In recent years, high-profile police shootings have shaken public confidence in the ability of our justice system to hold law enforcement accountable. The issue of who investigates and prosecutes these cases has become a focal point for advocates, policymakers, and concerned citizens alike. In New York State, the Attorney General (AG) currently serves as the special prosecutor in cases involving police shootings of unarmed civilians. While this setup may seem logical, it is not without significant flaws. To restore and strengthen public trust, it’s time to change the system: the power to appoint an independent prosecutor should move from the Attorney General to the Governor’s office.

The rationale for this shift is clear. While the AG’s office undoubtedly plays a critical role in upholding the law, the fact that the Attorney General is an elected official introduces an inherent conflict of interest. This conflict lies not in personal bias or lack of capability, but in the pressures of political accountability and the need to maintain public favor for re-election. When an elected official, even one as capable as the AG, investigates cases involving law enforcement, there will always be a shadow of doubt: Are political considerations influencing the investigation? Could the outcome be swayed by a desire to maintain relationships with powerful police unions or other political forces? Public confidence demands that these questions be put to rest—and that can only happen with a truly independent special prosecutor, appointed by the Governor, who is free from electoral concerns.

Independence Over Politics

The Attorney General’s role as both a law enforcer and an elected official creates a tension that is impossible to ignore. Even if the AG conducts a fair and unbiased investigation, the perception of potential political influence can undermine public trust in the outcome. In a democracy, perception often carries as much weight as reality. The appearance of independence is just as important as actual impartiality when it comes to restoring faith in the justice system.

The appointment of an independent special prosecutor by the Governor would eliminate the direct political pressures that elected officials face. Unlike the AG, who must balance their prosecutorial duties with the demands of electoral politics, an independent prosecutor could focus solely on the facts and the law, unencumbered by political calculations. This would send a powerful message to the public: that justice is being pursued with integrity, free from external pressures.

Specialization and Focus

Another key advantage of shifting the power of appointment to the Governor lies in the ability to choose a prosecutor with specific expertise and focus. Independent prosecutors appointed on a case-by-case basis can be selected for their particular experience in handling complex investigations, including those involving police misconduct. The AG’s office, while well-resourced, handles a wide range of legal duties, from consumer protection to environmental enforcement. By contrast, an independent prosecutor appointed solely for the purpose of investigating a police shooting can devote undivided attention to the case.

This singular focus ensures that the prosecutor is not juggling multiple political or legal obligations. Instead, they are tasked with thoroughly investigating the specific incident, reviewing evidence, and determining whether charges should be brought without distraction or competing interests.

Conflict of Interest Concerns

While the AG is independent of local district attorneys, the office still maintains ongoing relationships with law enforcement agencies throughout the state. The AG’s office often works closely with these agencies on a variety of cases, which can lead to an inherent conflict of interest. How can the same office that defends law enforcement in some matters also be expected to hold officers accountable in others? Even when the AG’s office acts with full integrity, the close relationship with law enforcement presents a conflict that may erode public trust.

An independent prosecutor, by contrast, would not be subject to these same relationships or entanglements. They would come to the case with fresh eyes and no prior working relationship with the officers or departments under investigation. This distance is crucial for ensuring that the investigation is seen as impartial and untainted by any previous alliances or cooperation.

Public Trust and Transparency

The central goal of any investigation into police shootings must be to pursue justice and truth, but public perception is critical. As protests in cities across the nation have shown, there is a deep and widespread mistrust of the current systems in place to investigate police misconduct. If the public does not believe in the impartiality of the investigation, the result will be continued unrest and further erosion of trust in our institutions.

By appointing an independent prosecutor from outside the AG’s office, we can take a meaningful step toward rebuilding that trust. A special prosecutor chosen by the Governor—someone who has no political stake in the outcome—would demonstrate a commitment to transparency and accountability. Such an appointment would signal that the state is serious about holding law enforcement accountable, regardless of political or institutional relationships.

Conclusion: A Path Forward

The time has come to reconsider how New York handles investigations into police shootings. The current system, which places the Attorney General in the role of special prosecutor, is flawed—not because of any failure on the part of the AG’s office, but because of the inherent conflicts that come with being an elected official.

By shifting the responsibility of appointing independent prosecutors to the Governor, we can ensure that these sensitive and critical investigations are handled with the impartiality, focus, and transparency that the public deserves. New York should seize this opportunity to lead the way in reforming how we hold law enforcement accountable, ensuring that justice is served, and that the public can once again trust the institutions sworn to protect them.

The recent report from the New York State Attorney General Tish James (see below), Office of Special Investigation (OSI) sheds critical light on the fatal shooting of Mr. Garris by Detective Conn. 

