By Mark David Blum, Esq.

Congratulations to the City of Syracuse. It has been nearly one full year and you managed to take absolutely no action. Good for you. For that, we are all safer.

On May 10, 2006, at 6:00 p.m., the Syracuse Common Council held public hearings on the recent report which purports to show Syracuse Police Department engages in Racial Profiling. The Common Council has now paid two separate researchers more than $35,000.00 to come up with data and information which confirms that which has been known to the City for more than a decade.

I was one of only fifty people in a City of nearly 150,000 souls who bothered to show up at the Common Council Safety Committee Meeting to hear and review the results of a recent study purporting to show significant racial disparities on policing. The intent was apparently to hold a public discussion on the data and conclusions of the study. You could read the boredom and “yeah whatever” attitude in Councilman Ryan’s eyes as tale after tale of woe and misery was shared with the panel.

Presenting a summary of the study was William Horrace, an Economist from Syracuse University. Having pocketed approximately $25,000.00 of taxpayer money, the best solution proposed by Mr. Horrace was to continue collecting data and expand the data collection.

Horrace’s study is the fourth such study to be published and disclosed since the year 2000. First, there was the finding that DDT units were arresting 90% Black males for quality of life violations. In 2002, the Syracuse Newspapers did a study and found an overwhelming disproportionate stop and arrest rate for Blacks in the City of Syracuse. Then, in 2003, Jeffrey Chin from Syracuse University also came up with data that revealed significant disparate treatment of Blacks in Syracuse. Then came Mr. Horrace and despite this fourth study is nearly as many years establishing a serious and significant problem with how Blacks are treated by police, the best they can come up with is more studies and more spending.

The most amazing moment came when Horrace, a relatively young Black Male described the problem as being, “that is the way society is.” He says that the phenomena is not blatant racism. Rather, he just apologizes and almost implies that the only thing we can do is just suck it up and throw more money at studying the problem. I could barely contain myself when I heard these words.

Two interesting statistics came out his report; numbers which were repeatedly mentioned by speakers and Horrace alike. Specifically, his numbers established that when stopped by Syracuse Police, a White person is more likely to be arrested than a Black person. Again apologizing, he posited that police are probably less likely to arrest a Black person out of fear of being labeled a racist. Frankly, I have never heard such ignorant horeshit in my entire life.

Simply put; if you take the analysis of Horrace: When a White person is stopped, their chances of being arrested are higher than if a Black person is stopped. What this means is that when police approach a White suspect, they are actually approaching them specifically BECAUSE they are indeed a suspect or person of interest in a specific identifiable crime. At the same time, Blacks are not arrested because it is more likely than not that the reason the Black person was stopped was just to search or engage in some other illegal activity. Blacks seem to be targeted as a class whereas Whites are sought out individually. Nothing else explains this statistical disparity.

At this hearing, mouthpieces from the local NYCLU and NAACP and perhaps others to argued that the statistical outcome of the research establishes that ‘racial profiling’ is the cause for the disproportionate arrest rates for Blacks here in the City.

I can state equivocally and absolutely that ‘Racial Profiling’ has NOTHING to do with the disparate impact of the Syracuse Police Department’s activities.

So as to be clear that I am not just spouting off, here is a taste of my professional background. Since 1992, a major focus of my work has been civil rights and constitutional litigation in Federal Court. Among my clients have been Mark Balduzzi, the Syracuse City cop fired for testifying to the C.R.B. about corruption in the Department, Derrick Wilson through whom I unveiled and exposed the Department’s racially disparate treatment of young black males via the ‘Quality of Life’ violations, and nearly a dozen other brutality and civil rights cases against the Syracuse Police Department and others. At present, I have four pending actions with the City over such issues. There is little about the Department and its practices that I have not learned and studied and exposed at trial. Through my work, I would like to believe that the D.D.T. units were disbanded and part the reason why James Foody was removed as Chief of Police.

Over the years, I too became convinced that the Department had a specific policy that intended to target the poor, Blacks, and other disenfranchised members of society so as to attain a uniform and completely compliant citizenry. But, as my research continued and my work expanded, I have come to the conclusion that racial profiling is not the cause of the problem.

Repeatedly, I have offered to sit down with police and Syracuse City lawyers and explain to them how this problem is caused and why it is manifesting. Neither the department nor the lawyers were in the slightest bit interested. In fact, according to Terri Bright, City of Syracuse Corporation Counsel (Chief Attorney), from their perspective, they will pay every bill and fight to the bitter end anybody who claims they were abused by the Department.

