paltz, they are no longer helping out with parade detail, although apparently they will still be handing out speeding tickets off-campus.  I imagine that's a money-maker for their department, while parades are not.

New Paltz Supervisor Susan Zimet is proud that she helped get the SUNY peace officers police powers some years ago.  I think it was a terrible idea.  We have a police force, entirely within the heart of our community, over which we have no control or oversight.  I'm sure the situation is the same for many campuses around the state.  I think it's time we lobby the state to change that.

Colleges don't need police, they need peace officers.  Some municipalities need police, particularly ones with colleges, and those campuses should be paying the town or village (or state, when no local force exists) to provide police protection of their grounds.  This would require a significant increase in our local police force, but it would be paid for by the college, and its existing officers could be folded into our present force.

SUNY New Paltz is a huge benefit to our community, but it comes at a price.  They don't pay taxes.  They don't have to ask for permission when they want to build.  They don't have to participate in the community, and under the past president, the one who mused that the residents of a prison town don't expect to use those facilities so why should we expect access to the college, that participation was muted.  That participation varies by administration, and that's a bigger problem.  The problem of the police is simpler to understand: we should have local control, and towns and villages with their own departments should be lobbying together to take that control back.

Looking at the police

The New Paltz Police Commission and town police department have been in the news a bit lately.  The very existence of the commission hangs in the balance.

Let the board budget

Town board members are concerned that the commission hamstrings their ability to budget.  I don't know the specifics, but if the commission's recommended police budget can't be changed before it's incorporated into the annual town budget, that would be bad.  I don't want my elected officials to feel like they can blame volunteers if a budget decision proves unpopular.  We should do whatever it takes to give our elected representatives the confidence they need when they vote on any aspect of the town budget.

One area where nobody feels they're in control is that of contractual increases.  Multi-year contracts get negotiated, and future budgets must simply accept their terms.  So why do we do it this way?  Why not instead only negotiate one-year contracts, as part of the budgeting process?  Because it's too hard?  Or because that way you can sell a bill of goods down to your successors and they will be able to throw up their hands and say, "It's the best we could do, because our hands are tied by the terms of this three-year-old contract."  Is there anything in any law that would prevent our representatives from only negotiating single-year contracts, for police and all town employees?  Is there anything to prevent the town from passing a law requiring only single-year contracts?

What role for the commission?

As for the police commission, this is a body which could do real good in the community if it didn't have to focus on the budget.  I see real value in a group of citizen volunteers actively independently investigating allegations and publishing their findings.  I've heard (and suspect it's true) that most complaints against officers are baseless; I think it could only help if we could see how often this is the case.

When I interviewed for a seat on the commission a couple of years ago, one council member said to me, "I don't care how many guys they're beating up in an alley."  That official's priority was fiscal.  So I say let's take the budgeting side and give it to the people who don't care who is getting beaten up (if anyone is), and let our citizen volunteers focus on protecting both citizens and officers from poor treatment and misinformation.

The commission could do quite a bit to enhance police-community relations.  Officers have frequently told me that people know their "television rights" and not their "real rights."  So let's educate people on the difference.  Teach them how to behave during a police encounter, such that they exercise their rights without inadvertently escalating a situation.  I had the now-Lieutenant once tell me not to film an intoxicated individual.  I wasn't and didn't even have a camera, and frankly making a video of a guy puking on himself is pretty mean, but it's neither illegal nor is it unconstitutional.  I personally believe he give an inappropriate order; the chief and I disagree on that point.  The commission could preempt a lot of issues like these by clarifying departmental policies and educating the public about how officers will behave.  Education and transparency make for a safe community.

Cameras here and there

Commission members recently requested access to the car-cams which record police activity.  They are presently used for training purposes, not discipline, the chief told them.  What a missed opportunity!  Let's get these tapes into commission hands as soon as possible.  In fact, let's raise the transparency bar, and make all police video recordings available unless there is a reason not to.  Specifically, I would like to see a policy in which every video is posted online.  The chief and perhaps some others would be able to keep any specific footage from public view, but the individual who makes the call must be identified, along with the reason for the redaction.  That name and reason (which could be as simple as "evidence in an ongoing investigation") would be posted online in place of the video, and the footage would be reviewed annually to determine if the reason still held.

