Press Room

New York City Public Advocate Jumaane D. Williams released the following statement after Mayor Eric Adams' press conference today which amplified misinformation about Intro 549-A banning solitary confinement and Intro 586-A requiring basic police transparency. On Friday the mayor vetoed these bills, which passed with veto-proof majorities last month.

"I hope that the media will tell New Yorkers the truth about these bills because it’s clear we cannot trust the mayor to. Mayor Adams is threatening the long-term safety of our city every time he speaks about the imaginary legislation he opposes.

"Today’s press conference was a grotesque example of the mayor hiding behind the pain and fears of people he misinforms and manipulates. The weakness and shamelessness on display is astonishing.

"There was too much misinformation to address individually, but it’s infuriating to see the administration continue to deceive people about these bills and the reality on Rikers and in our streets. In particular, to defend the status quo on Rikers the day after another detainee died under the oversight of this administration, left without so much as a mattress to lay on, is disgusting. The Mayor is downplaying death on Rikers. And to attribute the real risks corrections officers face – including one whose arm as broken yesterday  – to a bill he just vetoed is absurd. 

"Whatever the administration wants to categorize a Level One Stop as – today, they breathtakingly asserted it is ‘not a stop,’ the NYPD Patrol Guide already requires logging of those interactions. Is the mayor suggesting officers are already violating the patrol guide?

"We can’t hear from Layleen Polanco, Brandon Rodriguez, or Kalief Browder about the need to ban solitary confinement on Rikers, because it took their lives. We can’t hear from Allan Feliz, Delrawn Small, or Eric Garner about the need for accountability and transparency in policing stops. So it’s up to those of us invested in public safety, not political protection, to speak up, call out the misinformation propping up unjust systems, and change those systems."

Excerpts refuting the mayor’s misinformation:

From the How Many Stops Act:

“The term “investigative encounter” means an interaction between a member of the department and a member of the public for a law enforcement or investigative purpose. The term does not include a casual conversation or interaction between a member of the department and a member of the public unless such conversation or interaction is based on or, in the course of such conversation or interaction, an officer develops: an objective credible reason to approach; a founded suspicion that such member of the public has engaged in or will engage in criminal activity; a reasonable suspicion that such member of the public has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime; or a reasonable cause to believe that an offense is being or has been committed.

From the Solitary Confinement ban:

“Use of restraints. 1. The department shall not place an incarcerated person in restraints unless an individualized determination is made that restraints are necessary to prevent an imminent risk of self-injury or injury to other persons. In such instances, only the least restrictive form of restraints may be used and may be used no longer than is necessary to abate such imminent harm. Restraints shall not be used on an incarcerated person under the age of 22 except in the following circumstances: (i) during transportation in and out of a facility, provided that during transportation no person shall be secured to an immovable object; and (ii) during escorted movement within a facility to and from out-of-cell activities where an individualized determination is made that restraints are necessary to prevent an immediate risk of self-injury or injury to other persons."

New York City Public Advocate Jumaane D. Williams released the following statement after Mayor Eric Adams vetoed Intro 549-A, which would ban the isolation of solitary confinement in city jails. The City Council passed the bill with a with veto-proof majority last month.

"With this veto, the mayor has condemned New Yorkers to suffer in solitary confinement and isolation, and he did so after the cameras were turned off and backs were turned. It’s cowardly, weak, shameful, and entirely expected from this version of this mayor.

"I don’t think there’s a single person in the city outside the mayor’s office who thinks the status quo on Rikers right now is good and effective. The ongoing use of solitary confinement and isolation in New York City – no matter what the administration calls it – is indefensible, and vetoing the ban is inexcusable. If we want different results, we have to do something different, and banning isolation – while allowing for separation and de-escalation – is good for public safety. The mayor’s veto makes our jails and our city less safe.

"The administration needs to get its stories straight before it decides to deceive New Yorkers about our bills, otherwise they’ll continue to contradict themselves and deliberately confuse the issues. Which is it – that solitary confinement doesn't exist, or that they don’t want to ban it? 

"The federal monitor is right that Rikers is in a dangerous state, one that the administration has shown themselves unwilling or unable to correct. But fears that the Department of Correction will be unable to operate without isolating detainees are not a valid reason to oppose improving conditions. We don’t make laws to conform to failing systems, we make laws to change them. We would be happy to work with the administration on the most effective ways to implement this legislation, but that would require them engaging in good faith, which they have repeatedly refused to do.

"We would be happy to clarify for the administration the key elements of a bill they clearly haven’t read, after the City Council overrides this misguided, performative, ego-driven veto."

Read the full text of Intro 549-A.

