By Rachel Silberstein and Julia John-Scheder
Police supervisors did not routinely discuss stop-and-frisk paperwork with officers before signing off on the forms, a retired inspector testified on Tuesday at the federal investigation of the controversial police program.
Charles Ortiz, who worked for the department from 1992 till six weeks ago and oversaw the 43rd Precinct in the Bronx, also said that racial profiling was “not specifically discussed” in weekly statistical review meetings, called CompStat meetings.
But, he added, the department since has changed these practices.
His testimony comes after former police chief Joseph J. Esposito testified at the landmark trial on March 9, match supreme txt femmes that he relies on supervisors to look over the forms, calling his sergeants “the best in the world.”
He also argued that the information on the forms were sufficient to determine if there was reasonable suspicion for a stop, a judgment that Ortiz’s testimony seemed to undermine.
Earlier two police officers testified about the prevalence of “quotas” to rate performance under the CompStat system.
Officer Edward Aries testified that he heard about quotas “all the time”, saying that officers particularly complained about quotas in the anti-crime unit, but supervisors did not use the word “quota” but used “performance goals.”
“It’s a matter of interpretation,” he said
City lawyer Brenda Cooke reviewed Aries’ stop and frisk numbers for 2008 and asked him if he was ever penalized for the month of February, in which he only turned up four stops. He said he was not.