I’ve been taken to task, and rightfully so, by Gideon at A Public Defender for posting about New York City’s negligible murder rate while the rate by which blacks are arrested for smoking pot has skyrocketed. In my defense, I can’t write about everything, and it’s not like I didn’t call this problem long ago.
The problem now, as discussed by Gid and Jim Dwyer at the New York Times is not only that cops, without serious crime to occupy their time, keep busy by busting kids for smoking dope. But not just any kids. Black kids. Latino kids. Worse still, when a white kid gets popped for smoking a joint, chances are very good that he will get a Desk Appearance Ticket, a notice to appear in court at a later date. The black and Latino kid, on the other hand, will be arrested, spend the night at Central Booking and be arraigned about 24 hours later, at which point he will be offered an infraction with a few days community service and a fine.
That the traffic flow for whites and blacks/Latinos is so different is explained in Dwyer’s column as a by-product of long-standing police practice, that there are more cops on the street in black and Latino neighborhoods than downtown, and they therefore nab more kids uptown.
The problem now, as discussed by Gid and Jim Dwyer at the New York Times is not only that cops, without serious crime to occupy their time, keep busy by busting kids for smoking dope. But not just any kids. Black kids. Latino kids. Worse still, when a white kid gets popped for smoking a joint, chances are very good that he will get a Desk Appearance Ticket, a notice to appear in court at a later date. The black and Latino kid, on the other hand, will be arrested, spend the night at Central Booking and be arraigned about 24 hours later, at which point he will be offered an infraction with a few days community service and a fine.
That the traffic flow for whites and blacks/Latinos is so different is explained in Dwyer’s column as a by-product of long-standing police practice, that there are more cops on the street in black and Latino neighborhoods than downtown, and they therefore nab more kids uptown.
“Marijuana arrests — which rarely lead to jail — are concentrated in neighborhoods with the highest concentrations of violent crime because that’s where the police focus their attention in order to reduce victimization,” [Mayor Bloomberg’s chief criminal justice aide, John] Feinblatt said. “This continued focus on low-level offending has been part of the city’s effective crime-reduction strategy, which has resulted in a 35 percent decrease in crime since 2001.”
This ignores its inherent prejudice. This “highest concentrations of violent crime” argument has been used for decades, while crime has dropped but the police presence has continued unabated, now spending their time frisking and nabbing pot smokers.
What’s wholly unappreciated is the magnitude and impact of this approach. The chart below from Queens College Professor Harry G. Levine via Change.com shows it far more clearly than words can express.
While thoughtful commentators question the value of the continued war on drugs, New York City pot arrests have increased exponentially. The human and financial costs of this nuclear explosion in pot arrests is huge, but few realize how massive the numbers have grown.
The most telling distinction, however, isn’t the growth in marijuana (or marihuana, as New York State law inexplicably calls it), but that white kids get DATs and blacks and Latinos get arrested. Nothing makes the point more clearly, because the decision of whether to hold a defendant or issue a DAT is a purely discretionary act on the part of the cops.
White pot smokers, to the extent they are even arrested, are both sufficiently sympathetic and sufficiently trust by the police to return to court on the appointed day, while black and Latino kids receive neither sympathy nor trust and are held in custody for arraignment. There is no information on the disposition of these cases, but I wouldn’t be surprised to find that the latter receive higher fines, more community service, and this comes on top of spending a night in jail.
As Dwyer notes, marijuana was ‘decriminalized” in a fit of sanity back in the 70s.
Of course, almost every arrest is for the misdemeanor, since the cops nab the pot-perp for smoking on the street or claim that they had it in public view when they write up the charges, even if the bust was inside someone’s home. Happens all the time. This is rarely subject to any scrutiny, since the cases are invariably “pled down” to the infraction and everybody goes home. These aren’t the types of cases where people are willing to fight to the death, or pay the freight for a fight.
These are assembly-line cases, like prostitution and numbers were (and may still be, for all I know) when I was a young lawyer doing arraignments. In and out, and the defendants are more than happy to take a non-criminal disposition and get out of the courtroom as quickly as possible.
I don’t suggest that the solution to this overall problem, or its overtly prejudiced handling, is that we need more serious crime to keep cops occupied. It would be nice if the police, on their own, recognized that they treat blacks and Latinos poorly, and chose to end their biased handling of people of color. But I wouldn’t count on that either.
Perhaps one answer is that arraigning judges take notice of the sea of dark skin before them, and ask themselves why only blacks and Latinos seem to show up in the AR parts. Once they have their judicial epiphany, perhaps they could address this disparity by altering their sentencing policies to reflect the fact that these defendants have already spent a night in jail for the heinous crime of smoking a joint, something the DAT kids managed to avoid.
Two little words, “time served,” might be a way to level the playing field. And even the cops, who don’t believe that the sentence is sufficient, might start issuing DATs to blacks and Latinos, just to hope that they fail to appear and then have warrants to justify their subsequent stop and frisk. At that point, it’s up to the recipients of the DATs to prove the cops wrong.
A second, and more effective, approach might be to grant Clayton motions to any defendant without a prior who was held on a pot charge. The defendant won’t get his night in jail back, but it’s a way to smack the cops’ hand for the disparate treatment of blacks and Latinos. Of course, that would be a bold move by judges, requiring a firm belief that it’s wrong to treat black and Latino kids differently than white kids. Could that really happen?
