Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. Now it's time to speak to the Speaker, my questions and yours, for New York City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams who leads the 51-member body of New Yorkers elected to represent every neighborhood, 51 of them. Speaker Adams has been much in the news this week for having probably the most serious disagreements of her term to date with Mayor Eric Adams, no relation, on the issues of how much the NYPD should have to document encounters with New Yorkers and how much, if any, solitary confinement, or what they call restrictive housing, is acceptable as a safety or de-escalation measure in the city jails.

Despite their current policy disagreements and some kind of weird dust-up over who gets to put chairs where in City Hall to answer questions from the press, the mayor only expressed his affection for the Speaker in his State of the City address on Wednesday.

Mayor Eric Adams: I want to thank my sister, and I'm going to tell her like mommy used to tell me. Speaker Adrienne Adams, I love you and there's nothing you can do about it. [chuckles]

Brian Lehrer: We'll see if that love is requited and what lurks beneath that olive branch now as we welcome Speaker Adrienne Adams, [unintelligible 00:01:26] district, around where both she and Mayor Adams grew up, is District 28 and Southeast Queens covering Jamaica, Richmond Hill, Rochdale Village, and South Ozone Park. Speaker Adams, always good to have you on the show. Welcome back to WNYC.

Speaker Adrienne Adams: So great to be back with you, Brian. Thank you.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, I said my questions and yours, so if you want to speak to the Speaker, call or text your questions to 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692. On the particular issue that we'll talk about a lot of this How Many Stops Act, anyone on the NYPD or retired from the force want to help us report this story or anyone in Speaker Adams's district on any side of this who has had encounters with the police perhaps that you wish they were required to document? You help us report this story too or any other relevant experience or point of view, or any question for Speaker Adams. Speak to the Speaker at 212-433-9692.

Can we dive right in on how many stops public safety has enhanced or diminished by the NYPD, such a central issue in New York City, obviously? Would you start at the beginning for people who haven't followed this issue closely and describe basically what the How Many Stops Act is and why City Council passed it overwhelmingly?

Speaker Adrienne Adams: Absolutely. Thank you again. It's introduction 586(a) of the How Many Stops Act, and it's a rather simple data reporting bill. It aims to improve transparency on police investigative stops only, not casual conversation, let's make that clear, that are intrusive to New Yorkers' daily lives. It helps to provide consistency on the reporting of stops to improve the accuracy of data that can facilitate more informed decisions on policing while contributing to greater public trust. This is, in a nutshell, what this bill aims to do.

I just want to also give a little deeper background. This bill is actually a result of the remedial process of the 2013 federal court decision that found the NYPD's use of stop-and-frisk to be unconstitutional for violating the rights of New Yorkers. Despite more than a decade of oversight by a federal monitor resulting from that decision, the NYPD still continues to engage in unacceptably high rates of unconstitutional stops, and it does damage police-community relations.

The trauma of these stops continues to fall disproportionately on young Black and Latino New Yorkers. I don't think anybody would argue that point. This is what the bill addresses. It once again addresses Level 1 and 2 stops. I want to also mention that Level 1 stops are already documented by camera by NYPD. This only gives us a certain amount of data which actually, Brian, I'm going to let you know also something that's not spoken about. NYPD actually added more questions to the requirements for our input of questioning on investigative stops.

Brian Lehrer: Let me just add a little more context for our listeners, since you're talking about Level 1 stops, and that's terminology in this area that the mayor is also using to say, "I just don't want the Level 1 stops to cause the officers to have to stop and enter data about each individual." You're saying there's already some reporting requirement for Level 1 stops, which is to say their body-worn cameras record those encounters. They're supposed to turn them on, right?

Speaker Adrienne Adams: That's absolutely correct. I just want to throw something in there because you just mentioned the way that this data can be input. Contrary to claims made by the administration and amplified by some others, the implementation of this law will not overburden police officers nor interfere with their duties. Each stop can be easily documented using department-issued smartphones. They're already on their smartphones quite a bit. It's a manner consistent with existing NYPD protocols that do require officers to account for their activities when they're on duty.

We also want to again stress it's patently false that this law requires the NYPD to report on every single encounter. Casual conversations, I've heard it reported by credible reporters on radio, on TV, just misinforming the public, and this fear-mongering, it's just unbelievable. Ladies and gentlemen, casual conversations and interactions are not Level 1 stops and this bill [crosstalk].

Brian Lehrer: You're making that distinction between casual conversations and investigative encounters.

Speaker Adrienne Adams: Correct.

Brian Lehrer: Let me give you a little bit of the mayor's side of this and get your reaction because in announcing his veto of the bill, the mayor stated his concern as an example that this requirement for gathering information about more people who they have encounters with, these investigative encounters, would take valuable time from keeping New Yorkers safe nonetheless. He gave the example of the recent arrest of the serial stabber who was on the loose in the city and of course, who every New Yorker wanted apprehended as quickly as possible before more stabbings.

