NO PLACE LIKE
HOME
A Preliminary Report on Police Interactions
with Public Housing Residents
in New York City

September 2008

New York Lawyers for the Public Interest
Community Oversight of Policing Project
151 West 30th Street, 11th floor
New York, New York 10001

In memory of Michelle Edwards

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgments

1

Executive Summary

2

Methodology

3

Background
New York City Public Housing Anti-Crime Efforts, and Policing

4

NYPD Vertical Patrols

5

Crime and Safety in New York City’s Public Housing

6

Fourth Amendment Rights of Residents of Public Housing

7

Surveys
The Thomas Jefferson Houses

10

The Walt Whitman Houses

12

Recommendations

15

Appendix: Survey Form

16

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I

n 2007 and 2008, responding to community concerns about police misconduct,
NYLPI conducted a series of surveys of residents of New York City Housing
Authority apartments in Brooklyn and East Harlem. We would to thank
both the community residents and the volunteers who came together to assist with
door knocking and distributing surveys. In particular, we would like to thank
Michelle Edwards, Nora Infante, Debra Small, and Jaqueline Davis, residents of
East Harlem who initiated this project to strive for the safety of their children and
families. We would also like to thank the pro bono attorney and law student
volunteers:
From Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP:
Peter Hughes
From Shearman & Sterling LLP:
Michael Wyman
Justin Mak
Eric Fabricant
Douglas Jones
Grissel Mercado
Emmanuel Andre
Brian Iorio
Brian Moon
Denise Karamian
From Seward & Kissel LLP:
Kathleen Abbott
Ryan Chelf
Anna E. Haynes
From Clifford Chance US LLP:
Rebecca Watson
Omar Farah
Anne-Helene LeTrocquer
Sandip Kakar
From Thelen LLP:
Shamiso Maswoswe
From the City University of New York Law School:
Tai Merry Nickel
From Columbia Law School:
Betre Gizaw
Doug Allen
Emma Freudenberger
Bridget Kennedy
We wish to thank Shearman & Sterling LLP for printing this report pro bono.

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue,
but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,
and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.”
The sanctity of the home is preserved by the Fourth Amendment of the United
States Constitution. However, reports of police abuse of authority in New York City
Housing Authority (NYCHA) buildings have reached disturbing levels. Residents of
NYCHA buildings voiced concerns about police misconduct to the Community
Oversight Policing Project (COPP) at New York Lawyers for the Public Interest
(NYLPI). COPP began an investigation of the complaints, and surveyed residents
in East Harlem and Brooklyn. Surveyors knocked on the doors of 849 apartments,
and were able to complete interviews of 181 residents. Many residents expressed fear
of retaliation by the police or by the housing authority, and trepidation about
speaking out.
Many residents report frequent police abuse of authority, particularly around the
enforcement of trespass laws. For example, in the Thomas Jefferson Houses
approximately 30% of the residents surveyed reported they had been charged with
trespassing, despite the fact they lived there. Approximately 70% of those surveyed
at the Thomas Jefferson Houses reported they had been repeatedly stopped by
police officers when simply coming and going around their homes.
This report describes the information gathered from the surveys of the residents in
further detail. It reveals a chronic problem reported by residents, and suggests a
need for immediate changes to police policies. COPP recommends that police meet
with the community residents and listen and respond to their concerns. COPP also
recommends that alternative methods of providing security for NYCHA residents
should be explored in discussion with residents, NYPD and NYCHA. With public
participation in the process to determine security measures, public confidence in the
fairness of security could be improved. The current prevalence of reports of
unjustified stops and ticketing by NYPD is unacceptable, especially for NYCHA
residents who do not feel safe at home.

