A federal judge in New York has dismissed objections raised by the city’s largest police union against a settlement reached by the New York Police Department (NYPD) last year over its controversial “kettling” tactic employed for crowd control during protests.
U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon, appointed by President Bill Clinton, issued a 41-page opinion on Wednesday, clearing the settlement and denying the motion brought by the Police Benevolent Association (PBA) to reject it.
Judge McMahon determined that the police union would not suffer “legal prejudice” if the court dismissed the claims for injunctive relief according to the terms of the settlement.
The settlement, initially reached by the NYPD in September of last year, faced opposition from the PBA, the union representing rank-and-file officers. It relates to claims that Black Lives Matter protesters were subjected to allegedly aggressive policing during demonstrations in the Bronx, which the union leadership described as having become violent and destructive.
In a statement issued on Wednesday afternoon, PBA President Patrick Hendry said, “If the NYPD is unable to prevent future demonstrations from devolving into chaos, the parties who signed onto this settlement must bear the blame.”
The approved settlement establishes an oversight committee tasked with monitoring the NYPD’s implementation and compliance with new reforms over a multiyear period.
Among the key provisions is a requirement for the NYPD to deploy fewer officers during most public protests and to adopt a four-tier system for determining appropriate police responses, with a focus on de-escalation. Importantly, the settlement also prohibits the controversial practice of “kettling,” where officers surround and confine a group of people to make arrests.
The PBA had initially objected to the settlement, expressing “serious concerns about its impact on the safety of police officers” and the public in New York. The union president argued that the agreement would expose police officers to more discipline for taking lawful and appropriate police action.
“It creates a regime that will enrich anti-police advocates through yet another monitorship disguised as an ‘oversight process,’ and it will expose police officers to more discipline for taking lawful and appropriate police action,” the PBA president wrote. “The individuals and groups responsible for the 2020 violence and destruction will surely view this agreement as a green light to create more of the same.”
The NYPD faced criticism for its handling of protests following the death of George Floyd, with accusations of “unjustifiable fist and baton strikes, chemical pepper spray attacks, and other acts of physical violence” against Black Lives Matter protestors.
According to the lawsuit against the city, the contentious tactic of “kettling” was repeatedly endorsed by NYPD leadership.
“At numerous protests, officers encircled groups of protesters to prevent them from escaping such violence using a tactic repeatedly endorsed by NYPD leadership called ‘kettling,’” the lawsuit reads. “Protesters who were arrested were placed in excessively tight plastic handcuffs commonly referred to as ‘flex-cuffs’ or ‘zip ties,’ which caused pain, bruising and, in some cases, led to long-term injury.”
The PBA president said nearly 400 NYPD officers were injured during the 2020 BLM protests and argued that the deal will leave the police to “bear all of the burden” of the “so-called solutions” while “the real causes of the chaos remain unaddressed.”
In their class action lawsuit, the plaintiffs pinpointed 320 individuals who, during a June 4, 2020, protest in the Mott Haven neighborhood of the Bronx, were allegedly detained or “subjected to force by police” while demonstrating. Their settlement with the city was reached after more than two-and-a-half years of litigation.
Under the settlement deal, each of the 320 people who met the class description would receive $21,500, with an additional $2,500 awarded to each individual who was given a legal summons after they were arrested. The agreement also covered attorney’s fees for the plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit forward.
The plaintiffs said they participated in peaceful protests following the death of George Floyd, a black man who died in Minneapolis police custody. The death sparked widespread demonstrations and riots across the country, including in New York City.
In the days leading up to the Mott Haven protest, some New York City demonstrations turned violent, with incidents of looting and a shooting in the SOHO neighborhood days earlier. The city imposed a curfew at 8 p.m. each evening to address the violence and looting.
The demonstration at the center of the lawsuit occurred on June 4, 2020, in Mott Haven at around 7 p.m., which was before the curfew. Participants brought protective gear, such as helmets and glasses, citing past police violence against protesters.
The lawsuit alleged that officers began to “kettle” protesters before the 8 p.m. curfew, which hindered some from leaving, and that police didn’t instruct them to disperse before charging at protesters around 8:15 p.m.
The lawsuit argued that peaceful protests were allowed beyond the curfew, citing “inconsistent” enforcement and accusing the police of using the curfew as a pretext for unjustified violence and arrests.
After the Mott Haven arrests, NYPD officials claimed some protesters were disorderly, “screaming and yelling at officers“ and ”throwing plastic bottles with unknown liquids,” according to the New York Daily News.
NYPD also stated they found items like hammers and gas masks among those arrested, which they deemed potential weapons. The clash left several protesters injured, as per the lawsuit.
Human Rights Watch disputed claims of protesters having weapons, stating that the police provided no evidence linking seized items to violent intentions, merely noting they were “seized from individuals arrested in the Bronx.”
