-

THE POLICE COMMISSIONER
CITY OF NEW YORK


2015
Honorable Melissa Mark-Viverito
Speaker
New York City Council
City Hall
New York, New York 10007

Dear Speaker Mark-Viverito:

I am writing to continue our positive dialogue regarding the enforcement of quality-of-life
violations in New York City. Our respective staffs have had fruitful discussions on establishing
civil enforcement options for these types of violations. Some of those discussions centered on
explanations of the degree to which the New York City Police Department already uses civil
enforcement and other alternatives to criminal summonses.

The Department recently released a report, ?Broken Windows and Quality-of-Life Policing in
New York City,? that delineates many of the practices already in place, and also provides a
context for the scope of the Department?s efforts to maintain the city?s quality of life. (A copy of
the report accompanies this letter, and can be found online at Overall, over
the last four years, there has been a drastic reduction in enforcement contacts between police and
citizens, a bene?t of lower crime that I call the Peace Dividend. Nevertheless, there are ways to
improve further how we serve the people of this city.

To build on our discussions, I would like to suggest that we convene a working group to explore,
in detail, innovative ways to address the concerns you have expressed. Participants would
include representatives from your of?ce, the Department?s executive staff, and the Mayor?s
Of?ce of Criminal Justice. The working group would collaborate with the ?ve district attorneys
and Chief Judge Lippman with the goal of reaching common ground on the best ways to tailor
enforcement alternatives and adjudication processes for the offenses charged.

As a threshold matter, we feel strongly that proposals to eliminate criminal penalties associated
with quality-of-life offenses must not be adopted. The presence of an underlying criminal penalty
gives a police of?cer the ability to compel offenders to identify themselves, since the officer has
the authority to make an arrest for a criminal offense, with the accompanying ability to verify
identi?cation. The of?cer has no such authority with respect to purely civil violations. New York

1 Pollce Plaza, New York, NY 10038 0 646-610-5410 0 Fax: 646-610-5865
Website: 

City?s new municipal identi?cation card, IDNYC, was developed by your of?ce, the Council,
and the Mayor in acknowledgement of this essential part of policing. Based on its popularity, we
are hopeful that IDNYC will help us minimize the use of arrest when people violate the law, but
the police power remains necessary.

Furthermore, we believe that eliminating criminal penalties will reduce the likelihood of
preventing or discouraging unlawful behavior. For certain persons, civil judgments have no
consequence, either because the monetary penalties are too small or because a person has no
stake in the outcome. In these instances, recipients will feel free to ignore a summons. This lack
of consequence will become widely known fairly quickly. Thus, if alternative types of
enforcement were to be used more often, those alternative enforcement options would need to be
accompanied by a way to track recidivists, so that there can ultimately be an actual criminal
penalty for persistent unlawful conduct.

To further our discussion, we are in the process of developing a set of proposals that could serve
to divert more quality-of-life offenders from the criminal process, while preserving the ability to
impose meaningful sanctions if needed. Our underlying premise is simple: we seek to expand the
of?cer?s toolbox rather than to contract it, so that Department policy can provide guidance to
of?cers based on a wider range of enforcement options, as circumstances warrant.

The Department has already taken several af?rmative steps to address your concerns. Regarding
marijuana crimes and violations, the Department instituted a new enforcement policy in
November, 2014, that has resulted in 56 percent fewer arrests in 2015 as compared to the same
period in 2014.

Regarding the offense of riding a bicycle on the sidewalk, the Department has determined that, in
the main, this can often be handled in the civil sphere rather than the criminal sphere.
Accordingly, the Department has already changed policy and now issues moving violations
returnable to traf?c court in a majority of these situations.

Regarding public urination, another offense that has been the subject of much debate, we are also
exploring new policy. There are currently two laws that officers use to enforce the prohibition
against public urination: New York City Health Code ?153.09, which is an unclassi?ed
misdemeanor; and New York City Administrative Code ?16-1 18, which is a violation. In
addition to being a lower-level penalty for the same offense, the Administrative Code violation
allows the offender to return a guilty plea to the Criminal Court by mail, thereby reducing the
rate at which offenders fail to appear, and consequently reducing the issuance of warrants against
them. The Department is currently considering directing police of?cers to take enforcement
action based on the Administrative Code violation, rather than the Health Code misdemeanor.

Regarding other offenses that can be addressed by a civil approach, the Department can direct
officers to issue notices of violation returnable to the Environmental Control Board rather than
summonses returnable to Criminal Court. A key element of this proposal, however, would be the
development of an information-sharing protocol, similar to the protocol that the Department
currently has with the MTA, to enable the identification of recidivists. Our expanding use of
mobile digital technology could facilitate this greatly. The increased use of civil penalties would
then be accompanied by a built-in mechanism to check if the offender has previously received an
ECB notice of violation or should otherwise be handled in the criminal sphere, depending on the
criteria to be developed.

On a more conceptual level, we would welcome a discussion of the issuance of documented
warnings instead of summonses. Here, too, mobile digital technology would be very important.
In appropriate circumstances, potentially including traffic infractions, the Department could
develop a procedure that would allow police of?cers to issue formal warning cards for offenses
rather than issuing summonses. The warning card would be recorded and retained so that officers
could check whether a violator has received previous warnings before determining whether to
issue a warning or a summons in a particular instance. We would also like to explore with you
new ways to address lower-level offenses and rule violations in public housing, perhaps using
the Transit Adjudication Bureau process as a model, so that police of?cers have more
authority to maintain the quality of life in the City?s housing developments without having to
utilize criminal enforcement.

These are a few examples of the many innovative approaches we might take to minimize the use
of a criminal summons or arrest. In the Department?s view, a signi?cant portion of the issues
raised about summonses concern the processes that follow arrest, rather than enforcement. We
are eager to assist you in trying to ?nd ef?ciencies in the adjudication process and ways to lessen
the penalties?so long as we are able to maintain the city?s quality of life and our officers? ability
to perform their duties professionally, effectively, and safely, for themselves and the public they
serve. We look forward to working on this together.

Thank you, as always, for your support of the men and women of the New York City Police
Department.

All the best,

William J. Bratton
Police Commissioner