Police records must be public

For too many years, the Nassau and Suffolk police departments have shrouded themselves in secrecy when it comes to police misconduct. Most officers are dedicated, honest public servants. But for too long and too often, those who committed wrongdoing were rarely punished, and the public knew little about the misconduct or whether there were disciplinary consequences. It was a blueprint for a stagnant, self-protective policing culture.

That was supposed to begin changing last year, after the State Legislature repealed a secrecy law, known as section 50-a, that had blocked the release of police disciplinary records. Since then, Newsday has been trying to bring to the public more details about policing wrongs and woebegone internal affairs units, using the state’s Freedom of Information Law. That's beginning to bear fruit despite efforts from both major Island police departments to fight the full release of many records.

An early disturbing example: a recently published Newsday investigation by Paul LaRocco about one officer’s sexual assault of a young mother in custody in 2017.

The incident, in which then-Officer Christopher McCoy forced oral sex on a woman in a closed interview room, is gruesome on multiple fronts. First is the behavior of McCoy himself. The woman charged that he groped her in relatively open locations. McCoy also took her to an interview room in the First Precinct in West Babylon and forced her into sex acts, investigators said.

McCoy ultimately resigned, pleaded guilty to a federal misdemeanor, and served a year in prison.

But the incident also raises questions about the department’s Internal Affairs Bureau, which — as in Nassau — often falls down on the job. In the 2017 case, McCoy’s partner, Officer Mark Pav, was part of the highly questionable traffic stop that started the woman’s nightmare, and Pav failed to "accurately observe and log the woman’s well-being, as required, during the period of time McCoy forced oral sex on her," the Newsday story explains.

An attorney for Pav has denied Pav's record-keeping errors were related to McCoy’s criminal conduct. The victim says that McCoy’s behavior included gropings in full view, and she concluded that other cops had to know what was going on.

The IAB found that Pav violated multiple departmental rules and procedures but "absolved him of more serious misconduct and missed an 18-month deadline for filing charges that can lead to discipline," according to the story.

Wider discipline or at least consequences for more than just McCoy could have sent a clearer message about this unacceptable behavior. It’s not as if McCoy’s tendencies were entirely secret. Pav said his partner "frequently discussed" using pornography and attempted to look up on social media "attractive women" they pulled over.

It’s a stunning example of what can happen when those who don't belong on the force feel impunity to act egregiously or even just to turn a blind eye, not fearing the threat of punishment or disclosure.