2

METHODOLOGY

I

n the summer of 2007 a group of mothers who reside in the Thomas Jefferson
Houses contacted the Community Oversight Policing Project (COPP) at New
York Lawyers for the Public Interest (NYLPI). The Thomas Jefferson
Houses are public housing operated by the New York City Public Housing
Authority (NYCHA). The mothers expressed concern that their children,
themselves, and other residents of the Jefferson Houses were repeatedly and unfairly
stopped, questioned, ticketed, and arrested. People were arrested for trespass,
stopped repeatedly and asked to produce identification, questioned because of lack
of identification, stopped because of use of the public outdoor spaces around the
buildings, and subjected to other troubling encounters with police officers who
regularly patrolled the buildings despite the fact that they live in the buildings.
Additionally, they reported that there had been specific instances of police officers
using excessive force, insulting residents with the use of racial and derogatory slurs,
and several instances of police questioning for activities such as sitting in the
courtyard of the buildings or gathering in groups of more than three people at a time
after dark. Residents were concerned that multiple police interactions for innocent
behavior has a negative impact on their children.
After meetings with the mothers, NYLPI met with other NYCHA residents in East
Harlem and learned more about the concerns of the community. Then, legal interns,
volunteers, and residents began a survey of Jefferson Houses residents for the
purpose of gathering more information about the experiences of residents.
Surveyors knocked on the doors of 336 apartments in two buildings at the Jefferson
Houses. Of these, 106 residents and their guests were available and answered the
questionnaire. The surveys confirmed the initial concerns that were expressed by the
mothers regarding the inappropriate treatment of residents. Thirty percent of those
surveyed reported they had been charged with trespassing. Seventy-two percent of
those surveyed reported they had been repeatedly stopped by police officers.
After completing the survey of Thomas Jefferson residents, NYLPI was informed of
a similar problem in the Fort Greene area of Brooklyn, New York. Specifically, City
Council Member Letitia James and the Legal Aid Society contacted the Community
Oversight of Policing Project with community complaints very similar to the issues
experienced by Jefferson residents. In response, COPP designed a modified survey
to conduct in the Walt Whitman Houses in Brooklyn. As we had done with
residents of the Thomas Jefferson Houses, COPP met with members of the
community who were interested in the issues.
Surveyors knocked on the doors of 513 apartments at the Walt Whitman Houses.
Of these, 75 residents and their guests were available and answered the
questionnaire. Forty-three percent of those surveyed had been stopped, the majority
of whom had been stopped in the last year, routinely coming and going from home.
This report will describe the empirical and anecdotal information gathered from the
surveys of the 181 residents who were interviewed. The survey instruments used in
East Harlem and Brooklyn are appendices to this report.

3

BACKGROUND
New York City Public Housing Anti-Crime Efforts, and Policing
174,102 families and at least 405,794 residents live in NYCHA housing in New York
City.1 That number is nearly the population of Oakland, California.2 Residents of
NYCHA housing are low income people and families, and predominantly but not
exclusively people of color.3 As will be discussed in the next section, the New York
City Police Department (NYPD) policies for policing NYCHA residents are different
in many ways from NYPD standard policies. These unique practices affect a large
number of people, mostly people of color, and have caused significant community
concern.
During Mayor Giuliani’s administration, in 1995, the Housing Authority Police
Department merged with the NYPD. Afterwards NYCHA and the NYPD entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding requiring NYCHA to pay the city for NYPD
police services. The NYPD developed “Operation Safe Home,” funded by the
federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD), to police the housing
developments.4 After 2002, the Bush Administration withdrew funding and
NYCHA, rather than the federal funder, bore the brunt of the payments to New
York City for policing. Nonetheless, police staffing did not diminish.
Police statistics provided to NYCHA and available on their website indicate that
crime on NYCHA property was reduced by 34% between 1998 and 2003. Between
2001 and 2003, crime fell by 7.6%. This suggests an initial drop sometime after the
merger, but diminished impact coinciding with the withdrawal of the HUD funding.
NYCHA has a number of policies premised on reducing criminal activity. For
example, non-residents who are arrested for felony drug charges (drug sales) are
banned from the property. Therefore, even if invited by a resident of the building,
absent a formal exemption from this policy, a person with this criminal record in
their past will generally not be allowed to visit the property.
Additionally, residents who have contact with the criminal justice system, or are
related to people who do, may encounter barriers to obtaining and keeping housing.
Public Housing Authorities have the discretion to bar eligibility for public housing
for a reasonable period of time after criminal activity. 42 U.S.C. § 13661(c). They
also have the authority to evict a tenant if the tenant, a member of their household,
or a guest engages in drug-related activity, even if the tenant did not know, could
not foresee, or could not control the behavior by others.5
NYCHA relies on the NYPD to enforce many of its drug and crime prevention rules
through enforcement of trespassing laws. As will be discussed below, Vertical Patrol
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/html/about/factsheet.shtml
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0653000.html
3 The vast majority of NYCHA residents are people of color, and furthermore, buildings are still largely racially segregated due to lingering effects of prior racial steering. See NYCHA Davis v. New York City Housing Authority, 278 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 536
U.S. 904 (2002); Davis v. New York City Hous. Auth., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23738 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2002).
4 Inside the Budget, New York City Independent Budget Office, Number 129, April 15, 2004.
5 Dept. of Housing and Urban Development v. Rucker, 535 U.S. 125 (2002).
1
2