Sound like a lot of work?  Shouldn't be.  The officers know what goes down and could flag some encounters for review, and the rest would be posted automatically.

On a related note, police have recommended cameras in public places to help with safety and investigations.  I don't mind being constantly under observation if the police don't.  After all, as the owner of Jack's Deli remarked in this week's New Paltz Times, if you don't have anything to hide, there's no problem.

Police commission: needed?

Move to dissolve Town of New Paltz Police Commission sparks controversy | New Paltz Times

Is having a police commission, which is not very common, a good thing? My gut is "yes," but I agree that it doesn't work as well as it could. The commission is two broad areas of concern, as I recall:

1. fiscal issues such as the departmental budget and personnel promotions, and
2. personnel issues, like promotions and citizen complaints.

A side note here:  this is a recollection because I couldn't easily find it on the town web site.  I didn't see the link to the town code anywhere obvious, but that thing's search function is so horrible I would rather have the law quoted right on the police commission's portion of the town site.

Five volunteers aren't really able to do both of those jobs justice, and I think they're both critical to maintaining a thoroughly transparent and absolutely right-sized force.  

• Given the size of the budget, I think it's worth making sure that financial professionals, the kind that will probably never get elected and is willing to work for free, look over this immense spending plan.
• At the same time, having a group of people reviewing complaints makes sure that monitoring our protectors doesn't get lost in the wash of town business.

Jeff Logan says that "more government doesn't equal better government," and I imagine he disagrees with his father on the issue of consolidation, but I digress.  More government is a problem if it prevents things you want to encourage, or encourages things you want to prevent.  A citizen board reviewing complaints makes it easier and faster for a citizen to register one, and for the officer to have the matter resolved.  The fiscal oversight in no way slows down the town's budget process - the police commission found savings which weren't implemented because the budget wasn't passed on time.  More government in this case means better service for the same cost.  What's the down side?  The town council is reviewing a thoughtfully prepared budget?

I agree with Ira Margolis that the commission isn't perfect.  There's too much emphasis on money, at times, and not enough on the long-term consequences.  

• Jeff Logan called the donation of a new police dog "the gift which keeps on taking."  
• Our local police, like departments nationwide, have strong incentives to prioritize crimes which will generate income.  Specifically, they get to keep money and property seized in drug crimes, or some portion thereof.  It's the flip side of "running a government like a business:"  some crimes are literally worth more to the police than others.
• Every part-time officer we've hired has eventually become full-time.  Part-timers are hired because hey, they're so much cheaper because there's no benefits to pay.  Too bad it never stays that way.
• Giving SUNY security police status created another police force in the heart of our community, one which has no citizen oversight and heightens the sense that the college is apart from New Paltz.  Better to have them pay for the same police protection as the rest of us, just as they do for fire protection.

With the dual responsibilities the commission has, these kinds of decisions and events don't get the scrutiny they deserve.  Should we be mitigating for the external pressures on our police?  Do we consider the logical progression of our own decisions?

I'd rather see the commission stay.  The fact that they've annoyed our elected officials shows they're looking deeper than expected, and I like that.

Don't Tase Me, Bro

I try to keep an open mind about what people want and why they want it. After all, if someone passionately wants something, they've probably got a good reason for it. However, a want must be a need, especially with the tight budget conditions our police force faces. It is the duty of the New Paltz Police Commission to make an informed, smart decision, and to decide whether or not the reason that the New Paltz Police Department wants tasers is warranted.

Tasers are just plain dangerous. They're bad for New Paltz. Tasers are used primarily as a riot control device. They are used to control large crowds. Sure, New Paltz sees the occasional campus protest, or small-scale bar fight, but we never have full-out riots! I certainly can't remember the last time we had a riot, nor can any other New Paltzian's I've discussed the matter with. The police show insufficient data supporting the need for a riot control device. Show me instances where a taser would have ben useful in New Paltz history, and maybe I'll change my viewpoint.