The mayor said police spoke to about a thousand New Yorkers in the short time that they were after that suspect, which he estimated would have required another 49 hours of entering data about those people. He said, "When you're taking a dangerous suspect off the street, every second matters." How do you respond to that specific example as an argument for why this is a bad idea?

Speaker Adrienne Adams: First of all, I would love to see those numbers proven. It seems like a lot to me. I'm not going to say that it's not true because I don't know whether it's true or not, but it seems like an awful lot to me. What I will also say is that this bill, like all Council legislation, does not mandate how the NYPD implements it. The department maintains significant flexibility that allows it to determine the process of the implementation for this basic reporting. That's easiest for officers.

Officers are already required to take steps related to Level 1 stops, and this bill only ensures public transparency regarding the most elementary data on them. If the administration decides to intentionally and unnecessarily create the outcome that is going to be most burdensome for our officers, that will be at their hands, not at the hands of the City Council.

Brian Lehrer: We have a caller with what they say is a relevant experience to this topic. Let's hear from Chris in Crown Heights. Chris, you're on WNYC. Thank you for calling in.

Chris: Thank you, Brian. I think it's really important that there be police accountability. I was a resident in Bed-Stuy. I took an Uber home one night [unintelligible 00:09:11] at ten o'clock, and my car was stopped by two undercover police who ran a red light through an intersection. They had their guns drawn at the head of the driver of the car and myself in the backseat outside my home with flashlights on top. You could not see their badges, you could not see their faces.

When they realized that we were not the people they were looking for, they said that we met the description, and they were going to be stopping other cars. They left in such a hurry that we couldn't get their IDs. There's no record of that stop, and there's no telling how many other cars, which I'm sure black Camrys driving through Brooklyn there's plenty of at any given time, that they would stop that night. It's traumatic for residents like myself who are law-abiding citizens, and there should be a paper trail.

Brian Lehrer: If the officer had had to ask you the kind of demographic information that the law requires; race, age, gender, how do you think it would have helped?

Chris: It would have helped by de-escalating. They came into that situation clearly with an idea about the timing. They're looking for someone. It has to be fast-paced, but the reality is they're going to stop people in that search who don't meet that criteria. They would have understood that I'm not the person they were looking for, which only came to light after they had guns drawn at our head.

Brian Lehrer: Chris, thank you for that disturbing story. We're going to get another point of view from Edwin in East Flatbush on the NYPD. Edwin, thank you very much for calling in for you.

Edwin: Good morning, Brian, and good morning, Speaker. I'm calling from East Flatbush. I'm a recently retired NYPD lieutenant who's also a whistleblower and activist who has been speaking about these issues for years. I just want to add in addition to what the Speaker has shared, one of the things that this bill suppresses is the-- Basically, the specialized units, that's where the focus is. Because of the success of activism, litigation, and legislation over the last 10 years, many of the unconstitutional and problematic behaviors have been suppressed regarding uniformed officers, but specialized units.

That's where the violations continue to occur. This bill does help suppress that because now there's a legal requirement to make these documentations for all levels of stops. On top of that-- One moment.

Brian Lehrer: Losing your train of thought. That's okay. I'll say and let you gather your thought--

Edwin: Yes, I'm ready.

Brian Lehrer: You got it? Go ahead.

Edwin: The specialized units is where we need to suppress the behavior from. This is one of the things that's not being discussed in this larger bill. It's not overly burdensome to uniformed either because, again, officers already have to document their body-worn cameras and categorize it and tag it. In the middle of that process, that's where the demographical data would be added.

Already, certain NYPD chiefs have gone on campaigns with misinformation saying that officers have to stop what they're doing and in real time ask for nuanced pedigree information. That is not factual at all. It's simple demographical data, so we can get an idea of how the stops, what stops, who's being stopped, how often it's happening, while simultaneously legally requiring the specialized units, not so much uniformed, but specialized units to finally start documenting their stuff.

Brian Lehrer: Lieutenant, let me ask you two follow-up questions based on what you've said. I certainly hear what you're saying and what the Speaker is saying about the importance of demographics because this is another tool for cutting down on racial profiling, but when you make the distinction between the uniformed police officers and those who are undercover in plain clothes or these anti-crime units that the mayor has put in modified uniforms that might look like plain clothes or once you look closer that you could tell they're NYPD dressed, I know that the special monitor, court-appointed, found that the stops being made by this new Eric Adams unit just in the short time that he's been mayor, a quarter of those stops are likely unconstitutional.

There is a problem with that unit. My question to you is why? Why does it change the behavior if cops are wearing the traditional uniforms or if they're wearing these more subtle uniforms?

