The New York State Senate

Chapter 834 of the laws of 1940 limits the degree to which localities
across the state can provide for independent oversight of police offi-
cers. Unlike other public employees, whose disciplinary and removal
proceedings are governed by section 75 of the Civil Service Law, § 891
imposes unique restrictions on removal procedures for police officers.
While Civil Service Law § 75 allows agency heads to designate a "deputy
or other person" responsible for holding disciplinary proceedings, § 891
provides that the authority to conduct removal hearings for police offi-
cers can only be designated to a "deputy or other employee" of the
police agency head.

Courts have interpreted this difference in terminology to mean that
police disciplinary proceedings must take place entirely within police
department structures. In 2001, the New York Police Department (NYPD)
attempted to move certain officer disciplinary hearings outside the
Department's own trial room and into the Office of Administrative Trials
and Hearings (OATH), an independent and impartial administrative law
court whose administrative judges preside over disciplinary cases
involving hundreds of thousands of New York City civil servants, includ-
ing firefighters and correction officers. This move was blocked in court
because OATH judges are not "employees" of the NYPD Commissioner, and
therefore cannot preside over NYPD disciplinary hearings under § 891.

Public trust and confidence in law enforcement requires independent,
effective, and accessible mechanisms for holding police officers
accountable for misconduct. When police disciplinary proceedings are
governed by and held entirely within a police department's trial room,
public trust is undermined. Access to information is more restricted, as
unlike the hearing transcripts and recommended decisions produced by
agencies like OATH, documents generated from police department trial
room proceedings are confidential under state law. Even physical access
to the hearing rooms themselves can be more restricted when they occur
in police department spaces, as was reported during the 2019 discipli-
nary trial of NYPD Officer Daniel Pantaleo, in which the NYPD was criti-
cized for not providing sufficient space for members of the public and
the media who wished to observe the proceedings. Beyond practical space
concerns, there would also be great symbolic value in allowing these
hearings to proceed in a neutral venue not under the direct control of
the agency whose employee is facing discipline.

Repeal of Chapter 834 would not, by itself, automatically change police
disciplinary procedures currently in place throughout the state, nor
would it alter the ultimate authority of agency heads to decide on and
impose disciplinary outcomes. Repeal of Chapter 834 would simply allow
localities and police chiefs have the authority to designate independent
and impartial adjudicators to preside over police disciplinary hearings
and thereby increase public confidence in the integrity of these
proceedings.

 
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

S268 of 2021-22: Referred to Civil Service and Pensions.

S7527 of 2019-20: Referred to Civil Service and Pensions.

 
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

None.

 
EFFECTIVE DATE:
This act shall take effect immediately.