Q&A: Village Police Reform Committee Member Sees Some Reasons For Optimism

To Willa Bernstein, a key to the guilty verdict in the Derek Chauvin case involved the testimony of former fellow officers, who helped win the conviction by refusing to defend his actions in killing George Floyd last summer on a Minneapolis street.

It was, she said, “the one piece to this that really felt, like … It felt new. It felt like something was seriously changing there. And you can only hope that it’s the start of it — but it’s an anomaly right now.”

Ms. Bernstein, a Southampton Village resident, knows the territory: She was a member of the village’s volunteer committee that examined the need for reform in the Southampton Village Police Department, as part of a mandate in the wake of a summer of protests after Mr. Floyd’s killing.

Previously, as a Manhattan attorney who regularly defended clients in the courts, she served on the Mayor’s Commission to Combat Police Corruption — until she was unceremoniously fired in 2008 after raising questions about an incident involving police who used a Taser on a shackled teenage suspect. She seemed to come under scrutiny after she made a comparison to the well-publicized Abner Louima case in 1997, when a Black man was brutalized by police while in custody.

She did not go quietly, saying at the time that the commission “is not independent and doesn’t do much,” and urged city officials to “make it real or disband it.”

Last week, the attorney discussed her experience on the two panels, her thoughts about the Chauvin verdict and the cause of police reform, both nationally and locally.

Q: Talk a little about your background, and in particular your time with the Mayor’s Commission to Combat Police Corruption in New York City.

I have a criminal law background, and I actually, shortly after law school, started working with a criminal defense firm that did assigned counsel cases for indigent clients. And I became a legal aid attorney. So I did a lot of courtroom representation of people charged with petty crimes. Smaller misdemeanors — started off doing misdemeanors, became felony certified after that. And I was at 100 Center Street most days just standing up in court, representing people …

Q: You were on the front line.

Yeah, I was. And I spent a few years doing that and sort of gained my courtroom experience and went from there to the New York State attorney general’s office. When Eliot Spitzer was in charge and I was on the other side of things, working in the habeas corpus division, where I represented the state and I worked on constitutional law issues.

So I’ve kind of been on both sides of criminal law cases. And that’s where I sort of cut my teeth as a lawyer.

Q: How did you end up on the commission?

I had been at the attorney general’s office. I took a little hiatus when I had my daughter, who’s now 19 years old and in college. And then when I went back to work, I went to the mayor’s office in special enforcement division. It was a task force that worked with some NYPD, some fire department, buildings department, to try to shut down illegal businesses. And at that time when I was there, the focus was on illegal massage parlors, getting closing orders and putting padlocks on the illegal businesses. And it was a lot of sort of quality of life crimes that the department was focusing on.

So I had that multi-agency experience. And then I saw a notice for a job at the Commission to Combat Police Corruption, and I had wanted to get back into criminal law, because that was an area that I found interesting, and I knew something about it. And I wanted to contribute. I’d always been interested in government jobs in public service. So this was an opportunity to get back into more of a public service I got set in.

It was right after the Sean Bell shooting. … That was a tragic situation where Sean Bell was leaving a nightclub with his friends. There had been a call about somebody who was going to get a gun. They thought there was going to be a fight, and plainclothes police officers showed up. And it turned out that there wasn’t a gun in the car, but Sean Bell was shot. And it was 50 rounds, I guess.

And, after that, the City Council in New York City held hearings and they said, “We have to do something about this.” And there was a movement. And they looked at the Commission to Combat Police Corruption, and they said, “Wait a minute, this thing hasn’t been staffed for years.” I think it was four years that there were no staff attorneys. …

That was 2007. 2006 was the Sean Bell shooting, and there was a lot of focus on what went wrong. Did the police identify themselves? They were in plainclothes — did Sean Bell and his friends understand that they were being confronted by police officers? And there was a lot of focus on procedure and potential reform, and the city council held hearings. And that’s exactly when I was hired.