4

procedures have been developed by the NYPD to accomplish this goal. Due to this
routine patrolling, interaction with NYPD officers is a near daily experience in the
lives of thousands of people who live in NYCHA buildings.
NYPD Vertical Patrols
The Vertical Patrol procedure requires officers to patrol the inside and outside of
NYCHA buildings routinely each day, and creates the occasion for many
interactions between civilians and police around and inside the buildings. The
procedure is found at section 212-59 of the NYPD Patrol Guide, with effective date
January 1, 2000, and provides in relevant sections as follows:
NYPD officers “shall frequently inspect the interior of
Housing Authority buildings on assigned posts as follows:
… inspect mailboxes and the interior of lobby … inspect
elevators … proceed to top floor … use staircase to gain
access to the roof … roof landing, elevator rooms, any other
installations… patrol each floor, staircase and hallway …
from the top floor to the ground floor … inspect elevator
doors on each floor … elevator door glass … basement areas
… be alert for persons loitering … alternate between outside
area patrol and interior vertical patrol of Authority grounds
and buildings…
Finally, the Patrol Guide says:
When inspecting Housing Authority buildings, members of
the service [NYPD officers] shall take note of unauthorized
persons remaining in lobbies, basements, staircases, roof
landings and take appropriate police action when necessary.
This constant presence in NYCHA buildings has been lauded by the NYPD.
According to 2004 City Council testimony of NYPD Commanding Officer Phipps:
[O]ne of the most effective crime fighting tools available in
the Housing Bureau is the Trespass Affidavit Program,
through which NYCHA gave the NYPD permission to
conduct vertical patrols. In a vertical patrol, officers enter
NYCHA buildings and arrest individuals unauthorized to be
on the grounds for criminal trespass. This program also
gives the NYPD the authority to arrest unauthorized
persons or even residents and charge them with seconddegree criminal trespass for entering certain prohibited
areas of the building such as roof landings, rooftops,
storerooms, maintenance areas, and basements. Vertical
patrols also enable officers to observe the physical facility
for any hazards or dangerous conditions that will then be
reported to NYCHA.6

A

group of young men
who liked to gather in the
court yard in between the
Jefferson Houses taped a
recent New York Post article
about police corruption on
one of the courtyard walls.
When the police officers saw
this, they demanded that the
ten or so young men gathered
in the court yard all stand
against the fence for body
searches. When the young
men asked for a justification
the police officers said
“because we can.”

6 November 2, 2006, Oversight Hearing: Public Safety Issues in Public Housing Developments, New York City Council (paraphrased from
his comments).

5

T

he elevator in one of
the Thomas Jefferson
buildings went out of service
as they often do, and a
mother and her child crossed
their building’s rooftop to
the adjacent building to
access the elevator. The
mother and her child were
stopped by a police officer,
and explained why they had
needed to use the rooftop to
reach the working elevator,
and the officer placed both of
them under arrest for
criminal trespass. Both
mother and her child were
each later fined $90.