In a study released by Syracuse University in 1996, their analysis shows that while the highest crime rates for murder, burglary, robbery, and other forms of violent and dangerous crime are in areas of the City other than the Southside. Yet, this same study shows that police insist on concentrating their forces on the Southside of Syracuse. This results in high arrest rates for crimes that would have otherwise gone unnoticed; such as drugs and quality of life violations. Ignoring serious crime and instead concentrating police forces in a sector with nothing to do but drive around leaves them with little to do. Consequently, we see police engaging in such activities as are likely to create ‘criminals’ where otherwise, nobody would have been bothered.

I concur there is no specific written policy or openly spoken of directive which results in the police administration of ‘street justice’. The facts are that there is a silent acquiescence when reports of such events occur, that there is no real investigation or action taken, and the department will protect its officers despite evidence of wrongdoing.

In their training, officers have been taught to, among others, consider ‘wrong person for the car’, ‘wrong car for the neighborhood’, and ‘wrong person for the neighborhood’. Recently, a Syracuse police officer testified in Onondaga County Court that among those factors he used as the basis for approaching a suspect was because he was a white man in a black neighborhood.

Also, during their training, officers are always taught that they must have power and control over a situation. This is considered to be essential to their safety. A fundamental element of this power and control is never being on par with the target; that they are to always implement a level of power above that which confronts them. Running from police is considered a threat, a challenge to their authority, and is disrespectful.

As mentioned above, there are a lot of police patrolling an area with very little to do. Among their known tactics are to gather in a spot in a group, and gang charge a group of Black kids or young adults who may be gathered somewhere. Whoever runs is chased and arrested and searched. Those who don’t are searched under the auspices of the quality of life laws. Someone who feels they were doing nothing wrong and challenges the authority of police to be doing what they are doing will suffer from ‘street justice’ or arrest with violence.

As officers move from training into patrol, they experience a culture and tradition of the Department to always protect its officers and to refuse to cooperate with civilian authority. When a citizen’s review board is created in response to complaints by the community, police officers refuse to testify or cooperate. Department management refuses to order its officers to testify. Officers unions have filed grievances and the upon information and belief, the litigation continues nearly six years later with NO RESOLUTION of the City or the Department’s ability to compel officers to testify before the CRB. Two weeks ago, a Senior Attorney in the Corporation Counsel’s Office told me the City Executive Branch will not support the Legislative mandate and attorneys for the City are working with the police department to prevent officers from being compelled to testify before the CRB.

Management has also played a role advising officers they will be protected if they cross the line. Having a confrontational relationship with the community is part of the department’s history. Examples such as the Chief refusing to Order his officers to not use the word “nigger” or when an officer does testify at the review board, he is fired. More than just being fired, as then deputy Chief Boyle testified in the trial of Balduzzi v. City of Syracuse, only “most of the officers” then in the department would follow an officer through a door. By implication, officers understand that if they testify against another, they are not safe out on the streets.

In 1998, through discovery in Wilson v. City of Syracuse and Cage v. City of Syracuse, it was discovered that the Department had created a unit within the department that had no supervision, control, or review. This unit known as the Direct Deployment Teams would themselves select the neighborhood and worked as a team and employ heavy handed swarm tactics that included street corner strip searches. Shortly after it was discovered that more than 90% of the persons they targeted for arrest of ‘quality of life violations” were young black males, DDT was disbanded. No officer was punished or removed from duty for any actions involving the strip searches or DDT in general. Of note: One of the defendants in this case was promoted to Sergeant subsequent to the incidents at issue. Note too that though the street corner strip searches stopped, they were just moved from the streets to the basement of a building on Townsend Street.

Syracuse Police Officer Lendy, head of the DDT units and a defendant in a recent jury verdict in the Northern District was found to have acted illegally and held liable for $25,000.00 in punitive damages. When the events that brought Mr. Lendy before the federal jury were first brought to light, he was placed on suspension pending a hearing. After that hearing, Mr. Lendy was reinstated to the Department.

