Evidence continues to mount that the New York Police Department may have a sexual assault and harassment problem on its hands. But rather than face up to the fact that some officers abuse their authority and deal with those officers accordingly, the officers’ union is legally trying to make sure that any allegations of sexual assault or harassment are dealt with internally rather than publicly.
For decades, the New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) — the independent New York City agency that investigates civilian complaints of misconduct by NYPD officers — automatically referred police sexual misconduct complaints to the NYPD for internal examination, while it investigated a wide range of other police misconduct, like excessive use of force.
In one of the complaints that the CCRB forwarded to the NYPD, a woman recounted repeated sexual harassment by the same officer. In 2014, when the woman was questioned by an NYPD officer at a crime-scene investigation, the officer gave her his number under the pretense that she may need to reach him if she remembered something that could be relevant to the investigation. But when she encountered him next, he asked her why she never called and made comments about the size of his penis. The third time she encountered him, in 2016, when he entered her holding cell after she had been arrested, he told her “suck my dick.”
In a welcome move, the CCRB clarified in February of this year that it will now investigate such civilian complaints of police sexual misconduct. The CCRB has jurisdiction under New York City law to investigate police “abuse of authority,” and it should go without saying that sexual harassment and violence committed by police are abuses of authority.
Police officers have an enormous amount of power when interacting with or detaining civilians. Their decisions could put someone behind bars for days, months, or years. Charging someone with a crime, even if they are not convicted, can impact a person’s job prospects, housing status, and other critical aspects of their lives.
Anyone who has ever interacted with a police officer understands this lopsided power dynamic. When police officers engage in sexual misconduct, they are taking advantage of this imbalance, whether they know it or not.
Yet, the city’s largest police union, the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, has brought a legal challenge to the CCRB’s February sexual misconduct resolution. It seeks to keep such allegations of sexual abuse by NYPD officers in the control of the NYPD and out of the public eye, in part by arguing that police sexual misconduct is not an “abuse of authority.”
In June, The New York Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project filed a proposed amicus brief in the case, arguing that the CCRB can lawfully investigate complaints of NYPD sexual misconduct. These investigations, we argue, are essential to safeguarding the rights of women, LGBT people, and others vulnerable to sexual abuse and to promoting police transparency and accountability.
Police sexual misconduct is alarmingly common. A recent survey of over 700 cases of sexual misconduct by law enforcement personnel nationally showed that, on average, a police officer is caught in an act of sexual misconduct at least every five days. Another found that in just one year 618 officers were implicated in sexual misconduct, making it the second most commonly reported form of police misconduct after excessive use of force.
These numbers are also under-inclusive. We know that only one in three women report sexual assault generally, and those numbers are surely lower when victims are told to report the abuse to the very people who perpetrated it.
Because the NYPD does not publicly disclose information about complaints of sexual misconduct that it receives, the scope of this crisis in New York is not fully known. But one study surveying almost 1,000 youth in New York City found that two out of five young women had been sexually harassed by police officers. High-profile incidents of horrific abuse also reveal a troubling problem that must be addressed.
Most recently, an appalling account of two NYPD officers raping an 18-year old in the back of an unmarked van sparked outrage and resulted in the officers facing criminal charges. Disturbingly, they have defended themselves by claiming the encounter was consensual, even though the teen was in police custody. The power dynamics inherent in police-civilian interactions make it impossible for a person to consent in these circumstances.
The International Association of Chiefs of Police recognizes sexual misconduct as a “behavior ... that takes advantage of the officer’s position in law enforcement to misuse authority and power.” The fact that police sexual misconduct is inflicted disproportionately on vulnerable members of society, including women of color, sex workers, drug users, immigrants, people with disabilities, LGBT people, and victims of domestic violence — underscore the abuse of authority inherent in this type of abuse.
The CCRB’s investigation of these complaints is an essential step towards increasing police accountability for sexual abuse and harassment of civilians. By providing an independent reporting mechanism, the CCRB can help combat rampant underreporting of police sexual misconduct. The CCRB will also be able to track and analyze these complaints and make informed recommendations to shape NYPD internal policies, which as of now do not explicitly address sexual harassment of civilians.
What little information is made public about internal NYPD sexual misconduct investigations reveals an agency that tolerates sexual harassment and abuse by NYPD officers, even against their own colleagues, and an internal investigation and discipline system that consistently fails victims of sexual abuse.
The NYPD provides no guidelines regarding the process through which civilian complaints of sexual misconduct are handled. The Brooklyn teenager who was allegedly raped in the police van reported that at least nine NYPD officers came to her hospital room to discourage her from completing a rape kit.
Most recently, the city’s Department of Investigation issued a damning report on the NYPD’s systemic failures to adequately staff and provide resources for the investigation of sex crimes, which “re-traumatizes victims” and “negatively impacts the reporting of sex crimes, thereby adversely affecting public safety.” The fact that the department does a poor job responding to sexual assault complaints committed by civilians underlines how little they can be trusted when it comes to sexual assault complaints regarding NYPD officers.