The NYPD claims that the vertical patrolling of the NYCHA buildings, ostensibly
to detect and remove trespassers has been an effective crime fighting tool. However,
the effectiveness is not fully analyzed, and data is not available to the public.
NYLPI submitted a request to the NYPD for data about the types of arrests, tickets
and stops that have transpired at the Thomas Jefferson houses under the Freedom
of Information Law (FOIL) in order to examine the effectiveness of the program.
That FOIL request was denied.
In the absence of specific data provided to the public, it is unclear how effective the
programs are. What is clear, however, is that the constant policing, and frequent
stopping and questioning, has led to community concern, and community member
distrust of the police on NYCHA property, as will be discussed below.
Crime and Safety in New York City’s Public Housing
The manner in which police perform their routine duties in public housing has raised
concerns for years, both in high profile incidents covered by media, and in the dayto-day experiences of people who live in NYCHA buildings. On January 24, 2004,
Timothy Stansbury was shot by a police officer who was conducting a vertical patrol
on the rooftop of the Louis Armstrong Houses in Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn.
Mr. Stansbury, a 19 year old, was unarmed and was walking across the roof as a
shortcut to the adjacent building. As he opened the stairway door, an officer stood
on the opposite side of the door with his gun drawn. Apparently startled to find
someone on the roof, the officer shot and killed the young man. After the incident,
Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly stated, “there appears to be no justification”
for the shooting.7 Timothy Stansbury died of his wounds.
A decade earlier, on September 22, 1994, Nicholas Heyward, a 13 year old, was
playing with some friends in a stairwell in the Gowanus Houses in Brooklyn. A
police officer on patrol went to the 14th floor stairwell where the children were
playing, and heard a clicking sound. The area was dimly lit, and when the officer
fired he hit Nicholas in the abdomen. The officer then learned that Nicholas had
been playing with an orange plastic toy cork gun. Nicholas Heyward died that day.
Beside the shootings and higher-profile incidents that garner media attention, there
are daily complaints of excessive force, discourtesy, and inappropriate stopping by
police officers that often go unnoted by media. The increase in vertical patrolling
coincides with an increase in complaints of police misconduct generally. The Civilian
Complaint Review Board (CCRB) Status Report for January – December details
that New Yorkers filed 7,559 complaints about police misconduct with the CCRB in
2007. That is an 84% increase since 2000.
Additionally, the CCRB data shows a racial disparity among complainants who had
been subjected to police stop, question, frisk or search. Of the general population
who are subjected to stop, question, frisk or search, 52% were Black, 30% were

7

Dennis Dugan, “When Words Won’t Do,” New York Newsday, March 16, 2004.

6

Hispanic, and 11% were White. Those numbers are based on self reporting by police
officers. Of the group of complainants to the CCRB who were subjected to stop,
question, frisk or search, 63% were Black, 24% were Hispanic, and 10% were White.
The experience of many people of color in New York City includes inappropriate
stopping and questioning by NYPD officers. Our survey results on NYCHA
properties suggest that this negative experience is heightened when it happens to
people walking in and out of their own homes on a regular basis.
Fourth Amendment Rights of Residents of Public Housing
Trespass – What is it?
Trespass is clearly defined in New York law. Under § 140.05 of the New York Penal
Law, “[a] person is guilty of trespass when he knowingly enters or remains
unlawfully in or upon premises.”
A “person acts knowingly with respect to conduct or to a circumstance described by
a statute defining an offense when he is aware that his conduct is of such nature or
that such circumstance exists. N.Y. Penal Law § 15.05(2). Under the trespass law,
“[a] person ‘enters or remains unlawfully’ in or upon premises when he is not licensed
or privileged to do so.” N.Y. Penal Law § 140.00(5) (emphasis added).
Therefore, if you live in a building, or you are visiting a friend or family member, or
you are an invited guest, you are not trespassing. Often, people reported to our
surveyors that they were stopped for walking in or around a building, asked for ID
to prove they lived in the building, and without ID they would be ticketed.
However, trespass is not the crime of failing to carry an ID card, and the mere
failure to carry ID does not render a person a trespasser.
Some special trespass rules apply to some circumstances in NYCHA buildings.
Felony Drug Arrestees who have been notified by NYCHA that they are not
permitted to be on NYCHA property would generally be trespassing if they enter.
Thus, even if invited by a resident to enter the building, they would be trespassing.
And, ordinary trespass, which is a mere violation, becomes a Class B misdemeanor
when it is committed in a “public housing project” bearing conspicuous signs
limiting entry to residents and guests. N.Y.P.L. § 140.10.
The Fourth Amendment – What Are Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion?
In order to arrest or seize a person, a police officer must have probable cause to
believe she has committed a crime. However, in order to stop someone on the street
and intrude on her privacy short of an arrest, an officer must have a reasonable
suspicion that she has committed a crime.
The Supreme Court explained in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), “In justifying the
particular intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable
facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably
warrant that intrusion.” Terry, 392 U.S. at 20. In other words, the police officer

