On April 15, the New York Post reported that Transit Bureau police officers had conducted 2,417 stop-and-frisks in 2005 — a 235% increase over the 640 stop-and-frisks for the same period in 2004. That’s a dramatic rise but certainly no surprise to our police officers, who know only too well that, in many commands over the past few years, the department has instituted an ill-advised stop-and-frisk quota system that harms both police officers and the citizens they’re sworn to protect. The significant rise in CCRB complaints and other evidence suggests that the department’s stop-and-frisk policies are steadily eroding the trust and confidence in the police that the department has struggled to restore in the public over the past decade — a decade that witnessed the city’s greatest crime reduction in its history.

The General Counsel’s column in The PBA Magazine’s last issue explained, “Why Arrest Quotas are Wrong.” This article seeks to highlight the stop-and-frisk quota problem for the membership and provide guidance to officers, especially those with less experience who, while stopping civilians under orders from their supervisors, may be unknowingly subjecting themselves to civilian complaints and civil liability based on a misapplication of the stop-and-frisk doctrine.

Unfortunately, the Transit Bureau’s story is not unique. In fact, startling increases in the number of stop-and-frisk reports (UF-250s) generated by the NYPD over the past couple of years clearly support what police officers have long been reporting — the existence of a UF-250 quota policy. The 75 Pct., for example, recently reorganized and greatly expanded to combat crime spikes, has experienced an incredible rise in UF-250s. Outside groups concerned with monitoring the department’s patterns and practices may well find the trend alarming.

Under “Operation Impact,” the department’s latest crime-reduction strategy, the 75’s streets were flooded with hundreds of eager, or relatively inexperienced rookies with strict orders to police aggressively (i.e., write summonses, conduct stops, and make arrests). The results in terms of sheer numbers were astounding. Arrests and summonses surged and the crime rate dropped as dramatically. In 2004, the 75 recorded over 26,000 stop-and-frisk reports, 400% more than the approximately 5,200 in 2003. As of June 2005, we have learned, the 75’s officers recorded over 14,390 stops — a pace that would far exceed last year’s record totals. A success story? Maybe not.

What the numbers don’t reveal is how the rookies assigned to impact posts in the 75 (all of whom are still on probation) were not simply instructed to be aggressive and proactive with respect to criminal and quality-of-life offenses, they were told to write a set number of UF-250 reports per month.

In a recent PBA grievance arbitration hearing on summons quotas in the 75, the commanding officer, Chief Michael Marino, admitted that he had instructed police officers to write two UF-250s a month. Contrary to his assertions, however, rookie officers assigned to impact posts in the 75 report that they are required to conduct a minimum of 15-20 stops per month and were threatened with penalties, including unfavorable performance evaluations, reassignments and transfers, if they fail to comply.

Incredibly, the department’s UF-250 quotas, which vary in number from command to command, were initiated in the wake of at least three separate independent investigations by federal, state and local investigative agencies and at least two separate civil rights lawsuits, all of which focused on whether the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk policies discriminated against minorities. The New York State Attorney General’s Office and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for New York’s Southern District found that the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk practices discriminated against African-Americans and Latinos.

In March 1999, the State Attorney General began an investigation — the first of its kind — into the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk practices. The probe was based on an analysis of approximately 175,000 UF-250 forms prepared by officers in 1998 and the first three months of 1999. Purportedly based on those reports and on demographic data, crime statistics and interviews with officers and the public, the Attorney General issued a comprehensive report concluding that the NYPD had discriminated against minorities, which the NYPD adamantly denied. The report also found that about 23% of the stops they reviewed did not meet the constitutional standard necessary to justify a stop.

Though disputed, the findings led to many changes. While the department claimed that most of its reforms were voluntary — including a newly-designed UF-250, the creation of a UF-250 database, and disbanding the Street Crime Unit — we suspect that many of the changes came from the investigative pressure and outstanding lawsuits.

While the PBA, too, disagrees with many of the Attorney General’s findings and those of other investigations, particularly the conclusion that officers engaged in racial profiling, we are convinced that UF-250 quotas exist and are doing great damage to officers and the department. In light of the sharp focus placed on the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk practices by outside investigators and the potential harm to police officers and the public resulting from the imposition of quotas, we consider the department’s latest stop-and-frisk policies to be irresponsible.

No wonder civilian complaints for abuse of authority are rising, particularly those involving street encounters that result in forcible stops.

Not surprisingly, officers, who are just acting in accordance with the orders of their superiors, are the ones who suffer for the misguided policies. As we reported last issue, the department is placing a significant number of police officers in the arbitrary and illegal Performance Monitoring Program based solely on unsubstantiated, unfounded, even exonerated civilian complaints. Commanders investigating and evaluating the recent rise in such complaints should focus on a root cause — the unwise UF-250 quotas, which encourage multiple civilian stops each month and create negative police-citizen interactions that often result in unnecessary civilian complaints.

Of course, as a union of police officers we support efforts to reduce crime and we demonstrate our commitment each and every day on the streets of the city. However, as a union for police officers, we have an obligation to challenge policies and practices that put our members in harm’s way. Accordingly, the PBA is concerned that UF-250 quotas are fostering an environment in which intimidated officers, especially less experienced ones, under intense pressure from equally threatened supervisors, may conduct stops based less on reasonable suspicion and more on a reasonable belief that failure to do so will result in some form of penalty (poor performance evaluations, placement in the Performance Monitoring Program, reassignment, transfer, etc.). As all working officers know, such penalties, particularly being placed in performance monitoring, have a significant impact on one’s personal and professional life. Ironically, with respect to performance monitoring, officers may be damned if they meet the quota (more civilian complaints) and damned if they don’t (poor evaluations, etc.).

Quotas are not only bad policy, they aren’t necessary to fulfill our crime-fighting mission. Even in the Street Crime Unit of the early ‘90s before its infamous and regrettable expansion, there was no UF-250 quota — and this was a unit whose primary mission involved gun and robbery arrests. Moreover, SCU (pre-expansion) was thought to be the finest crime-fighting unit in the department, consisting of hand-picked, seasoned, high-performance cops with anti-crime experience and unparalleled arrest activity.

Aggressive stop-and-frisk tactics employed by well-trained, experienced officers are one of the cornerstones of any successful law-enforcement attempt to eradicate violent crimes committed with guns. Aggressive stop-and-frisk tactics by very experienced police officers and equally seasoned supervisors may well make sense for the department and the public. However, UF-250 quotas simply do not. Requiring officers, particularly rookies, to meet stop-and-frisk quotas is wholly irresponsible and plainly wrong.

The law — and how it should be applied to protect both cops and the public — is explained in the accompanying article.