Most New Yorkers would reasonably assume that when the state substantiates a pattern of misconduct by a police officer, prosecutors examine the criminal cases that depended on that officer’s work. New York does not consistently require that to happen.
That gap deserves attention as the Police Benevolent Association challenges the Civilian Complaint Review Board’s publication of unresolved allegations against NYPD officers.
As amNewYork recently reported, the union argues that releasing unsubstantiated accusations involving sexual misconduct, racial profiling and false statements can unfairly damage an officer’s reputation. A complaint is not proof, and an officer should not be treated as guilty merely because an allegation was filed.
But fairness must extend to defendants. Once the government substantiates a pattern of misconduct, cases that materially relied on the officer’s credibility, evidence or conduct should not proceed as though nothing has changed.
New York already has a mechanism for identifying serious patterns. Under Section 75 of the state Executive Law, a law enforcement agency must refer an officer to the attorney general’s Law Enforcement Misconduct Investigative Office after receiving at least five complaints from five people involving five separate incidents within two years.
The office, known as LEMIO, can investigate whether an officer engaged in a pattern of misconduct, used excessive force or acted dishonestly. This is fundamentally different from publishing an unresolved allegation.
The problem comes afterward.
LEMIO can recommend corrective action, but there is no uniform statewide requirement that prosecutors identify and examine cases in which the officer’s arrest, report, evidence or testimony played a material role. Nor is there a consistent enforcement mechanism when its recommendations are ignored.
Protect New Yorkers, the advocacy initiative I advise, was formed because this loophole allows potentially compromised cases to fall through the cracks, particularly when defendants or incarcerated individuals lack the resources to appeal.
Supporters are urging Albany to pass the Pattern Misconduct Case Review Act. Following a formal pattern finding, the appropriate prosecutorial authority would identify potentially affected cases, conduct an individualized review and issue a written determination.
The proposal would not reopen every case an officer merely touched. It would focus on cases in which the officer’s conduct or credibility could reasonably have affected the outcome. It would not require automatic dismissals, reversals or financial awards.
If independent evidence establishes that a conviction remains sound, prosecutors should document that conclusion. If misconduct compromised material evidence or testimony, the affected defendant should not bear the entire burden of discovering it.
The need is not theoretical. New York has recorded the nation’s third-highest number of documented wrongful convictions. That does not mean police misconduct caused every wrongful conviction, but it demonstrates that flawed cases are neither rare nor inconsequential.
Brooklyn has already shown how a focused review can work.
In 2022, Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez announced that his Conviction Review Unit had examined cases involving 13 former NYPD officers convicted of crimes committed while on duty. His office moved to dismiss 378 convictions — 47 felonies and 331 misdemeanors — that relied directly on those officers’ work.
That was not a blanket rejection of police testimony. It was a targeted review of cases in which discredited officers played a decisive role.
The Brooklyn model also addresses concerns that a statewide requirement could overwhelm prosecutors. A clear materiality standard would exclude cases in which an officer performed an incidental task or provided no material evidence.
This approach also protects honest officers and legitimate convictions. When prosecutors review a case and conclude that it remains reliable, a written determination can strengthen public confidence. Silence only allows suspicion to grow.
Police unions and criminal justice advocates often approach accountability from opposing sides, but the same due process principle should protect both: Unproven allegations should not determine an officer’s reputation, and substantiated misconduct should not be ignored when it threatens a conviction’s integrity.
As public safety takes center stage heading into election season, candidates will compete to demonstrate who is toughest on crime. But public safety requires more than obtaining convictions. It requires confidence that those convictions are reliable.
Passing the Pattern Misconduct Case Review Act would protect defendants, preserve legitimate convictions and strengthen trust in the justice system New Yorkers depend on to keep them safe.
James Christopher is a political communications strategist and founder of James Christopher Communications LLC. He advises Protect New Yorkers on the Pattern Misconduct Case Review Act.