Nearly three years after NYPD Chief of Department Jeff Maddrey removed his old friend, former Officer Kruythoff Forrester, from a Brooklyn precinct after he was arrested for allegedly brandishing a gun at children who broke his security camera, NYPD Deputy Commissioner for Trials Rosemarie Maldonado has ruled that the Civilian Complaint Review Board has no jurisdiction because Maddrey did not directly involve any interactions with a civilian.
Ostensibly, this case would fall under the purview of the Internal Affairs Bureau, but they have already investigated and determined, incredibly, that there was no wrongdoing.
It’s easy to get lost in the details here, so let’s get this straight: All indications are that Maddrey did what he’s accused of. The then-chief of community affairs was called and showed up at the station shortly after; while Maddrey was inside, Forrester’s arrest was called off, and shortly after, the chief left with Forrester. There are recordings and videos of all of this.
This is not about whether Forrester should have been arrested in the first place. The fact that the teens were all able to accurately describe Forrester’s unusual two-tone gun and how he drew it seems like very strong evidence for the prosecution, but ultimately this line of questioning is a red herring. Maddrey himself certainly did not investigate this case and did not know all the facts, nor was it his job to investigate. It would have been up to detectives and prosecutors to determine whether Forrester should have been charged and with what, but Maddrey put a stop to that process.
NYPD regulations state that “any member of the department who obstructs or attempts to obstruct an official investigation shall be subject to disciplinary action for conduct prejudicial to the good order, efficiency or discipline of the department.” That seems fine to us. And to the CCRB.
If Maddrey does not face any consequences for his actions, it is contrary to the good order, efficiency and discipline of the department.
Okay, maybe for procedural reasons the CCRB is not the proper entity to investigate this case, but that shouldn’t be the end of it. The Deputy Commissioner of the New York Police Department’s Office of the Solicitor General should be handling the case. Additionally, the city’s Department of Investigation has a dedicated NYPD Inspector General who has jurisdiction over this case.
The DOI commissioner also has the power to authorize a separate investigation by the Police Anti-Corruption Commission, whose purview is precisely that of cases such as these: officers who use their authority for corrupt purposes. The CCPC could ask the IAB and CCRB to pick up the cases where they left off.
This latest investigation would also require mayoral approval, and neither agency has the authority to impose consequences directly anyway. Only NYPD Commissioner Eddie Caban or Mayor Adams himself could materialize real consequences for Maddrey. They should do so, not only for the sake of the department itself, but for the sake of public trust and respect. And they should centralize responsibility for the NYPD into a single agency instead of the separate CCRB, IG, and CCPC, which can use their weight more effectively, rather than having it spread across so many different agencies.