In order for Taser use to be warranted and effective, a target ideally would be middle aged, of normal build, good health, and sitting down. You would point the taser at the target's middle lower back (aka tramp stamp area). However, a taser would be used on a target who was belligerent, and unable to be restrained. These two points do not make ANY sense...they contradict each other...and they were two points brought before the police committee at their last meeting. Taser misuse can be extremely dangerous. Check out the news- a man was killed last week in Rhinebeck due to irresponsible tasing.

Ed Daley, a Bouncer at Snug's Harbor (across from Wachovia- you know the place) expressed his concern to me. "I believe that tasers would all over be detrimental for the community", he concluded after stating concerns about getting caught in a taser cross-fire while breaking up a fight. When Ed got his job at Snugs, the police had pepper spray, and he knew that there would be a possibility of him getting sprayed. However, he did not sign up for a tasing! He went on to say that tasers increase the level of intimidation that the town police instill into people, and that it would foster the exponential cycle of negative feelings. It would feed the dynamic of the community vs. police that we see so often.

Do you agree with me? Then join the facebook group, "Don't Tase Me Bro...Keep Tasers Out of New Paltz!", and write a letter to the police commission and the editor of the New Paltz Times. Also, feel free to buy a "Don't Tase Me Bro" T-Shirt (you can google it), or better yet, make your own. Check out the "Don't Tase Me Bro" video on youtube- it has little to do with the situation at hand, but it was an internet phenomenon, and shows what tasers can do to people when misused. Disagree? Head on down to the New Paltz Police Department, and ask them for some literature on taser use. They'll hook you up.

Police looking to demonstrate tasers

This week's paper reports that Chief Joe Snyder asked the Police Commission for its opinion on the police force purchasing tasers. Among other things, he said he would try to arrange for a live demonstration "if he could convince someone to do it."

I'll do it.

The article implies that the Chief was looking for a volunteer from the department, since "officers have to be tasered" as part of their training. It's commendable, but I think it's the wrong way to go. Officers who have experienced a taser in the past, and are trained to endure much tougher rigors than the rest of us, can't possibly provide an accurate representation of what this thing is like on the receiving end. Let's get a civilian volunteer, I thought, or demonstrate the taser on members of the Police Commission so they have a clear idea what they're being asked to approve.

Then I realized that it's fine to make that kind of suggestion, but no one's going to take it seriously. I also realized that I have no idea what a taser is like, and so I really shouldn't be forming opinions.

So why not? I can get tasered at the commission's next meeting and tell them what it's like. I've got an average build, average health, and a willingness to sign a waiver, as long as I get a copy.

Update on the police accident

At the Police Commission meeting Thursday night, Chief Snyder gave some details about the July police collision that wounded two officers and killed a third. The accident report has been finalized, so the Chief was able to share some details that would have only been opinion prior.


View Larger Map

Officer Judge was proceeding northbound on North Putt Corners Lane, emergency lights on, responding to a call. Officer Knoth was responding to the same call, and was driving behind Officer Judge's vehicle in the same direction, without his emergency lights on. The distance between the two vehicles was not mentioned by the Chief, but my sense is that Officer Judge may have been aware that there was a vehicle behind his own.

Dispatch called Officer Judge off the original call to respond to a residential alarm, and he slowed to turn around by making a left turn into Erman Lane. Officer Knoth, aware that his fellow officer would be turning around to respond to a different call, assumed that Officer Judge would simply pull off to the right and thereafter make a U-turn. However, Officer Judge, unaware that the vehicle behind his was Officer Knoth's police cruiser, elected to make the left turn instead. Officer Knoth collided with Officer Judge essentially because he expected his fellow officer to zig, when in fact he zagged.

The Chief said that speed was a contributing factor, and that the emergency lights should have been operating on Officer Knoth's vehicle. I asked about the use of turn signals by police, but he declined to go into that much detail about the accident. I suspect that police officers in emergency conditions do not generally use turn signals, and have observed them declining to do so under non-emergency conditions a number of times. I don't know if using a signal would have prevented this accident, since I imagine that they aren't as easy to see with emergency lights on, but I hope the Department elects to require its officers to do so consistently in the future. Even for police officers, being aware of what other drivers plan on doing can prevent terrible accidents like this, and if using a signal increases accident avoidance by even .000005%, I think it would be well worth it.

May the injured officers recover and the deceased officer rest well after more than six years of service.