It’s past time for NYPD sexual misconduct to have its #MeToo moment. Independent investigation by the CCRB will help ensure that these complaints will be dealt with fairly and will help shape a more transparent, accountable, and trustworthy police force.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
PodcastDec 2024
Human Rights
Women's Rights
ACLU Kids on How They’d Change The World with W. Kamau BellACLU Kids on How They’d Change The World with W. Kamau Bell
-
Press ReleaseOct 2024
LGBTQ Rights
+2 Issues
At Supreme Court, Tennessee Seeks to Expand Reach of Dobbs to Ban Health Care for Transgender YouthAt Supreme Court, Tennessee Seeks to Expand Reach of Dobbs to Ban Health Care for Transgender Youth
WASHINGTON – In their brief defending the state’s ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti has asked the Supreme Court to expand its ruling overturning Roe v. Wade and allow the state to target transgender people’s autonomy over their own bodies, too. In U.S. v. Skrmetti, three Tennessee transgender youth and their families are challenging a state law that prohibits medical providers from prescribing medical treatments to transgender youth, such as puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapies, that are allowed for minors who are not transgender. Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, the families argue that the ban violates their Equal Protection rights under the 14th Amendment. In the brief filed today, Tennessee relies on the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Whole Women’s Health in an attempt to justify its ban on gender-affirming health care for transgender people. The brief cites to Dobbs at least 10 times in sweeping arguments to justify government sex discrimination. “We’ve seen just how far extreme politicians will push to deny us our reproductive freedom, from banning abortion to threatening IVF to even threatening to put doctors in jail for providing emergency care, with deadly consequences for women’s lives,” said Jennifer Dalven, director of the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project. “The same politicians who are trying to control women have now set their sights on transgender people and their families and are trying to control their bodies and lives. Allowing politicians to continue down this road could hold severe implications for the freedom of all people to decide what is right for their own body.” Tennessee claims that their ban on gender-affirming care does not discriminate on the basis of sex even though it bans minors of one sex from accessing health care it allows to members of another sex. A transgender girl is barred from taking doctor-prescribed estrogen because Tennessee considers it “inconsistent” with her birth-assigned sex of male but a cisgender girl with a birth-assigned sex of female is permitted to take estrogen for any purpose including to affirm her female gender identity. “Since this Project’s founding by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, we have adamantly challenged efforts to limit who we can be based on our gender or ability to bear children,” said Ria Tabacco Mar, director of the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project. “Tennessee’s attempt to limit who young people can become based on their sex shares a through-line with our nation’s history of subjugating women in the name of biology. The fight for each of us to live fully and authentically must include trans people. There is no ‘transgender’ exception to the U.S. Constitution.” In April 2023, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP sued the state of Tennessee to block S.B. 1, which prohibits medical providers from prescribing medical treatments to transgender youth, such as puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapies, that it exempts for minors who are not transgender. Following a decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, S.B. 1 took effect in July 2023. Since 2021, 24 states have banned hormone therapies for transgender youth. “Laws like Tennessee’s are not benign regulations of medical care; they are discriminatory efforts to exclude transgender people from the protections of the Constitution,” said Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “These bans represent a dangerous and discriminatory affront to the well-being of transgender youth across the country and their constitutional right to equal protection under the law.” -
Press ReleaseSep 2024
Women's Rights
Civil Rights Groups Tell Federal Appeals Court that Protections for Pregnant Workers Cover Abortion CareCivil Rights Groups Tell Federal Appeals Court that Protections for Pregnant Workers Cover Abortion Care
WASHINGTON, D.C. - On Friday, a broad coalition of labor, workers’ rights, and gender justice organizations — led by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Arkansas, and the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) — filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in support of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) regulations implementing the landmark Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), including the regulations’ explicit protection for workers who have abortions. The PWFA, which took effect last year, was the culmination of a decade-long campaign to secure access to reasonable accommodations for workers with temporary limitations caused by “pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions.” The EEOC’s regulations provide comprehensive guidance to workers, employers, and the courts about the statute’s range of protections, including job-protected time off for medical treatment and recovery. The amicus brief filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit supports the EEOC in a challenge by 17 red states that are trying to block the PWFA regulations’ coverage of accommodations for abortion-related care. In June, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed the states’ challenge, and the states appealed to the Eighth Circuit. Their appeal includes a request that the Eighth Circuit issue a preliminary injunction of the regulations’ abortion provisions. The ACLU-NWLC brief details the federal law’s longstanding ban on discrimination against workers who obtain abortions – protection the PWFA intended to continue. The brief also documents the accounts of workers whose health and jobs were put at risk when their employers denied them accommodations, including time off, for abortion care. Such accounts illustrate the urgent need for clarity with respect to the PWFA’s coverage of abortion-related accommodations, and the devastating medical and financial consequences if such accommodations are denied. “Abortion has long been recognized as part of the full spectrum of workers’ pregnancy-related needs that are protected by the law, ” said Gillian Thomas, senior staff attorney at the ACLU’s Women's Rights Project. “The states’ challenge has created uncertainty, and seeks to deprive workers of essential, job-protected time off for abortion care, posing significant health risks and leading to forced pregnancies. The EEOC regulations are vital to ensure pregnant workers don't have to choose between their health and their jobs.” “Extremist politicians are demonstrating repeatedly their willingness to risk women’s health to advance their anti-abortion agenda,” said Gaylynn Burroughs, vice president for Education and Workplace Justice at the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC). “Let’s be clear: abortion care is pregnancy-related care, and stripping essential protections for abortion from the PWFA would endanger the health and economic security of pregnant workers.” “The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and its regulations provide a lifeline for workers who need accommodations during the most critical periods of their lives. Attempting to strip away these protections, particularly for abortion-related needs, is an affront to the rights and well-being of pregnant workers,” said John Williams, legal director of the ACLU of Arkansas. “All people in all aspects of pregnancy, including abortion, should be treated with the care and consideration they deserve. We stand firmly with the EEOC in defending these essential protections.” A copy of the brief can be found here. -
PodcastSep 2024
Women's Rights
How Sue Bird Is Supercharging Women's SportsHow Sue Bird Is Supercharging Women's Sports