From: Pena, Yuridia Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 2:22 PM Subject: ***Press Release*** COUNCIL MEMBER MARK

S. WEPRIN STATES HIS POSITION ON POLICE PROFILING (STOP-AND-FRISK) BILL

CONTACT: Yuridia Pea yuridia.pena@council.nyc.gov (212) 788-6984 For Immediate Release July 1, 2013

COUNCIL MEMBER MARK S. WEPRIN STATES HIS POSITION ON POLICE PROFILING (STOP-AND-FRISK) BILL

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is on a tear after the City Councils passing Introduction 1080, which would combat bias-based profiling by the New York City Police Department (NYPD). The Mayors recent racially charged comments on the Citys stop-and-frisk record (that whites are stopped too often and minorities not often enough) are deeply offensive. No one who talks to New Yorkers from all corners of the city and from every walk of life about relations between communities and the NYPD could accept the Mayors comments as anything but a gross distortion of reality.

A key point often missed in this discussion is that racial profiling is already illegal in New York City. Introduction 1080 does not change that. Instead, it affirms the legal basis for police action by making clear that a persons race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristics cannot be the sole basis for a stop. Before the fearmongering crowds out the facts, New Yorkers should know that this measure does not alter crime-fighting tactics. The bill does not restrict police officers from engaging in lawful police activity that currently takes place, such as pursuing a lead or using a physical description to pursue a suspect. Instead, it sends a clear message to communities across New York City that the NYPD will adhere to policies that advance significant law enforcement objectives.

Throughout my career, I have been a steadfast supporter of law enforcement. I remember the days when New York City was torn apart by severe crime waves, and I think the NYPD deserves tremendous credit for helping to reduce crime dramatically over the past two decades. I will not stand for New York Citys sliding back even one inch toward its high crime past.

At the same time, I represent the most ethnically diverse district in the City of New York, one that comprises seventy percent people of color. Every day I hear from constituents from all different backgrounds, and I have heard too many unsettling stories of taxpaying American citizens being stopped on the street in their own neighborhoods for no apparent reason. Those stopped in my district nearly always seem to be African American, Latino, or South Asian individuals. While my family members and I have never been stopped by the police, an African American staff member of mine who lives in the same neighborhood has been stopped more than once. On one occasion, he was with two friends who were white, yet he was the only one stopped.

What about the argument, advanced by Mayor Bloomberg and others, that minorities are stopped more often because they match descriptions of criminal suspects? Only about sixteen percent of NYPD street stops are based on descriptions of possible criminals. The other eighty-four percent of the time, local residents are stopped on their way to or from school, work, the supermarket, the park, a friends home, or any other place that eve ry New Yorker expects to be able to go without being harassed.

If all those stops were reducing crime or resulting in confiscated weapons, some might argue that they are worth the cost. In reality, less than one percent of stops yield guns. A

sharp increase in the use of stop-and-frisk over the last decade has failed to produce corresponding declines in gun violence. Instead, the legacy of stop-and-frisk is humiliation of innocent people and the destruction of the trust that should exist between communities and the police department. The NYPD will be most successful in its mission when it can operate with the full trust of every community it serves.

Like New Yorkers of all backgrounds, I want our city to be safe and free from crime. Any uptick in the crime rate is unacceptable to me, and I will continue to support effective crime-fighting measures. But bias-based profiling is not a useful anti-crime tool. It is an insidious, corrosive tactic that ultimately detracts from policing.

-30-