Edwin: Brian, I'll tell you, people respond to incentives. Those units, their incentives are different. They are hyper-focused on firearms, which on the surface sounds good because we don't want illegal firearms leading to assault and possibly homicide, but that hyperfixation on firearms is what leads to unconstitutional stops. It is literally the culture of those units to make the stop, ignore the Constitution, and figure it out later.

These units, they don't turn on their body cameras when they're supposed to. It is a plethora of violations that occur, but they feel that the ends justify the means because we end up getting the guns. We still have a bill of rights and a Constitution that we have to follow. It's literally one of the first things that you say when you take an oath as a police officer as I did nearly 16 years ago now. These units, their focus is guns. They're being misled, misdirected by current chiefs, the cowboys.

Essentially, one of the things that is heart-wrenching about this administration, which I had never expected, is that all of the old tactics and the old ways of doing things are starting to find its way back. The difference is they're focusing on specialized units more so than uniform. This is something that only someone from the inside will understand. We need to get more justice-minded officers into the rooms where these things are being discussed. We exist. We just need a platform where we can speak and where we will be protected after we give the truth.

Brian Lehrer: My other follow-up question to you is, why, in your opinion, don't police officers, if this is really not a burden as you and the Speaker are suggesting, why are they so averse to it, really?

Edwin: Well, change. One thing you'll find in the history of the police department and even contemporarily, they hate change. If it's not coming from within, they hate it. The irony is, despite those changes, with some exceptions, virtually all changes at some point, once it becomes just the way that the NYPD operates, they actually try to take credit for that behavior, for instance.

The stop-and-frisk case, which you mentioned in the beginning, they fought vehemently against that, but then five years later, they used those lesser numbers, from nearly 700,000 stops in 2011 to less than 50,000 in 2014. They used those statistics to paint a picture of how great of a police department they are. It made no sense because it's like, "Wait, if things had gone your way, we would probably be at a million stops a day."

Brian Lehrer: You wouldn't have that at all. Hang on a second. My producer wants to ask you a question off the air if you're willing, but thank you so much. My actual guest is New York City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams. Speaker, forgive me for having spent so much time with Edwin, but I thought he had such an interesting insider's perspective and stories to tell. Anything that you want to say in reaction to that exchange?

Speaker Adrienne Adams: I just want to thank the lieutenant with everything in me. He absolutely validated the need for this legislation immediately, if not sooner. We love hearing the truth being told from the inside. We need more officers like that to tell the truth. We know they're out there because we've spoken to them, but to have someone give so extensively his own perspective from experience, that is golden. That is what the public needs to hear. They need to hear the truth.

We need to get to our transparency and accountability. We know that it's going to be a resistance. We understand it. It's always resistance. Just like the lieutenant just said, change is difficult, but if you listen to the last thing he said, Brian, the credit is going to be taken in the long run for the positive results that this legislation is going to yield.

Brian Lehrer: Let's put a pin in this part of our conversation and then we're going to go on to some other things with a clip of the mayor from his Tuesday news conference this week saying he's still open to compromise on this bill with one specific change that you'll hear.

Mayor Eric Adams: Do we need a Stops bill? I will say I don't believe we do, but I respect the fact that there are those that believe we should for Level 2s and 3s. I'm willing to sign that any day because if they believe we need to go further with more transparency, you know what, I'm fine. It's the Level 1s. I'm willing to sign the entire bill the way they have it if you remove and modify the Level 1. Those credible stops mean any stop that an officer makes in his inquiries that is, not only dealing with law enforcement, but just as basic interaction with the public.

Brian Lehrer: I'm guessing, Speaker Adams, based on what you've been saying in our conversation so far that you're dug in on Level 1s needing to be included, but let me ask you, is there a basis for more negotiations?

Speaker Adrienne Adams: Brian, if you listen to what the mayor just said, the mayor just completely misinformed the public as I said at the top of the show. He absolutely said all stops. That is not true. This bill covers Level 1. If we get rid of Level 1 in this bill, the whole bill is destroyed. The bill is gutted. It makes no sense. I'm going back to my original premise because it's the truth. Officers are already required from their own patrol guide to take steps related to Level 1 stops.

This bill only assures the public transparency. That is what we're looking for, transparency, like the lieutenant just said, and accountability regarding the elementary stuff. This is elementary data. Really, really easy to do. Brian, NYPD has a Digidog right now in the streets protecting NYPD and civilians. The most technologically savvy police department on the planet. They are fantastic. They are amazing. We need them. We love them. Our communities want them.

Do you mean to tell me that they cannot put this or they're resisting? I know they can't put it, but they are resisting adding a few questions onto their smartphones that they're already using? Makes no sense.

Brian Lehrer: What was that word? Digidog?

Speaker Adrienne Adams: Digidog. [chuckles] Google it, Brian.

Brian Lehrer: All right.

