Many New Yorkers are concerned about the controversial bill that would force cops to document nearly every interaction with the public — fearing that the increased paperwork could slow down NYPD response times.
The Post spoke to people in the districts of City Council members whose votes could be key to overriding Mayor Eric Adams’ veto of the “How Many Stops Act” this week — and found that most were dubious that making cops compile the data was worthwhile.
“Cops have a hard job. We shouldn’t be trying to make it harder,” said Guy Strobel, a 72-year-old pianist and landscaper who’s lived in the Hell’s Kitchen district of Councilman Erik Bottcher for nearly five decades.
Strobel, like many of the locals The Post spoke to on Friday and Monday, echoed Adams, who has fought the bill tooth-and-nail by saying it would bog cops down in a river of paperwork that would keep them in the office and off the road.
The bill, which passed with a veto-proof 35-9 majority in December, would require officers to guess demographic information about the people they speak to, even if they’re just interviewing a potential witness on the street.
“If cops have to do paperwork on every little thing, it could distract them from fighting crime,” said Strobel, adding that officers “should “have the freedom to do their jobs as they see fit.”
Will Vilme, 34, who works as a bartender in Hell’s Kitchen but lives in Williamsburg, agreed that “Cops should be able to ask people simple questions without having to do paperwork.”
“It’s a waste of time. They should be spending that time solving crime,” he told The Post.
Jayme Ribeiro, a 46-year-old tour guide who’s lived in Hell’s Kitchen for the last decade, said he often calls police when he sees addicts using fentanyl outside his door — and he doesn’t want New York’s Finest taking any longer to get there.
“The cops are so fast, they come in less than two minutes,” Ribeiro told The Post. “If they’re doing more paperwork and writing everything down, maybe next time I call they won’t respond so quickly.”
“Why change?” he asked. “It’s good now.”
Of course, it’s not clear if Bottcher is listening.
The councilman voted against passing the bill — but sources said he is likely to cast a ballot to brush aside Adams’ Jan. 19 veto.
Seven lawmakers abstained when the bill passed two months ago, but several of them are now expected to join Speaker Adrienne Adams on Tuesday, which is when the 51-member council will vote on whether to override the veto.
To kill the bill, the mayor needs to pull at least two people into his own column — an increasingly unlikely proposition in the bruising fight.
Adams again defended his stance in a Monday interview on WNYC’s “The Brian Lehrer Show,” where he said he would support the law if it didn’t mandate cops record information about the lowest-level stops, known as “level one” encounters.
“Those are stops such as, for example, if a person has a lost parent who’s dealing with Alzheimer’s or dementia,” Hizzoner said. “Everyone that officer asks, did they see the person, he will have to document that. That’s the aspect of the law I disagree with.”
“The Council had the right spirit,” he continued. “But the level one stops are the stops that we are in opposition of.”
But Speaker Adams remained entrenched in her belief that lawmakers should move forward anyway — and said she feels “very confident” she’s got the votes to override.
“I’m very confident that we came through this legislation with a veto-proof majority of council members voting in favor of this bill,” she said Monday on NY1. “So I feel very confident that we will succeed in the override.”
Despite the vicious war between City Hall and the council, many New Yorkers interviewed by The Post were still blissfully unaware of the bill, or how it would affect the NYPD.
But the majority of those that knew about it didn’t like it.
“I don’t agree with it — it’s too time-consuming,” said Casey, a 68-year-old retired probation officer who has lived in Councilwoman Linda Lee’s district in Eastern Queens for 30 years, and who declined to give his last name.
“It takes away from cops doing their job,” he continued. “They could get a radio run and they are busy doing paper work. It could mean a difference of saving a life.”
Casey also pointed out that having cops guess the interviewee’s demographic information — especially their race — was bordering on racial profiling.
“It’s treading on dangerous ground,” he said. “You take statistics, then you run it up, and then you say, ‘Oh, you are stopping this set of people. Okay, I can justify stopping them in the future.’”
Mary Holding, a 61-year-old home health aide in Lee’s district, echoed his sentiments, questioning what the city would do with the data — and opining that the answer was probably nothing.
“They are going to throw that information aside,” she said. “I doubt they are going to do anything with it. What? Just put it in folders and have piles of information lying around?”
Cops “have better things to do” than paperwork,” Holding added.
“You see the gun violence, people shooting people, people pushing people on the subway tracks, stabbing people for no reason,” she continued. “They should be ready and available — not bogged down with [paperwork].”
Lee is expected to vote to override the veto after abstaining in December, along with Councilmembers Sandra Ung, Mercedes Narcisse and James F. Gennaro, according to sources.
Councilman Francisco Moya also abstained but is expected to back Adams, according to sources. It remains unclear how or if Councilwoman Darlene Mealy, another abstainer, will vote on Tuesday.
Southern Brooklyn Councilwoman Susan Zhuang replaced Ari Kagan, who was absent during the vote, but has said that she’ll stand with the NYPD and won’t move to override Adams’ veto.
“As a victim of Asian hate and as someone who just finished knocking on thousands of doors in my district speaking with and listening to voters, the issue of public safety is a top priority for my district and for me personally,” she said.
“I trust the NYPD commissioner, my local police precincts, and police officers when they tell me that this legislation will make NYC less safe.”
Folks in Narcisse’s Brooklyn district and Moya’s Queens district appeared torn over the bill.
“The [cops] already have so much to do,” said Ali Han, a 33-year-old business owner from Marine Park. “This [act] would complicate their jobs because they would have to write down every single detail … I’m against it.”
But Fredner Joseph, a 49-year-old used car dealer from Flatlands said he thought the bill was “legit.”
“They should make a detailed report to protect the civilians,” he said. “They will not do racial profiling if they have to fill out a detailed report.”
Cheryl Blake, a 39-year-old nurse’s aide from Canarsie, agreed.
“It would improve accountability,” she said. “We need to know what the stops are about, so not to stop us for any reason. I’ve been stopped before for no reason, it was a random check.”
Eddy, a 35-year-old maintenance guy from Queens, also liked the bill.
“Hell yeah, I agree with it,” he said. “Sometimes [police] approach you and there’s no need for them to approach you — either because you’re black, or Hispanic or you look a certain way.”
“Sometimes there’s no reason for them to interact with you,” he continued. “But once you interact with them, that gives them the right to do whatever else they need to do.”
“They should be recording for everything.”
Additional reporting by Desheania Andrews and Sarah Goodman