HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH Shielded from Justice: Police Brutality and Accountability in the United States
New York:

Unions
Previous Page   Next Page


CONTENTS

OVERVIEW

RECOMMENDATIONS

DOWNLOAD

WHAT YOU CAN DO

ORDER THIS REPORT

HRW HOME



ATLANTA

BOSTON

CHICAGO

DETROIT

INDIANAPOLIS

LOS ANGELES

MINNEAPOLIS

NEW ORLEANS

NEW YORK

PHILADELPHIA

PORTLAND

PROVIDENCE

SAN FRANCISCO

WASH., D.C.




The 29,000-member Patrolmen's Benevolent Association and other police unions and fraternal organizations in New York City enjoy a great deal of power but have been unwilling to use their strength to support reforms that would lead to a more professional, and less brutal, police force. In fact, the unions have often been the primary obstacle to efforts to implement reforms. In its statements and lobbying against reform efforts, the PBA has consistently opposed accountability. In doing so, it claims that it merely attempts to protect the rights of its members.190

The Mollen Commission report noted that "police unions and fraternal organizations can do much to increase professionalism of our police officers....Unfortunately, based on our own observations and on information received from prosecutors, corruption investigators, and high-ranking police officials, police unions sometimes fuel the insularity that characterizes police culture."191 The report identified a conflict of interest for the unions, which protect the interests of individual officers and promote the larger interests of their members, finding that, ironically, the PBA "does a great disservice to the vast majority of its members who would be happy to see corrupt cops prosecuted for their crimes and removed from their jobs."192

The report was also critical of the police unions' reaction to the commission: "At the outset, we were disappointed at the negative reaction that some police unions had toward the Commission's work. Instead of seeing the Commission as a possible vehicle for reform for the benefit of their members, some unions automatically saw it as a threat and a device of partisan politics."193 The report notes that the Captains Benevolent Association (the union for police captains) initiated a lawsuit to dissolve the commission that sent a negative message to its members about efforts to fight corruption and to the public about the insularity of the force. The report notes that the CBA reaction was "particularly egregious coming from the union representing the highest-ranking members of the Department."194

Regarding the PBA's role and the code of silence, the report found that "...past and current prosecutors and Department officials told us in informal interviews that PBA delegates and attorneys help reinforce the code of silence among officers who have committed or witnessed corrupt acts....[B]y advising its members against cooperating with law enforcement authorities, the PBA often acts as a shelter and protector of the corrupt cop rather than as a guardian of the interests of the vast majority of its membership, who are honest police officers."195

The PBA itself has been the focus of a federal corruption probe. In February 1997, a federal grand jury subpoenaed ten years of the union's financial records dealing with various union accounts holding more than $100 million in assets, including the legal defense fund.196 Two of the lead partners of the law firm managing the union funds were indicted in January 1997 on racketeering charges in relation to a "kickback" scheme involving the former Transit Police Benevolent Association.197

190 See above, regarding resistance to independent civilian review.

191 Mollen Commission report, p. 66.

192 Ibid., p. 67.

193 Ibid., p. 66.

194 Ibid., p. 66.

195 Ibid., p. 67.

196 Matthew Purdy, "NYC police union subpoenaed for records on finances," New York Times, February 7, 1997, and Purdy and Kocieniewski, "PBA Funds are the focus of an inquiry," New York Times, February 9, 1997.

197 Ibid.

Top Of Page

Previous Page   Next Page

© June 1998
Human Rights Watch