So it seemed like a great opportunity to get back into criminal law in a public service setting and contribute what I knew from past experience as a prosecutor and as a defense attorney.

Q: But you were only on the commission until 2008, right? I saw an article that suggested that you were fired from the commission, and you felt like it was because you were asking too many questions?

I mean, from the minute I showed up at the new job or interviewed for the new job, they kept asking me repeatedly, can you be political? This is a very political situation. Do you know how to be political?

Q: What does that mean? Do you know what that meant?

I didn’t know what it meant. At the time, I needed the job. I was a single parent and I needed to support my 7-year-old. It was really very much of interest to me to learn what the police were doing, to get into police oversight, to understand that whole area and to contribute my legal knowledge. And I wanted the job.

But that kept coming up. Can you be political? I was warned by colleagues in the Department of Investigation in New York City: “This might be something you may want to pass on.” But it seemed, again, it seemed interesting.

And so I went into it naively, and I started getting files. We would request closed case files of Internal Affairs. … Sometimes vouchered property of defendants, it would disappear or not show up when they were released. Things like that. Or discourtesy, or more minor infractions of the type that the civilian complaint review board looks at. …

One day, about five or six months into my job, I was given a case of an excessive force nature, where a Taser was used on a 16-year-old defendant who was in custody in a police precinct. And he was Tasered over and over again. And he’s [suffered] major injuries, and an ambulance was outside and they took him to the hospital.

Q: And he was handcuffed and shackled at the time he was Tasered. Correct?

He was shackled. He was taken into the printing room. So, at that point, he was probably not fully handcuffed. I don’t recall the exact details, but he was leg shackled and he was Tasered over and over again. And the exits were blocked — and it appeared from my review of the case that the potential witnesses in holding cells were removed shortly before this all happened.

And I thought it was a pretty bad case. I recall at the time that my boss back then had said, “Well, this is bad, but they thought they were teaching him a lesson,” because he had spit on a desk officer. He had allegedly resisted arrest. He had been disrespectful. She felt like it was bad, but they had been teaching him a lesson — and I was shocked. I was a little bit shocked by that. …

I was in a meeting with my colleagues at the Internal Affairs Bureau, and … I had written a memorandum on this case, like I did on many others. And the practice was to present the findings on the case review to senior people. Which I did. And as I read the room that day, I knew things had not gone well with that presentation. … I had said in that meeting that these are the kinds of cases that we have to look at very closely, because we don’t want another situation like Abner Louima. I made the analogy and I said, the setting is a closed precinct. The situation is somebody’s already in custody and already subdued. And this is a use of force that happens in the privacy of a precinct. And these are the kind of cases that we have to take a very close look at, because we don’t want another Abner Louima.

And, apparently, that was very offensive, or it was in the report that was presented in my unemployment hearing, they said I had lost credibility by making that analogy.

Q: You were not being political.

Yeah. I was not being political. And I had shown an anti-police bias, or I had lost my credibility, was how it was.

Q: Did you feel like you had an anti-police bias?

Not in the least. I mean, I took that job because I wanted to learn more about policing. I mean, I grew up with “Law & Order” and all of those police shows, and I was taught as a little girl that if you ever get into trouble, you look for an officer, right? You get lost, you get separated from your parents. You need directions, you need anything, you need help — look for an officer. That’s how I grew up, hearing that as a little girl.

And, of course, as I got older, I understand that is not the experience of other people, especially people of color, people in marginalized communities, people who are taught, as little kids, don’t ask a police officer, don’t trust the police. And that’s an unfortunate, terrible situation and not my own experience.

So I wanted to learn what they knew and wanted to use my expertise to help in any way I could. I saw it as a public service and a collaborative [effort] — it’s great that I can be on this team and help prevent harm both to police officers and to civilians in police custody. And I was affirmatively, like, excited to be part of the team. And I saw myself as kind of a team player and privileged to have access to their investigations and how could I improve them.

