Earlier this month, the NYPD released a memo demanding that officers provide thorough explanations for stop-and-frisks. The order was released on Mar. 5 by Chief of Patrol James Hall, a day after plaintiffs in the current federal case surrounding the controversial directive asked for some sort of relief. One such request was for the department to do a better job of documenting the stops.
Darius Chaney, the plaintiff's lead attorney, called the NYPD's decision "brinksmanship, pure and simple." Jonathan Moore, his co-counsel, called it "an admission that what they were doing was wrong all these years."
During her opening statement, city attorney Heidi Grossman dismissed the request:
Plaintiffs' view that it is necessary to include a narrative on the UF 250...blatantly disregards that NYPD officers take the job to help people, not to be writers and that NYPD officers hail from 40 to 50 different countries, may not speak or write English as their first language.
The order demands that officers note all pertinent details of the stop in their log books, such as the suspected crime, initial reason for their suspicion and whether or not they frisked the individual. The official UF250 document that officers used for stops has also been changed, thus allowing them to elaborate on the stops.