As you know, the DEA filed suit against the CCRB challenging CCRB’s untimely investigation into a 2012 firearms discharge by members of ESU. Unfortunately, the Trial Court has ruled that CCRB is not precluded from conducting an investigation into the incident as they received a valid complaint, and there is no statute of limitations on when an investigation can be conducted. The Court made a point to explain that the ruling is limited to CCRB’s authority to conduct an investigation; it does NOT mean CCRB would be able to actually take any action against our members should the complaint be substantiated. Any proposed disciplinary charges would be governed by the statute of limitations provision under Civil Service Law section 75(4). Nevertheless, we have filed a Notice of Appeal of the Court’s decision.
Here’s the backstory: Oral arguments were held on May 28, 2021, before Justice Laurence Love on our lawsuit challenging CCRB’s untimely investigation into a 2012 firearms discharge involving ESU. The Court heard lengthy arguments, and our contention that CCRB has abused their authority in accepting this woefully late complaint seemed to resonate with the Court. The Court reserved decision and will be issuing a written order in the weeks to come. We will keep our members apprised of the outcome.
Here’s the backstory: On February 4, 2021, the DEA filed a lawsuit, Article 78, Declaratory Judgment Petition, challenging CCRB’s untimely and illegal investigation of a shooting that occurred eight years ago involving an ESU Detective. The case was already investigated by the District Attorney’s Office, the FBI, IAB, the Attorney General’s Office, and others. This is out of CCRB’s purview.
Here’s more backstory: On September 25, 2012, ESU was called to assist with a barricaded EDP. When the EDP rushed our Detectives, and stabbed a Detective in his ballistic vest, our Detective was forced to discharge his firearm, fatally wounding the individual. The Grand Jury cleared our Detective and the NYPD Firearms Discharge Review Board found the shooting within Department guidelines. Further, the U.S. Justice Department declined to take any action in the matter. Now, eight years later, CCRB has notified our Detective for an interview regarding the shooting. Our attorneys immediately objected to this interview and to the CCRB’s investigation of this incident.
We object for several reasons. First, we submit that whatever rule the CCRB is relying upon to conduct such a late investigation is invalid and beyond its statutory authority. Secondly, numerous Officers who were present have retired from the Department. Furthermore, even if the CCRB conducted and concluded an investigation into this shooting, the time frame to bring any charges or other proposed disciplinary action has long since expired. Because the incident has already been exhaustively considered, and has been considered legal, justified, and within Department guidelines, the CCRB’s new investigation into this incident comes woefully late and, we submit, is duplicative, and a waste of time, taxpayer dollars, and resources.
In light of our objections, the interviews have been postponed pending further discussion of the issues and no new hearing date has been set. If the CCRB insists upon going forward, we will have no choice but to seek Court intervention to try and stop this ridiculous, latent investigation.