And I loved going into local precincts. I would get on the subway and go to all the precincts, and I would meet with young officers in the Internal Affairs Bureau. … I loved sitting down and reviewing the case files and listening to the witness interviews and being able to say, “Hey, why don’t you talk to that person? Or next time maybe go visit the precinct and look at the scene of where this complaint happened.”

Q: You sound like you felt like you were part of a constructive process, basically.

Yeah. I felt I was, I thought I was, and I was received when I went to the local precincts in a collegial and cooperative endeavor to sit down and contribute a legal perspective in a layperson’s perspective, a civilian’s perspective, looking at complaints, which I saw as an important part of making policing transparent, making it trustworthy, making it better. …

I didn’t pretend to know about policing. I don’t pretend now to know about policing. But I tried as best I could to educate myself.

As part of that job, they gave me a chance to attend the civilian police academy, where I actually sat in on classes in the evening at the NYPD Academy. … There was one module where they had a green screen and scenarios unfolded on the screen that were based on real police encounters. And then we were given controllers with lasers: You’re holding a pretend gun, which has a laser beam. And as this scenario unfolds, based on a real scenario, you have to make a split-second decision to fire or to hold your fire.

Q: That’s fascinating.

I remember one of them was based on: The police show up at a scene. There’s a suspect. He has his back to the police. There’s been a call that he has a baby and a baby carrier — and there may be a weapon involved. Does he have a knife? It was a machete or something.

And you have to make a decision, as a person turns around, is he carrying a baby in a carrier? Or is it a machete?

And you can tell probably already, by speaking to me, I froze every single time.

But it gives you a sense of the training and it gives you a sense of the fear that often the police talk about, and the idea of showing up at a scene and not having full information, but there may be a threat to your life. … You may have to use deadly force, or it may be used against you.

And I found it absolutely enlightening, and humbling.

Q: You ended up on the Southampton Village Police Reform Committee. How did that happen? How long have you been in the village?

We moved permanently to the village a little over a year ago with the pandemic. Like a lot of people did. And we have a 2-year-old and we wanted to be out of the city and in a house with a little more space and things like that. And we love the Hamptons. I’ve been coming here since I was, I think, 14 or 15, with my parents, who just were in love with everything about it. And I loved it as well, as like my happy place.

We come all year ’round anyway, but when the pandemic hit, I just wanted to be in my happy place — and this is my happy place.

So we moved out, and we registered to vote, and we started to look around us and say, like, we’re not here just on the weekends anymore. Let’s try to see how we can be involved with the community.

So I went to a community meeting, it was hosted at somebody’s house and I met Lisa Votino, and we were discussing various things, and she’s involved in police reform. And I think she nominated me or suggested my name after that discussion.

Q: You didn’t actually volunteer exactly.

I was volunteered. (Laughs.) I was volunteered. I would not have entered that fray on my own.

Q: How did your earlier experience inform your experience with the village process? How was it different? How was it the same?

I entered into both optimistically and somewhat naively, I would say. So that’s the common denominators. I don’t learn much over time, I guess. …

The difference with this undertaking was the executive order. Right? And the difference that people took to the streets last summer after they saw the video of George Floyd being murdered in broad daylight, as Biden said, in front of everyone’s eyes — they took to the streets. …

The mandate, and the climate and the perception of how the public wants or doesn’t want to know what the police are doing or have an active input or partnership with policing. That’s what’s changed.

When this happened when I was in that space 17 years ago, there wasn’t the public perception of it. And nobody really wanted to talk about it. Or it just seemed like, “Let the police handle policing.” …

So the difference is that the dialogue was mandated, and it’s also in public view. So it’s on YouTube, and the discussion is public, and the members of the public are invited to participate and voice their concerns. So the voice of people having a voice in policing is completely different.