7

A

23-year old college
student was on his way
home after work one night.
He had picked up pizza and
lemonade and was still
drinking the lemonade as he
arrived at his apartment at
the Jefferson Houses. Before
he could get home, however,
an officer stopped him and,
without checking the
contents of the cup, issued
the student a ticket for
drinking from an open
container. Now, because of
the ticket, the student fears
losing the financial aid he
relies on to fund his
education.

must have more than a hunch, and must be able to describe objective facts that lead
the officer to believe a crime had been committed by the person.
The reasonableness of a stop turns on the facts and circumstances of each case. In
particular, the Supreme Court has emphasized (i) the public interest served by the
seizure, (ii) the nature and scope of the intrusion, and (iii) the objective facts upon
which the law enforcement officer relied in light of his knowledge and expertise.8
The law is clear that officers must have an explainable and reasonable belief that a
person has committed a crime in order to stop them – it can not be an officer’s
hunch.
Random or Routine Stops for Identification Around Your Home - Are they Legal?
Police may not stop people without reasonable suspicion simply because they live in
a high-crime neighborhood. The Supreme Court has explained in Brown v. Texas,
443 U.S. 47 (1979), and reiterated in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nevada,
542 U.S. 177 (2004), that police may not stop people and demand identification
without reasonable suspicion. Both Brown and Hiibel deal with state statutes that
authorized police officers to ask for IDs, or made it a criminal offense for people not
to show ID if asked. The Supreme Court found the statutes unconstitutional under
the Fourth Amendment. In Hiibel, the Court explained its interpretation of Brown:

A

man answered a knock
at his door to find his 18-yr
old nephew accompanied by
a police officer. The man had
been expecting to see his
nephew, but was surprised to
see the officer. The officer
was accompanying the
nephew since he did not have
any ID on him. The man
confirmed that the young
man the officer brought up
was indeed his nephew and
that he was expecting him.
However, the officer still
gave the nephew a ticket for
not having ID.

In Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 52, 99 S.Ct. 2637, 61
L.Ed.2d 357 (1979), the Court invalidated a conviction for
violating a Texas stop and identify statute on Fourth
Amendment grounds. The Court ruled that the initial stop
was not based on specific, objective facts establishing
reasonable suspicion to believe the suspect was involved in
criminal activity. See Id., at 51-52, 99 S.Ct. 2637. Absent
that factual basis for detaining the defendant, the Court
held, the risk of “arbitrary and abusive police practices”
was too great and the stop was impermissible. Id., at 52, 99
S.Ct. 2637.
Hiibel, 542 U.S. at 184.
Brown v. Texas also made clear that that when officers detain a person for the
purpose of requiring him to identify himself, they perform a seizure of his person
subject to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. Brown, 443 U.S. at 50. In
Brown, the person seized was walking in an area known for heavy drug traffic, but
that fact did not justify stopping him without individualized reasonable suspicion.
Brown, 443 U.S. at 52. The Court went on to explain:
The fact that appellant was in a neighborhood frequented
by drug users, standing alone, is not a basis for concluding
that appellant himself was engaged in criminal conduct. In

See Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 50-51, 99 S.Ct. 2637, 2640, 2641, 61 L.Ed.2d 357 (1979); Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 654-655, 99
S.Ct. 1391, 1396, 1397, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979); United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 879-883, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 2579-2581, 45
L.Ed.2d 607 (1975); Terry v. Ohio, supra, 392 U.S., at 20-22, 88 S.Ct., at 1879, 1880; Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 561.

8

8

short, the appellant's activity was no different from the
activity of other pedestrians in that neighborhood. When
pressed, Officer Venegas acknowledged that the only reason
he stopped appellant was to ascertain his identity. The
record suggests an understandable desire to assert a police
presence; however, that purpose does not negate Fourth
Amendment guarantees... In the absence of any basis for
suspecting appellant of misconduct, the balance between
the public interest and appellant's right to personal security
and privacy tilts in favor of freedom from police
interference. The Texas statute under which appellant was
stopped and required to identify himself is designed to
advance a weighty social objective in large metropolitan
centers: prevention of crime. But even assuming that
purpose is served to some degree by stopping and
demanding identification from an individual without any
specific basis for believing he is involved in criminal
activity, the guarantees of the Fourth Amendment do not
allow it. When such a stop is not based on objective criteria,
the risk of arbitrary and abusive police practices exceeds
tolerable limits.
Brown, 443 U.S. at 52.
In conclusion, an officer may stop and question an individual if he has an articulable
reason to believe that the person is trespassing or engaging in some other form of
illegal activity. However, merely walking around - or entering or exiting - a
NYCHA building does not provide an officer with reasonable suspicion.

