Conclusion Meanings:
'Substantiated': The misconduct occurred and it violated the rules. The NYPD has discretion over what, if any, discipline is imposed.
'Unable to Determine': The alleged conduct was investigated but could not determine both that the conduct occurred and that it broke the rules.
'Unfounded': Evidence suggests that the event or alleged conduct did not occur.
'Within NYPD Guidelines': The conduct occurred but did not violate the NYPD's own rules, which often give officers significant discretion.
Further details on conclusions.
Case Details:
-
Said Police Officer failed to activate their body-worn camera.
-
Said Police Officer failed to notify a Supervisor.
-
Said Police Officer failed to prepare a report.
-
Said Police Officer used unnecessary force.
Penalty: C - Command Discipline, vacation days (3 days)
Recommendation: Command Discipline - B
Williamson, Raheim vs City of Ny, et al.
Case # 451984/2022,
Supreme Court - New York, February 8, 2022
Complaint
Description: On May 26, 2019 at approximately 6:30 a.m., the Plaintiff, Raheim Williamson, was
lawfully located at or near the premises at 310 East 102 Street, Apt 5B, in the County of New York, City and State of New York, when, without any legal justification or excuse, the Defendant police officers, JOHN DOES 1-3 unlawfully seized and questioned the Mr. Williamson. The search revealed no evidence of any guns, drugs, or contraband and Mr. Williamson was not engaged in any unlawful or suspicious activity. During said unlawful stop of Mr. Williamson, without any legal justification or excuse, the Defendant police officers JOHN DOES 1-3 and other unknown officers repeatedly assaulted Mr. Williamson with tasers and guns.
Mr. ...