A Judge Has Ordered the NYPD to Record Every Interaction

The larger goal is to bring "the NYPD's stop-and-frisk policies and practices into compliance with federal and state law."



Judge Analisa Torres of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has ordered the New York Police Department (NYPD) to create a "pilot program" to record all police interactions. The NYPD says this is "neither practical nor feasible."

Torres' decision stems from lawsuits over the department's controversial stop-and-frisk policy. In 2013, Torres was assigned to Floyd v. City of New York, a case that challenged the practice on the grounds that it was being used in a racially discriminatory fashion. A few months prior to the case, another federal judged ruled the practice unconstitutional.

As Torres wrote in 2015, the court wants to bring "the NYPD's stop-and-frisk policies and practices into compliance with federal and state law." To that end, Torres has ordered both the NYPD and those who have brought suit over the practices to design a "pilot program" that would record "low-level" police interactions, referred to as "Level 1 and 2 investigative encounters."

The program's design would need to be completed by September 2018. Body cameras have already begun to be issued throughout the department in response to the legal action against the department, though they are typically used in Level 3 and Level 4 encounters—this includes the interactions that are likely to end in an arrest.

The suggestion originates from a "facilitator" appointed by the court. According to the New York Post, the facilitator has said recording lower-level interactions would highlight "the extent to which police are initiating [stop-and-frisk] encounters on the basis of race."

NEXT: Disney Fires Guardians of the Galaxy Director James Gunn Over Politically Incorrect Tweets

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It’s about time.

    1. How long before this is a requirement for all of us?

      1. Don’t you all stream your life 24/7? I’ve built up quite the audience; however, most of them only tune in when I’m taking a dump. Weird.

        1. If you could IP track them I would appreciate the data. Thanks.

            1. You peed a dress? And I thought kidney stones were painful…

        2. Why don’t you go by the name “Brown Tony”?

  2. The NYPD says this is “neither practical nor feasible.”

    Pushing the record button on the body camera thingy requires a higher pay grade

    1. I don’t think they even have to push a button. I believe there are devices which will record the entire shift without any sort of interaction at all.

      1. and how must fun it must be to go through all that footage and add tags to make it searchable.
        Maybe they have shortcuts for flagging common interactions

        1. Yes, look for where the camera has “failed” or had a “glitch”. That’s where the interesting bits would have been.

          1. Watergate, anyone?

        2. Well, you only have to go through the footage if there’s an issue. And presumably if there’s an issue, finding it can be done at fast forward until you get to the “good” part.

      2. Based on the article, they choose what to record (level 3&4) or not. So what the judge is saying is to record everything but the BS in the squad car outside the donut shop.

        1. Sure, I understand that’s how it works now. I’m just saying, that there are devices which don’t require even that level of interaction.

          Honestly, I’d generally prefer a device that the cops can’t turn off.

          1. A piece of tape over the lens will work the same.

            1. Yeah, but it’s pretty hard to talk your way out of “I accidentally taped over the lens of my camera and then beat the shit out of this guy.”

  3. The Judge should have just stated stop and frisk is illegal under the 4th Amendment and ordered them to stop and strip all qualified immunity for those who officers that continue the practice. A judge should not be legislating from the bench and creating a new program is certainly that.

    1. Well said, Notion.

    2. Any arrest not recorded is invalid.

    3. Agreed. I’d certainly like everything to be recorded, but I see where a judge has the authority to require it. Either the legislature should dictate it, or the PD should implement it to cover its own ass.

      1. …er, don’t see.

  4. We should see if we can increase surveillance of police administrators as well.

  5. Judge Analisa Torres of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has ordered the New York Police Department (NYPD) to create a “pilot program” to record all police interactions.

    Or else what?

    1. She’s going to hammer their asses with her gavel. (Assuming the gavelees don’t get hard to this punishment.)

    2. She does have the power to throw their pig asses in jail. I would prefer after she has “COP” branded on their foreheads.

  6. The NYPD says this is “neither practical nor feasible.”

    Further proof that those who work in the porn industry are smarter and more prudent than police officers.

  7. Hopefully that comes with a big bump in pay and some immunity.

  8. Note for NYPD:
    When I was working as a consultant I charged /hr with a four hour minimum, but you can have this for free. Full text of the “pilot program” establishment and authorization memo.

    “Hey, you guys, start recording everything.”

  9. The court has made its ruling. Now let’s see it enforce it. Muahahahaha!

    1. It’s called “contempt of court” and it will land you in solitary on nutriloaf.

  10. Even interactions in the locker room?

  11. I got a better idea. Get rid of immunity for the copper’s actions and allow for people to defend themselves from abuses of their rights by the thug pigs .
    Once a few of them get their rears kicked and/or are shot and no charges are brought against the person defending themselves, the abuse of these pigs will stop .

  12. Why not extend the same idea to politicians?
    After all, they are the ones who write the laws in the first place.

  13. While I like body cams, I tire of judicial authoritarians ordering the country about

  14. The only way to bring “stop and frisk” into compliance with federal law is to abolish “stop and frisk”.
    The 4th Amendment is part of the US Constitution, the highest federal law there is. The government’s agents can’t “stop and frisk” you without a warrant, supported by oath or affirmation.

  15. What I would love to see is a ruling or legislation that says, in effect, that in any interaction where there should be recording and somehow there isn’t, the police shall be assumed to be lying through their teeth.

    1. Already the case in some areas.

  16. What liberals completely fail to understand (and always will) is that if every interaction and every spontaneous communication between the police and members of the public was 100% scrutinized by teams of lawyers who favor the prosecution interpretation of things with zero tolerance, the arrest and conviction rate would soar by 80% or more.

    What liberals really want to do is have super scrutiny standards for police only, but to allow the street classes of people blanket immunity and amnesty, to make them unprosecutable despite blatant video and audio evidence. When a cop walks up with a body cam on, all the camera sees and hears absolutely must be introduceable in court.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.