Ezekiel Edwards
If arrested in the Bronx, get ready to wait
As an anecdote to my last entry on the Charge or Release Bill:
I worked an arraignment shift this past Sunday evening in the Bronx from 4 p.m. until 1 a.m. According to court personnel, there were approximately 340 people "in the system" when I arrived. In other words, there were 340 people that had been arrested over the past few days who had yet to be arraigned. As is often the case, my colleagues and I were unable to interview the vast majority of these people, as they had not yet been brought to the cells adjacent to the court room (in part because these cells are quite small, and could not possibly accommodate even one-quarter of the number of people in the system). Some of the arrestees were being held in other cells in the criminal court building, while the majority, I presume, were being "lodged" at various precincts and other holding facilities in the Bronx and beyond --- all waiting to be brought to court.
I interviewed around 25 people that night, all charged with misdemeanor offenses, such as hopping the turnstile, trespass, possession of a controlled substance, and driving while intoxicated. By the time I had spoken to them, let alone represented them in court, not one of them had been in jail less than 24 hours. Quite the contrary. The person incarcerated for the least number of hours before his arraignment had been arrested 32 hours prior. The overwhelming majority had been in jail for between 42 and 48 hours.
In terms of the number of hours people in the Bronx are held prior to being charged officially, last night was the norm, not the exception. The Court of Appeals held that people must be arraigned within 24 hours barring a reasonable explanation. Had anyone demanded a reasonable explanation on Sunday night, the only one I would have anticipated was that there were simply too many people arrested since Friday evening to arraign anyone within 24 hours. This raises the issue of detaining so many low-level misdemeanor offenders. As a commentator to my last entry astutely observed, for these petty misdemeanors, the police could just as easily issue a Desk Appearance Ticket (DAT) --- instructing a person to come to court, on his or her own volition, at a later date, obviating the need to detain the person for hours before eventually taking them to arraignments --- thereby greatly reducing the number of people in detention, and consequently truncating the arrest-to-arraignment time. Although the police do hand out a bevy of DATs, they could stand to serve up more in lieu of detaining people charged with low-level, non-violent offenses.
If people were consistently being arraigned at 22, 23, or right at 24 hours, as opposed to earlier, it would still be an issue of great concern; however, the situation is much worse, as hardly anyone is being arraigned within, or even close to, 24 hours after their arrest. Last night, like countless days and nights before it, demonstrates starkly the need for the reintroduction and passage of the Charge or Release Bill to ensure that people are arraigned expeditiously, as New York's highest court has ordered.
Ezekiel Edwards: Author Bio | Other Posts
Posted at 7:00 AM, Feb 07, 2006 in Criminal Justice
Permalink | Email to Friend | Comments (4)











Comments
If I understand correctly, police officers often have a choice between arresting a defendant and issuing a desk appearance ticket. Perhaps the choice to arrest is sometimes an angry officer acting as judge and jury, knowing that the defendant is sure to be punished with jail time of greater than twenty-four hours. Two imporant metrics: how many of the issued DATs are un-answered? And how often is the sentence for a jailed defendant reduced to the time served prior to arraignment? High numbers of un-answered DATs might frustrate officers into seeking the kind of rough street justice imposed by unreasonably-lengthy jail times prior to arraignment.
Posted by: Walter Dufresne | February 17, 2006 10:18 AM
I do not have any hard statistics, but I imagine that many DATs are ignored (since a decent handful of the people I arraign often have warrants for failing to appear on DATs). On the other hand, every day the DAT court part is packed, so in fact the percentage of people who neglect to appear for their DATs might be quite small.
People do not receive any sentence prior to arraignment. Some people are released by the police prior to arraignment for various reasons, but that is not the same as receiving a sentence of time served from a judge. Sometimes, for low-level offenses, a judge will sentence someone to time served in part because the person has already been incarcerated for 48 hours.
I do not think the police think or care much about whether someone answers a DAT or spends between 24 and 48 hours waiting to see a judge. I would imagine they see their job as handing out the DAT or making the arrest; whether the person responds, or when they are arraigned, is not the police officers' problem. In fact, the more DATs the police hand out, the greater the likelihood of DAT warrants, which gives the police more reason to arrest someone in the future (when they discover a warrant for failing to go to court on a DAT). As I discussed in my recent blog "You Can Quota Me On This", the more arrests a police officer makes, the greater his chance for promotion.
Posted by: Ezekiel Edwards | February 25, 2006 01:59 PM
I think DAT appearance/no appearance data is tracked in the Mayor's Management Report. If not (I'll check Monday), NYPD should have it, because it is be a performance indicator for the warrant squad.
Posted by: Daniel Millstone | February 25, 2006 03:21 PM
Having been a first time arrestee 2 years ago for a misdemeanor, I was shocked to find myself incarserated for 28 hours in the W 83rd street precinct. It took the police 4 hours to enter the information regarding the circumstances of my arrest in the computer...According to the officer, the normal person to enter the information was away he wasn't familier with the computer?! At around 3.AM they seemed to be having a party. I was astonished to hear heavy metal music blaring from somewhere in the precinct. It was a zoo, and no accountability apparently.
Posted by: julie | February 27, 2006 03:43 PM