Caban questions NYPD on open warrant arrest practices

So I also wanted to follow up on my first round of questioning around sort of the summonses and the arrests.

It was stated that there were three categories, right?

The no ID, which was 6% of those processed arrests.

And then the other two categories were if they had open warrants.

And then the third category was if they were potentially going to be charged with a higher offense.

So I wanted to hone in on those second and third categories.

That second one, if they had open warrants, how much of the time were those open warrants for other summonses or low-level offenses?

I don't have that data with me, but if someone is wanted on an open warrant, it is our responsibility to turn them on it.

Well, okay, so I'm going to say that under the law, under CPL 150-20, actually, it says that a DAT is discretionary where there is an open warrant.

It's actually the patrol guide, not the law, that suggests it's mandatory to take people through a custodial arrest.

In fact, under the law, it would have to be a felony open warrant.

To make custodial appearance mandatory.

So that's why I want to know how, what the percentage of non-ID arrests include felony charges.

Council member, just one point on that, it's important.

Of course, you're right about 150-20, but here's the thing.

If we have someone who we encounter, we know the person has an open warrant, and we just let that person go, we do not return them on that warrant,

That person then goes and commits another crime, hurts somebody.

After we let the person go on an open warrant, right, we are responsible for what happened.

It's a massive liability for the department and for the city.

We cannot do that.

I will tell you that in my experience as a public defender representing people in court, oftentimes when somebody came through, when they got a summons for

sleeping on the subway, for an open container, their open warrant was overwhelmingly usually for another sleeping on the subway or an open container.

Not that they were.

We're some crazy threat to our safety.

So I just, I think that context is important when people are trying to understand actually what it means when somebody has a warrant, actually what it means when we're spending millions of dollars of resources to police people over these issues

while not increasing safety but exacerbating existing problems.

So I want to go into that third area of the higher offenses that may be charged.

So let's say somebody is under CPL 15020 eligible for an appearance ticket or a desk appearance ticket.

Of those higher offenses that you're using the discretion to process, how many of those are for still under the category of low-level offense?

Like, for example, a theft of service.

So, like, how many or the percentage of those that you're tracking in that third category are actually other low-level offenses?

We will get you that information.

Okay.

Can I ask a few more questions?

Can we go to round three?

What's up?

I promise, Tiffany.

I'm sorry.

I'll come back to you.

What's up?

I'm going to come back to you.

I can't hear you.

I'm going to come back.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

As long as you promise to come back.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, Councilmember Wong, followed by Council...

This is going on a long time.

I'm going to excuse the executive staff and the people testifying will stay, but we have a lot going on this summer, and I just can't have them staying here all afternoon.

Go ahead.