"With this veto, the mayor is threatening New Yorkers’ safety to advance his own ideological and personal political agenda. Either he is vetoing the bill without reading it, or he has been deliberately deceiving people to scare New Yorkers and justify his dangerous choice. I’m angered by his selfishness.

"Mayor Adams isn’t just following in the footsteps of Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg, he is going further into the wrong side of history. He is threatening New Yorkers’ safety to protect his ego.

"Transparency in policing should not be a point of conflict or confrontation, it should be a shared goal and basis for conversation. This is a basic reporting bill, rooted in what the NYPD is already required to do, and yet the mayor has engaged in the most flagrant misinformation campaign I have seen from any administration in my time in office, misleading both the public and the police. Through simple reporting on NYPD stops, we can prevent the kinds of bias-based policing we’ve seen in the past, build trust in often over-policed areas, and continue the work that began a decade ago amid the height of the abuses of Stop, Question, and Frisk. This isn’t preventing police work, this is police work. The mayor is opposing a bill that doesn’t exist, and perpetuating harm against the Black and Brown communities he claims to speak for. 

"When the City Council overrides this veto, hopefully the administration will move forward to faithfully execute the legislation instead of sabotaging it and hurting public safety."

Read the full text of  Intro. 586-A.

"As the mayor reportedly plans to veto two bills critical to public safety, I would implore him to read the bills we passed, rather than the deceitful misinformation he and others have pushed. A full understanding of the legislation makes it clear that enacting these reforms will be good for public safety, while preventing them will make our city less safe. Mayor Adams is following in the path toward the wrong side of history where Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg have gone before.

"A symbolic veto of the bills that the Council will ultimately override would be a misguided strategy which would only undermine the public’s confidence in the administration to make the city safer and more just. I urge the mayor to stop fear-mongering, stop misinforming people he claims to serve, read the bills, and reconsider."

Read the full text to Intro. 549-A, a bill to ban solitary confinement in city jails, and Intro. 586-A, a bill to advance transparency in policing.

As misinformation continues to circulate about the ‘How Many Stops’ Act to provide basic policing transparency, New York City Public Advocate Jumaane D. Williams today urged Mayor Adams and detractors of the legislation to read the text of the bill, which runs counter to the claims made in opposition.

“The bill which the mayor and others have spoken out against bears no resemblance to the bill we actually passed,” said Public Advocate Jumaane D. Williams. “This may be the most flagrant misinformation campaign I have seen from any administration in my time in office, misleading both the public and the police. I urge both the mayor and the public to read the actual text of the bill, which should correct what are at best misconceptions and at worst lies, which, unlike this basic transparency bill, will undermine public safety.”

In particular, the Public Advocate highlighted specific language from the bill excluding the kind of casual interactions with the public from reporting requirements, contrary to the bad-faith attacks on the legislation. The bill reads:

“Investigative encounter. The term “investigative encounter” means an interaction between a member of the department and a member of the public for a law enforcement or investigative purpose. The term does not include a casual conversation or interaction between a member of the department and a member of the public unless such conversation or interaction is based on or, in the course of such conversation or interaction, an officer develops: an objective credible reason to approach; a founded suspicion that such member of the public has engaged in or will engage in criminal activity; a reasonable suspicion that such member of the public has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime; or a reasonable cause to believe that an offense is being or has been committed.”

Additionally, the Public Advocate pointed to language from the NYPD patrol guide which  indicates that officers should already be logging some information on Level 1 and 2 stops related to Body-Worn-Camera recordings, contradicting the hyperbolic statements about this level of reporting. The guide reads:

Intro 586-A and the other component of the ‘How Many Stops’ Act passed the City Council with a veto-proof majority last month. The information documented. through this bill is critical to prevent the practices that led to the abuse of stop, question, and frisk prior to passage of the Community Safety Act in 2013. The Public Advocate has repeatedly responded to the administration’s misinformation about the bill and its impact, while emphasizing that the priority should be collaborating on implementing this essential legislation.

"We are eager to review the federal monitor's input -- input we requested before passage of the bill. It appears that the separation strategy the monitor is reportedly requesting is exactly what Intro 549-A does. Our bill does not prevent separation into alternative restrictive housing, it prevents the harm of isolation through solitary confinement.

"The administration, which routinely undermines and ignores the federal monitor, cannot credibly use the monitor's condemnation of its long-standing failures and deceptions around running Rikers Island in order to condemn an effort to actually fix it. It is not our job to create laws that conform to failing systems, it is our job to create laws to change them, and if you want something different to happen, you have to do something different. The administration can no longer stand by a status quo that is indefensible and a practice that is unacceptable."