What’s wholly unappreciated is the magnitude and impact of this approach. The chart below from Queens College Professor Harry G. Levine via Change.com shows it far more clearly than words can express.
While thoughtful commentators question the value of the continued war on drugs, New York City pot arrests have increased exponentially. The human and financial costs of this nuclear explosion in pot arrests is huge, but few realize how massive the numbers have grown.
The most telling distinction, however, isn’t the growth in marijuana (or marihuana, as New York State law inexplicably calls it), but that white kids get DATs and blacks and Latinos get arrested. Nothing makes the point more clearly, because the decision of whether to hold a defendant or issue a DAT is a purely discretionary act on the part of the cops.
White pot smokers, to the extent they are even arrested, are both sufficiently sympathetic and sufficiently trust by the police to return to court on the appointed day, while black and Latino kids receive neither sympathy nor trust and are held in custody for arraignment. There is no information on the disposition of these cases, but I wouldn’t be surprised to find that the latter receive higher fines, more community service, and this comes on top of spending a night in jail.
As Dwyer notes, marijuana was ‘decriminalized” in a fit of sanity back in the 70s.
The possession of less than an ounce of marijuana was decriminalized by the State Legislature in 1977, reduced to a violation, the equivalent of a traffic ticket. “Burning” it or having it “open to public view” is a misdemeanor.
Of course, almost every arrest is for the misdemeanor, since the cops nab the pot-perp for smoking on the street or claim that they had it in public view when they write up the charges, even if the bust was inside someone’s home. Happens all the time. This is rarely subject to any scrutiny, since the cases are invariably “pled down” to the infraction and everybody goes home. These aren’t the types of cases where people are willing to fight to the death, or pay the freight for a fight.
These are assembly-line cases, like prostitution and numbers were (and may still be, for all I know) when I was a young lawyer doing arraignments. In and out, and the defendants are more than happy to take a non-criminal disposition and get out of the courtroom as quickly as possible.
I don’t suggest that the solution to this overall problem, or its overtly prejudiced handling, is that we need more serious crime to keep cops occupied. It would be nice if the police, on their own, recognized that they treat blacks and Latinos poorly, and chose to end their biased handling of people of color. But I wouldn’t count on that either.
Perhaps one answer is that arraigning judges take notice of the sea of dark skin before them, and ask themselves why only blacks and Latinos seem to show up in the AR parts. Once they have their judicial epiphany, perhaps they could address this disparity by altering their sentencing policies to reflect the fact that these defendants have already spent a night in jail for the heinous crime of smoking a joint, something the DAT kids managed to avoid.
Two little words, “time served,” might be a way to level the playing field. And even the cops, who don’t believe that the sentence is sufficient, might start issuing DATs to blacks and Latinos, just to hope that they fail to appear and then have warrants to justify their subsequent stop and frisk. At that point, it’s up to the recipients of the DATs to prove the cops wrong.
A second, and more effective, approach might be to grant Clayton motions to any defendant without a prior who was held on a pot charge. The defendant won’t get his night in jail back, but it’s a way to smack the cops’ hand for the disparate treatment of blacks and Latinos. Of course, that would be a bold move by judges, requiring a firm belief that it’s wrong to treat black and Latino kids differently than white kids. Could that really happen?
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Despite your previous protestations to the contrary, it’s starting to appear that you really do want to corner a share of the NY marijuana market.
On a more serious note, those marijuana arrest numbers are simply outrageous. Surely NY requires more than living uptown as justification for a frisk (assuming that 36,000 people are not really openly smoking dope on the street corners of your city). Too bad, as you say, these are not the types of cases people are willing to fight to the death. If no one takes the cops to task, there is no reason for them to change their behavior–other than the constitution, of course.
Even better than “time served?” “Suppressed.” If judges started suppressing when the cops had no right to go into the pockets (or better yet- didn’t even have Debour level 2 right of inquiry) and then declare that the item was open to public view, we’d be in much better shape.
FYI- Brooklyn just passed 100,000 criminal court cases this year for the first time since the 80s. Amazing how that happens when “crime is down.”
I can see the smile on Lisa Schreibersdorf’s face as I read that number.
Clayton for first time offenders with no priors? That’s not going to change anything. First time offenders with no priors already get their cases dismissed (admittedly after a year long adjournment) under CPL 170.56 so long as they have less than half a pound of pot.
As far as “time served” or “suppressed,” you guys are dreaming if you think cops care about what happens to 221 cases after they’ve filled out their paperwork. Getting evidence suppressed does not “take the cops to task.” Unless the Court of Appeals says it’s unconstitutional to collect overtime for a bad stop, nothing that happens within a court room is going to affect NYPD behavior.
Defenders defend, that’s enough, right? I don’t think sanity will be restored from within the system. Not for marijuana.
A Clayton would give the defendants an immediate dismissal. And ACD would cost them a year of theoretical supervision, and todays is what one would consider a good disposition, as opposed to reduction, fine and community service. Suppression obviously can’t happen, as it requires a written motion.
Would any of this change the cops? Of course not, but it reduces the impact on the defendants. In the short run, we can’t control the cops, but at least we can reduce the burden on defendants who have been held for arraignment to the absolute minimum. Or, we’re left with your option, complaining about it.