Q: But the unfortunate part of that is, with so many of the different municipalities that held these kinds of conversations, Southampton Village, I don’t think, was unique in the fact that there wasn’t a lot of community feedback. And there was some disagreement over the quality of that feedback from surveys. Are you satisfied, as a member of that committee, that there was enough dialogue that it did some good?

I think within the committee, we had robust dialogue and we had significant dialogue. I think it could have started sooner. I think if you look at the report that resulted, you can see that it was piecemeal, because the trustees and the village started talking to the police much earlier in the process, around the summer, and they came up with a self-assessment. And then the stakeholders’ suggestions were tacked on at the end.

Q: And there was some conversation about the lack of input. I mean, I think the police department tried to frame that as a sign that everything was okay. And I think a lot of the committee pushed back on that thinking. Correct?

Yeah. I there were several listening sessions, and nobody called into them, but I’m not privy to how those were advertised to the community or promoted. And initially there was some criticism that the survey appeared on the Southampton Village Police Department website, and maybe later on the village administration website, but it relied on people going to the website rather than reaching out to people and saying, “Hey, there’s this important public discussion going on we invite you to be involved.”

Q: From your experience now, you’ve sat on the committee and you’ve had the conversations, how do you evaluate the Village Police Department? Are there issues that need to be addressed? Are there concerns about unequal policing in certain parts of the community? Obviously we have the report that came out of your efforts, but what’s your personal opinion about how big of a problem Southampton Village Police Department has, specifically?

Yeah, I don’t think I have a very well-formed opinion of what goes on internally in the department, or how well they’re serving the community. And that’s because I lived here full time a relatively short time, but also, in my own personal experience, I haven’t had problems. But the point of the committee was to listen to people of color, people with different experiences, of their interactions with the police, and be open to hearing what their experiences are. And then incorporating those into procedural justice recommendations that would change how all police departments in your state interact with the public. And take input from various people from different backgrounds in Southampton and every other municipality.

And so to me the question is not how well it’s functioning, but how well any department in the entire state is adapting to a social movement and a shift in the public’s perception of what “protect and serve” means.

There’s been a groundswell of support for reinventing what policing means, what community policing means. And, to me, the mark of how well any department is doing is how well they adjust to that — because, back to what I said about, “we don’t want another Abner Louima.” We don’t want any more deaths that are avoidable, of police officers or civilians. And we want the policing of any community to be as safe for everyone as possible.

Q: Let me just ask you bluntly, then: The process that you went through, do you think it worked? Do you think it was valuable? Do you think it was worthwhile?

I think it was worthwhile and valuable in that giving stakeholders in the community of place at the table, a voice in the discussion, is in and of itself important.

But then the question of what happens from there is another question. And I have no way to predict that, but it’s not something that we could sit back and say, “Well, that was great, but let’s hope someone else carries through with this.” …

There should be, in my opinion, yearly assessments, and not just self-assessments of the police department of itself, but with input from members of the community, because that makes policing better, in my opinion.

And you can’t call someone anti-police because they want better partnerships and they want better policing. That makes me angry and sad.

Q: The conviction this week of [Derek Chauvin for] the murder of George Floyd: How does that result inform this whole process for you, from what you’ve been through in these two different efforts? How do you see that verdict having an effect on this entire conversation moving forward? Do you feel optimistic that it’s a moment for change?

Yeah. I feel some optimism. And some anxiety, I would say because of these periods of focus on the problem and what we learn from cycles of abuse that there has to be constant vigilance and constant pressure to reinvent and change and meet the moment.

So I think the outpouring of relief and the celebration that there can be justice for a Black man who is victimized in an arrest where he’s already in custody, that there can be justice, is important and reinforcing, and the outpouring of emotion around it should inspire people to stick with it this time. …

Before I got on the call with you, I spoke to someone and she said, “Well, the Village of Southampton, why do they need any reform? What’s to reform there?” And, to me, that’s just wrong-headed. It’s every precinct. It’s reimagining policing, so that it is truly a partnership with the community. And part of that is listening to their experience.