Weprin explains why he voted for stop-frisk bills

TimesLedger Newspapers
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook

Get our stories in your inbox, free.

Like TimesLedger on Facebook.

The following letter is a TimesLedger Newspapers exclusive:

There has recently been a great deal of heated discussion about the two bills that comprise the Community Safety Act — Intros 1079 and 1080 — which the City Council passed in late June. New Yorkers have been receiving some false information on these bills, so the time has come to calm down and look at the facts.

Intro 1080 does not prevent police officers from using stop-and-frisk. Police profiling based on race and other categories is already unlawful, based on a 2004 bill signed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Yet under both current law and Intro 1080, police officers can include race, gender, age and other relevant information when pursuing criminal suspects.

While Intro 1080 does not eliminate or alter stop-and-frisk, it does address bias-based profiling. This has become an epidemic over the past decade, all because of Bloomberg’s insistence that officers conduct an increasing number of quota-driven stops.

Every day I hear unsettling stories of law-abiding residents being stopped on the street in their own neighborhoods for no reason. Stops increased by a jarring 700 percent from 2002-11 without a corresponding drop in gun violence. Intro 1080 will not prevent police officers from stopping people, but it does reiterate that officers must have a law enforcement basis for a stop.

It has been suggested that Intro 1080 opens the door to frivolous lawsuits, but when other states enacted similar laws, the number of lawsuits did not increase. Additionally, plaintiffs in New York City cannot seek monetary damages under the bill, nor can they sue individual officers.

Instead, if policies are discriminatory or ineffective, individuals can sue to have those policies changed. By prompting the abandonment of wasteful practices, Intro 1080 will actually save the city millions of dollars.

Finally, Intro 1079 simply allows the city Department of Investigation to have oversight of the New York Police Department. Almost all city agencies have inspectors general, as do federal departments like the Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Those agencies are not held back by inspectors general, and the NYPD will not be either.

I have enormous respect for the work of the NYPD, and I would never vote for a law that would put New Yorkers in harm’s way or allow crime levels to increase. I supported these bills because I believe they will make our city safer for all residents.

Mark Weprin

City Councilman

(D-Oakland Gardens)

Today’s news:
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook

Get our stories in your inbox, free.

Like TimesLedger on Facebook.

Reader Feedback

Phil Orenstein from Queens Village says:
As a constituent concerned about the safety of my family, friends and community, I am infuriated with his vote for the two misguided bills, Intro 1079 and Intro 1080 comprising the Community Safety Act, and even more distressed by his explanatory letter filled with political doublespeak which shows that either he is lying or hasn’t read the bills.

Weprin is disingenuous by stating that “Intro 1080 does not prevent police officers from using stop-and-frisk.” He goes on to say, “under both current law and Intro 1080, police officers can include race, gender, age and other relevant information when pursuing criminal suspects.” But the fact of the matter is that Intro 1080 amends Section 14-151 of the NYC Administrative Code to “prohibit” police officers from engaging in all aspects of “bias-based profiling” which does include race, gender, age and other relevant information. He conveniently omits the fact that the new bill has legal teeth, absent from current law, allowing citizens to bring civil personal lawsuits against the NYPD and individual police officers for perceived bias-based profiling. Weprin’s statement that under Intro 1080, plaintiffs cannot sue individual officers, is flat out false.

Weprin defends his imprudent vote for Intro 1079 which would establish a redundant, costly rival authority to Police Commissioner Ray Kelly. It’s unnecessary to add another layer of bureaucracy that would cost the taxpayers many $ millions, when there is enough oversight already in place with Integrity Control Officers at each precinct level command, Community Affairs Bureau at One Police Plaza, Internal Affairs Bureau, Civilian Complaint Review Board, the five District Attorneys offices in each borough and the two U.S. Attorneys offices in Brooklyn and Manhattan.

The Orwellian Community “Safety” Act is just the opposite of what its name intends. It will handcuff the police as they cease to take any action that would subject themselves to lawsuits. It would allow newly emboldened criminals, murderers and drug dealers to rule the city streets again as they did 20 years ago before proactive policing methods like Stop, Question and Frisk was introduced. Today we have the lowest crime statistics ever, as murders, rapes and robberies have gone down 30% over the past 10 years since the “anti-crime miracle” Stop, Question and Frisk has been widely employed and has saved 1000’s of lives. If Weprin truly has “enormous respect for the work of the NYPD” and wants to “make our city safer for all residents” as he says, he needs to reject Intro 1079 and Intro 1080, so that the mayor’s promised veto will be sustained.
July 31, 2013, 9:51 pm

Enter your comment below

By submitting this comment, you agree to the following terms:

You agree that you, and not or its affiliates, are fully responsible for the content that you post. You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening or sexually-oriented material or any material that may violate applicable law; doing so may lead to the removal of your post and to your being permanently banned from posting to the site. You grant to the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual and fully sublicensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part world-wide and to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

CNG: Community Newspaper Group