A. Hate Crimes 

What did the September 13, 2011 DOJ Technical Assistance Letter to Suffolk say about hate crimes?  

What did the January 11, 2014 DOJ Settlement Agreement require SCPD to do?  

How has SCPD complied with DOJ’s guidance and the provisions of the Settlement Agreement?  

B. Misconduct and Bias Policing Investigations – IAB 

What did the September 13, 2011 DOJ Technical Assistance Letter to Suffolk say about these?  

What did the January 11, 2014 DOJ Settlement Agreement require SCPD to do?  

Findings & Recommendation of the former special counsel to the Suffolk County Legislature’s Public Safety Committee.  

What did the March 12, 2021 Report and Recommendations of the Eastern District Court say about the lawsuit brought by 21 anonymous Latino plaintiffs regarding SCPD’s discriminatory policing practices?  

How has SCPD complied with DOJ’s guidance and the provisions of the Settlement Agreement?  

What provisions does Suffolk County’s police reform plan include regarding misconduct and bias policing investigations?  

C. Traffic Stop Data

What did the September 13, 2011 DOJ Technical Assistance Letter to Suffolk say about traffic stops?  

What does Rand Corporation say about analyzing traffic stop data for the influence of racial bias?  

What did the January 11, 2014 DOJ Settlement Agreement require SCPD to do?  

What did the March 12, 2021 Report and Recommendations of the Eastern District Court say about SCPD traffic stop data collection and analysis?  

How has SCPD complied with DOJ’s guidance and the provisions of the Settlement Agreement?  

UJPLI written requests to the Suffolk County executive, legislature and SCPD police commissioner for written clarification.  

What provisions does Suffolk County’s police reform plan include regarding traffic stop data and analysis?  

Reconciling provisions and assertions of Suffolk’s policing reform plan with relevant provisions of the DOJ 2011 Technical Assistance Letter, the 2014 DOJ Settlement Agreement, other correspondence, relevant findings and rulings in civil actions and prior assertions of SCPD reveals often-used disingenuous rationalizations intended to deflect attention from the persistent failure to meet established commitments in a perpetual ‘run the clock’ strategy.  It is a regrettable attempt to justify and normalize persistent non-compliance.  

Consistent with the Department’s history, the pattern is clear: Deny the allegations, demand more proof and relentlessly resist all appeals for transparency.  Commit to reform only when compelled to and even then, do so only in word, and then backslide in deed.  Notably, the plan contains little language regarding internal controls and includes no enforcement mechanisms.  

CAUTION: In the absence of competent independent oversight, without adequate internal controls and enforcement mechanisms, the future will look much like the past.