NYPD's Botched Directive Could Have Cost "A Lot Of Arrests"

Marc Gardner

On Thursday, the NYPD allegedly sent out a directive ordering narcotics officers to make no arrests based on drug transactions that they witnessed, unless an undercover officer was present. According to the Post, this message "stunned drug cops," with once source saying, "They were told point-blank they couldn't make observation arrests without their undercovers." But it turns out it was all a big misunderstanding. Sheesh, haven't any of you cops played telephone?

The Post, sensing something was amiss, contacted NYPD spokesman Paul Browne, who clarified that "narcotics officers were not ordered to halt all observation arrests for drug transactions, but to reserve low-level observation arrests for efforts in building larger cases.” Very different than "don't arrest anyone without an undercover officer!"

As another NYPD source puts it, "They would have lost a lot of arrests." It's almost like the time Ray Kelly asked one of his subordinates for a "nice coffee."

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Christopher Robbins in News on November 5, 2011 5:15 PM

Comments [rss]

Eggcream

So, the cops might have "lost a lot of arrests", essentially, average citizens buying a bag of pot, or maybe heroin addicts scoring a fix. This class of criminal needs to be arrested whenever possible because we're still operating with the economic model build around the failed War on Drugs which requires big statistics including arrests in order to justify the model---and profits a very small number of companies and individuals by keeping that bad idea the only idea society is ever allowed to consider. The War on Drugs = money in someone's pocket, but not yours.