9

A

n elderly resident with
disabilities was released from
hospital care and receiving
visitors at home. His
daughter, a Walt Whitman
House resident for 40 years,
was coming home from a late
night shift the previous night
to visit him, but was stopped
outside of his building by the
police. They said she looked
“out of it.” The officers went
to the father’s home with her
identification, and asked if
this was his daughter. He
verified her identity, and the
officer left. The man’s other
daughter went out a bit later
to take out trash, and she
saw her sister on the ground
with an officer standing with
his foot on her back. The
daughter was arrested,
brought to the precinct, and
then released without any
charges. Her father
expressed worry and outrage
at this unwarranted
treatment.

SURVEYS
The Thomas Jefferson Houses

T

he findings from the survey conducted at the Thomas Jefferson Houses
revealed that a majority of residents and invited guests are repeatedly
stopped by NYPD police officers. Further, many of the residents feel either
harassed personally or that a family member or friend has been harassed on a regular
basis. The result of this, and other findings discussed below, is that residents have
developed feelings of fear and resentment toward the police officers who patrol the
Jefferson Houses. Additionally, the results show that constitutional rights of
residents are likely to be violated on a daily basis.
Of the 106 people surveyed in this project:
A majority of Thomas Jefferson residents and their visitors who were surveyed are
regularly or repeatedly stopped by NYPD police officers who patrol the area.
41% stopped up to 5
times per year.

Stopped
72%

16% stopped 5 to 10
times per year.
19% stopped 10 to 20
times per year.
24% stopped more
than 20 times per
year.

Not Stopped
28%

When the police give residents a reason for being stopped, it is often an apparently
legally insufficient reason.
Other reasons given by
officers include:

80%

72%

70%

“In the park”
“Walking out of the
building”
“Sitting outside”
“Fit a description”
“Mistaken for someone else”
“Was laughing and
dancing”

Percentage

60%

54%

50%
39%

38%
40%

33%
26%

30%
20%
10%
0%
Trespass

Sto p & Frisk

A sked fo r
Identificatio n

Ho lding a
Co ntainer

No Reaso n
Given

Other

Reasons

10

Many of the people we interviewed said they were stopped and police demanded
identification from them when they were doing nothing but entering or exiting the
buildings they live in. Some residents described repeated interactions with the same
officers on routine patrol, which indicates that the officers likely recognize them as
residents of the building, and would not have reason to believe they were
trespassing.
Stops, ticketing, and arrests of residents are frequent in the Thomas Jefferson Houses.
30% have been arrested.
36% have been ticketed.
49% were charged with Trespass.
Aside from issues of illegal stops, searches, and arrests, residents feel that police
officers violate their sense of safety in many ways, including the use of excessive force
when questioning or otherwise detaining residents.
34% report that they have been subjected to excessive force.
66% know someone who has been subjected to excessive force.
A majority of residents are dissatisfied with the manner in which they are treated by
police officers.
58% report that a police officer has spoken to them in a rude or disrespectful
manner at the Jefferson Houses.
45% report that a police officer has used derogatory or racist slurs in their
presence at the Jefferson Houses.
74% report that their friends have been harassed by police officers.
66% report that their family members have been harassed by police officers.
However, residents either do not have information about how to file a complaint or
feel that the Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) is largely ineffective.
23% have filed a Civilian Complaint Review Board complaint.
85% surveyed rated CCRB’s overall effectiveness (on a scale of 1-10; 1 being
poor and 10 being excellent) as below a 5.
A majority of Thomas Jefferson residents have children living with them at home and
are very dissatisfied with the relationship between NYPD officers and their children.
55% have children at the Jefferson Houses.
84% rate police officer’s relationship with children at the Jefferson Houses (on a
scale of 1 to 10; 1 being poor and 10 being excellent) as below a 5.