What makes the Lendy suspension and reinstatement significant was that despite Lendy facing suspension for violating the rights of a citizen, that citizen, Derrick Wilson, was never called as a witness at the officer’s suspension hearing. The City and the Police Department were at the time well aware that Wilson was represented by counsel. No contact was ever made. Whoever was responsible for prosecuting Lendy at his administrative hearing chose not to call Mr. Wilson to testify. Upon reliable information and belief, the person charged with responsibility for prosecuting the administrative hearing is the office of the corporation counsel or the management of the Syracuse police department. The rank and file police officer who knows what Lendy did and how his job was protected, has no incentive to be lawful on the streets.

Subsequent to the recent verdict in Wilson v. Lendy, et al., Corporation Counsel Terry Bright was quoted in the newspapers saying that the officers acted properly and in accordance with department policy, She was also quoted as saying that the City would pay the defendants’ punitive damages judgment. Agreeing to pay punitive damages and declaring that Lendy had acted in accordance with policy is a declaration that police have absolute immunity for any actions they take. Qualified immunity will protect them at law, compensatory damages are required to be paid by statute, and now punitive damages are covered.

Given the approximate $150,000.00 that experts estimate it costs to terminate a police officer, the motivation for City Hall to turn a blind eye to abuses is clear as it costs far less after dragging parties through years of litigation, to settle or pay out a verdict significantly lower than the cost of removing a bad acting police officer.

On the subject of “drugs”: In a 2004 analysis by outgoing City Comptroller Minch Lewis, he concluded that more than 1/3 of Syracuse Police Department arrests were for ‘drug law’ violations. He also concluded that, “Arrests for Drug-related incidents were concentrated in six neighborhoods Incidents resulting in arrests were analyzed based on the geographical location by beat of the arresting officer. Arrests for drug-related incidents were concentrated in 6 beats: South West side, Valley West, Central Business District--South, South East Side, Near South West Side, and Near West Side. These beats are located in the urban core of the City. According to the City’s Consolidated Plan for 2003-2004, these neighborhoods “are areas of minority concentration.” They also have high percentages of households with low to moderate incomes.”

Despite drug use fairly consistent across the social, racial, and economic strata of society, the culture of poverty, urban housing, and African American cultural habits make them easier targets for arrest than the more affluent bedroom communities in the City. No doubt there is as much drug use and transactions ongoing in the Strathmore as on the South Side. But because of poverty and high crime, police are already concentrated in the area. There are as many young males out on the streets with drugs in their pockets on M Street as there are on Salina Street. These factors combine to make the likelihood of African Americans to be the targets of arrest higher than their white counterparts.

In studying the 1997 and 1998 activities of just the DDT units, their arrest reports disclosed approximately 90% arrest rates for young black males for “quality of life” violations. What makes these numbers unique is that during this one category of crime, the City had a separate form used for commencement of process. That form had a box for race and a box for age and a box for gender. New York’s Uniform traffic citations do not have room for race. This information was disclosed to the Court and public in 2000.

Two years later, in 2002 the Syracuse Newspapers did its own analysis of SPD arrest rates and again found significant disproportionate arrest rates based on race and gender. In response, the Common Counsel funded a study headed by Dr. Jeffrey Chin in 2004. A form was drafted and officers were required to complete the data thereon and therefrom Dr. Chin collated the data. It was suddenly announced at the conclusion of the study that the data gathered was “inconclusive” and the actual results thereof were not announced or disclosed. More than ten thousand taxpayer dollars were spent on this study. Upon reliable information and belief, that study reveals again that there are disproportionate arrests and stops of African Americans. Also of interest is that upon reliable information and belief, Dr. Chin’s assistant was Mrs. Brian Lendy. It is unknown at this time whether this information was disclosed prior to the study and if so, who authorized spending money on this study with a clear conflict of interest.

Over the past five years, complaints have poured into the CRB and other agencies. Plaintiffs may not fare well before these Courts, but civil actions and complaints continue to be filed. Corporation Counsel stated that disclosure of all complaints against police through the CRB and through Notice of Claim is so voluminous that compliance would be onerous.

Though no one factor above alone establishes a policy of quiet sanction and condonation; taken as a whole, certain undisputable facts are clear: That as a result of financial motive and political decision making, every police officer on the streets knows they have 100% insulation from any liability for actions they take. They know the CRB is a toothless tiger and that it is too expensive and difficult to fire them. Police are concentrated in force in neighborhoods where minorities are concentrated resulting in disparate numbers of arrests. Relations between police and citizens are poor. When a citizen should choose to challenge police authority by running from a routine traffic stop, this disrespect for authority is a challenge and creates a situation ripe for the administration of street justice.

After all, where is the incentive not to?