Speaker Adrienne Adams: It's a robotic dog. It's fantastic, actually. It goes into buildings before officers do to make sure that the buildings are safe for officers to go into or not.

Brian Lehrer: We'll continue on other things with New York City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams right after this.

[MUSIC - Marden Hill: Hijack]

Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. A few more minutes now with New York City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams. I want to mention the other veto from the mayor, which has been not as much in the news but is still very important, and another unusual point of contention to the point of a veto and a likely override between you and the mayor, the Council's bill banning solitary confinement in city jails.

Again, I'll ask you to give our listeners the basics as you see them because a lot of people don't know what counts or doesn't count as solitary confinement under the law as it stands or under this new bill. I think the mayor's position is they are already required to allow people outside their cells seven hours a day. What would you change?

Speaker Adrienne Adams: Well, solitary confinement by any name that utilizes isolation causes physical and psychological harm, period. Experts agree that its use only contributes to continued and greater violence. It's just imperative to make the city's jails safer for those who are detained and the staff as well. This is a humanitarian and safety crisis. We know that conditions on Rikers are already dangerous and continue to worsen because of the current policies. People are dying. It's a horrible thing people are dying. To your point, if solitary doesn't exist, Brian, then the mayor shouldn't have an issue with stating that in law.

Brian Lehrer: The mayor says in order to de-escalate some situations or just protect correction staff as well as other people incarcerated from people who are physically threatening, then some kind of isolation for periods of time is common sense. What do you say to him?

Speaker Adrienne Adams: I would say that, again, we want to make sure that we are informing appropriately. This bill places guardrails on the use of restraints. It doesn't say that you cannot use restraints, particularly when it comes to violent individuals. We're talking about guardrails, like chaining people to death, and things like that. It does not prevent correction officers from handcuffing during transport, and it still leaves officers to determine when restraints are used.

Brian Lehrer: We're getting a call from Craig, who grew up in your district and has an opinion about this bill as well as I think the How Many Stops Act, but I'm going to ask him to focus on this one since that's where we are now, and he called about both. Craig, you're on WNYC. Hi.

Craig: Hey, good morning to you, and your guest Adams. I'm a 11434, so I think [unintelligible 00:23:57] district.

Brian Lehrer: That's [unintelligible 00:23:59] code. [chuckles]

Craig: Yes, that's my [unintelligible 00:24:01]. I have been previously incarcerated on Rikers Island in Upstate New York, unfortunately, when I was younger. I will say to this point about segregated-- It's necessary. I have family in law enforcement. We talk about from both sides of the table. My brother-in-law was a captain on Rikers Island. There are inmates, especially with the gang culture, that manipulate younger inmates. People need to be removed. They need to make other people separate.

There needs to be a carrot-and-stick approach. The correction officers need to have that in there too. Some people in pre-conviction detention are going to come out. Other people are not going to come out and they know it. They act accordingly. We have to keep that in mind. Everybody's not bad on Rikers Island, but everybody there is not good and don't have good intentions. There has to be a mechanism to deal with those people. I'll leave it to that so you guys can go to other callers. Have a great day.

Brian Lehrer: Craig, we appreciate your call a lot. Speaker Adams?

Speaker Adrienne Adams: Yes. Thank you, Craig, very much for your point of view. Once again, we are not disputing the use of restraints, nor are we taking that away from correction officers' use of restraints. We are specifically speaking about isolation, isolating individuals, which actually does not help to make anybody less violent, actually. This is what we're talking about. Corrections officers, which my mother was a correction captain, by the way, we're talking about their ability to continue to restrain, but we are talking about the discontinued use of isolation causing psychological harm to human beings.

Brian Lehrer: We're almost out of time. At the beginning, I played that clip of the mayor from the State of the City address expressing his love for you and saying, "There's nothing you can do about it," implying that's the case despite these current disagreements. We actually had a listener text us and wonder skeptically if the mayor was trying to diminish you, like would he express his love in those terms for the other male leaders of the city like the comptroller or the public advocate. I guess my question to you is, is the feeling mutual?

Speaker Adrienne Adams: Oh, of course. We've known each other for such a long time. I've watched his ascension over the years. To think that two people from Southeast Queens would be in a place that we are right now, really working together, trying to get it together for the people of the city of New York that we love so very much. The thing is that we are different leaders, we lead differently, we govern differently, but we are determined to make things right and to do right by the people of the city of New York. That is our intention.

Yes, we do have a cordial relationship. In spite of everything that's going on, we still do have a cordial relationship.

Brian Lehrer: New York City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams [unintelligible 00:27:37] district, as we said in Southeast Queens, District 28, we always appreciate that you come on and answer questions from listeners as well as from me. Thank you very much for your accessibility.

Speaker Adrienne Adams: Thank you very much, Brian.

Copyright © 2024 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.