11

The vast majority of people who reported being stopped by the NYPD around their
homes were African-American and Latino men.
88% of people who
reported being
stopped were male.

African-American
71%

Latino
28%

26% of people who
reported being
stopped were ages
10 to 20.

Other
1%

The Walt Whitman Houses
The findings at the Walt Whitman Houses were similar to those at the Thomas
Jefferson Houses. Although a greater number of surveys were implemented by pro
bono law firm attorneys who were sometimes mistaken for police officers upon first
meeting the residents, the results are similar to the Jefferson Houses because they
show that residents have developed fear and resentment towards the police officers
patrolling their residences. Again, the results also show that from the resident’s
perspective, their constitutional rights are likely to be violated on a daily basis.
A significant number of residents of the Walt Whitman Houses are nonetheless
stopped by police officers at the Walt Whitman Houses.
100% of those surveyed
are residents

Not Stopped
57%

63% of those stopped
were stopped at least
once in the last year

Stopped
43%

12

The stops of residents do not appear to be justified. Many residents appear to be
subjected to routine stops when coming and going from their homes.
60%

Other reasons
articulated by officers
include:

54%

50%

“Riding a bike”

Percentage

40%
3 1%

“Matched a
description”

29%
30%
23%
20%

“Told me to get
against the fence
before asking for I.D.
and I said no”

17 %

20%
11%
10%

“Standing in the
hallway”

0%
Trespass

Sto p & Frisk

A sked fo r
Identificatio n

Ho lding a
Co ntainer

A sked if a
Resident

No Reaso n
Given

Other

Reason

A majority of Walt Whitman residents are dissatisfied with the manner in which they
are treated by police officers.
Very Poor
44%

Okay
42%

Somewhat Poor
14%

A majority of residents have never filed a Civil Complaint Review Board (CCRB)
complaint against a police officer or do not know what the CCRB is, and of those that
do know of the CCRB, a majority feel that it is ineffective.
88% have never filed a CCRB complaint.
57% think that the CCRB’s effectiveness is “Very Poor”

13

“Filming with a
camera”

“Sitting in front of
my house”

Many Walt Whitman residents have children living with them and a majority of those
residents are dissatisfied with the police officers’ relationship with children.
36% have children at the Whitman Houses.
56% rate police officer’s relationship with children at the Jefferson Houses as
“Very Poor”

14

RECOMMENDATIONS

T

he survey results and interviews with residents of NYCHA buildings reveal
chronic problems that call for immediate changes in NYPD practices.
Merely walking around - or entering or exiting - a NYCHA building does
not provide an officer with reasonable suspicions to stop and question. The vertical
patrol procedures in NYCHA areas, which affect communities of color and poverty,
have led to serious community concerns about rights violations. The
recommendations of this report are merely preliminary, and are offered in the hope
that the NYPD will act quickly to curb unconstitutional conduct by police officers.
♦

Community meetings to build trust and communication
We recommend that the local precincts participate in community-led dialogue
to evaluate and improve police conduct on patrol around NYCHA buildings.
These meetings should include the youth who live in NYCHA buildings, and
others who may not participate in existing police councils. The agenda should
be set by community leaders, and the NYPD should have an opportunity to
respond to the concerns raised by the community. The meeting should result in
concrete recommendations to improve the conduct of police officers, which are
acted on quickly.

♦

Enhanced rights-respecting security for residents
Security is important for residents of NYCHA buildings, and for their visitors.
However, unjustified stops for identification run afoul of constitutional rights
and cause unnecessary misunderstandings and tensions between residents and
police. Alternative methods of security should be explored by the NYPD with
NYCHA and with residents, and current vertical patrol procedures should be
suspended. With public participation in the process to determine security
measures, public confidence in the fairness of security could be improved. Ideas
to explore could include doormen, enhanced security cameras, neighborhood
watch programs, and re-training for officers on the Fourth Amendment rights
and trespass laws affecting people on NYCHA property.

15

APPENDIX: SURVEY FORM

16

17

For more information or to get involved, contact:
Amanda Masters

New York Lawyers for the Public Interest, Inc.

151 West 30th Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10001
Tel 212-244-4664 Fax 212-244-4570 TDD 212-244-3692
www.nylpi.org