‘How Many Stops Act’ is a wasteful failure: Repeal it now

New York Post - Dec 18th, 2024

The How Many Stops Act, enacted in July despite the mayor's veto, has led to $1.4 million in NYPD overtime costs over three months due to its requirement for detailed reporting on police encounters, even minor ones. This has resulted in 18,000 hours of overtime work and a reported decline in police morale. NYPD Chief Jeffrey Maddrey disclosed these figures to the council's Public Safety Committee, noting that most reports involve minor interactions. Critics, including Council Speaker Adrienne Adams, have expressed concerns over rising overtime expenses, while the law's effectiveness is questioned. The article argues that the legislation has not achieved its intended goals and calls for its repeal to allow the NYPD to focus on crime-fighting rather than paperwork.

Nypd

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

4.0

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article appears to be opinionated and presents a one-sided view on the How Many Stops Act and its implications for NYPD overtime, with limited factual backing and potential bias.

Accuracy

The article provides specific figures, such as the $1.4 million cost and 18,000 hours of overtime, but lacks comprehensive data to support broader claims about the impact on police morale and policing efficiency.

Balance

The article heavily criticizes the How Many Stops Act and its supporters without adequately representing counterarguments or alternate perspectives. The tone is strongly opinionated.

Clarity

The article is clearly written but uses emotive language and a confrontational tone, which may detract from its neutrality and make it less clear in conveying an unbiased message.

Source quality

The article references statements from NYPD Chief of Department Jeffrey Maddrey and unnamed 'department sources,' but lacks citations from a diverse range of credible sources to support its claims.

Transparency

The article does not disclose potential conflicts of interest or affiliations of the author, which may contribute to bias. It also lacks transparency in the sources of certain claims.