Two New Yorkers Were Tried for Jaywalking and Blocking a Sidewalk. How Did This Happen?
Jaywalking may seem as much a New Yorker’s birthright as yellow cabs or a bagel with schmear. It remains illegal — but tell that to the crowds streaming across Madison or Columbus. On the rare occasions when the law is enforced, an unlucky pedestrian may find him or herself stuck with a simple summons.
Most commuters dashing across the street to a meeting or subway entrance would be shocked to learn that two of their fellow citizens recently faced trial for jaywalking and blocking a sidewalk, prosecuted not by District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. but outsourced to the NYPD Legal Bureau. Tell these commuters that these trials’ purpose is to suppress political protest, and their surprise might turn to anger.
On March 7, 2016, Cristina Winsor and Arminta Jeffryes took part in a Black Lives Matter protest in lower Manhattan. NYPD officers policing the demonstration arrested Winsor and Jeffryes and held them in detention before issuing Winsor a summons for blocking a sidewalk, and Jeffryes for jaywalking. When they arrived in court, they expected to face a typical summons trial. (Normally, these are led by a judge, who serves as a judicial hearing officer, typically without the presence or participation of a prosecutor from Vance’s office.) Instead, Winsor and Jeffryes were to be prosecuted by an attorney from the NYPD Legal Bureau.
Jeffryes has since been convicted and sentenced to time served and an $88 surcharge, while Winsor’s case was thrown out, but the prospect of such absurd prosecutions still looms as a threat any time New Yorkers exercise their First Amendment right to protest.
The NYPD’s prosecution of Winsor and Jeffryes was enabled by a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that Vance’s office signed, delegating all violation prosecutions to NYPD attorneys. This practice, which began in late 2015, was used almost exclusively for the prosecution of New Yorkers exercising their First Amendment right to protest until a crackdown on vendors and low-level offenses. These politically-motivated prosecutions punish some demonstrators and chill the participation of many others who can’t afford the risk of a trial.
[The prosecution of summons cases by NYPD attorneys] began in late 2015 [and] has been used almost exclusively for the prosecution of New Yorkers exercising their First Amendment right to protest.
State law requires that “all prosecutions for crimes and offenses cognizable by the courts of the county for which he or she shall have been elected or appointed” are “the duty of every district attorney.” In some instances, a court may appoint a special district attorney, but DAs aren’t allowed to appoint their own replacement. In several sparsely populated upstate counties, prosecutors may delegate low-level prosecutions to law enforcement officers due to a lack of resources. But the Manhattan DA has a budget of $90 million and a staff of hundreds of lawyers.
The chief problem with the NYPD’s heavy-handed use of prosecution of low-level offenses that are commonplace throughout the city is that it removes one of the most important protections we have against the powers of local law enforcement agencies.
No DA prosecutes every case that law enforcement brings to them. When DAs consider the public interest merits of each case before going to trial, they serve as a check on the actions of law enforcement officers, which may be overly zealous.
By delegating this responsibility to the NYPD, Vance’s office has removed this check on their power.
By delegating this responsibility to the NYPD, Vance’s office has removed this check on their power. The NYPD has an impossible conflict of interest: its lawyers are incentivized not only to prosecute crimes, but to protect the Department from liability. Rather than offer dismissals, which are standard for violations like jaywalking, NYPD attorneys routinely require defendants to admit that their arrests were justified, eliminating any possible defense if their case is ever reopened.
For the NYPD to serve as both police and prosecutor invites abuse of power — particularly when the targets are New Yorkers engaged in legitimate political purpose. It is time for District Attorney Vance to do the job he was recently re-elected to, and rescind his memorandum of understanding that allows the NYPD to go after low-level violations in court.