According to the OSI’s findings, the circumstances leading to Mr. Garris’s death raise significant concerns about the proportionality of the force used. The report details that, despite claims from Detective Conn that Mr. Garris was attempting to seize Officer Bird’s firearm, other evidence, including Officer Bird’s testimony, contradicts this narrative. 

The OSI’s investigation highlights that less lethal alternatives were available, and the threat level perceived by Detective Conn did not warrant the use of deadly force. These findings prompt a necessary reexamination of how and when police officers are justified in using lethal measures, mainly when dealing with individuals who may be in vulnerable states.

Report on the Investigation into the Death of Jarrel Garris by BLACK WESTCHESTER MAGAZINE on Scribd

First, let’s consider the testimony of Officer Bird, who was directly involved in the struggle with Mr. Garris. Officer Bird clarified that Mr. Garris did not attempt to grab her firearm. Yes, her holster’s hood was down, but this doesn’t imply that her weapon was ever in imminent danger of being taken. She explained that her holster required multiple deliberate actions to remove the firearm, actions that never occurred during the encounter. Furthermore, despite Detective Conn’s frantic shout of “gun,” Officer Bird did not see one. The absence of any clear and present danger significantly undercuts the narrative that Mr. Garris was about to seize a weapon. This raises a troubling question: What exactly did Detective Conn perceive as a lethal threat?

It is particularly troubling that  Officer Bird or  Officer Chavarry, or both, had recently completed training in de-escalation techniques at the Westchester County Police Academy, specifically for handling mental health crises. Officer Chavarry even told Detective Conn, “He’s good,” indicating that the situation was under control. Yet, for reasons unknown, Detective Conn disregarded their assessments and escalated the situation. We are left wondering why Detective Conn, despite having two officers on the scene and at least one with relevant training, failed to follow their lead in handling Mr. Garris.

The use of deadly force requires the presence of an immediate and overwhelming threat. No weapon was visible in control of Mr. Garris in this case, and neither Officer Bird nor Officer Chavarry was in danger of losing their lives. While it is true that Mr. Garris resisted arrest, resistance—especially from someone who appeared disoriented and possibly experiencing a mental health crisis—does not justify escalating to the most extreme measure of lethal force. 

Law enforcement officers should be trained to de-escalate situations, use force proportionately, and reserve deadly force for when lives are at imminent risk. In this instance, Mr. Garris’s non-compliance has been misinterpreted as a direct threat rather than a challenge that could have been managed without deadly force.

It’s crucial to consider the missed opportunities for de-escalation in this case. Detective Conn’s command to ‘Taser him’ indicated his belief that a non-lethal option was appropriate. However, instead of allowing the situation to de-escalate or ensuring the Taser could be used effectively, the situation tragically escalated to gunfire. This sudden decision to shoot seems premature, especially given the lack of clear evidence that Mr. Garris was about to harm anyone. These missed opportunities underscore the urgent need for policy changes to ensure that non-lethal methods are considered.

Moreover, Officer Bird’s command of “Stop, Steve, stop” reveals an important nuance. While she couldn’t recall the precise reason for saying it, the phrase suggests an effort to de-escalate the struggle or coordinate with Detective Conn. At that moment, there was likely a chance to regroup, refocus, and control the situation without lethal force. Instead, that opportunity was lost.

Finally, Detective Conn’s prior encounter with Mr. Garris should have led to a different approach. Having interacted with him before, Detective Conn believed Mr. Garris might have been under the influence of drugs or experiencing a mental health crisis. This understanding should have guided the officers toward de-escalation and caution, not violence. Instead, the situation took a fatal turn that, in hindsight, seems tragically avoidable.

Yet, for reasons not fully explained in their report, Attorney General Tish James and her office have declined to bring charges against Detective Conn. This decision leaves a troubling gap in accountability, especially when the facts of the case strongly suggest that Mr. Garris’s death could have been avoided. While the Attorney General’s office may have refused to act, the responsibility to correct this injustice now rests with New Rochelle’s law enforcement officials and elected representatives. They can address this issue by removing Detective Conn from his duties. Failing to do so would send a dangerous message that unjustified deadly force can go unpunished.

Ultimately, Mr. Garris’s noncompliant and physically resistant behavior did not present the imminent danger that justifies a lethal response. The facts paint a picture of an encounter where deadly force was not only unnecessary but preventable. This incident should serve as a stark reminder of the need for restraint in policing, especially when dealing with individuals who may be vulnerable due to mental health or substance-related issues. It’s a regrettable situation that demands corrective action.

Unfortunately, this incident is not isolated for the city of New Rochelle and its police leadership. There has been a troubling pattern and practice of officers using massive or deadly force in situations that did not warrant it. The shooting of Mr. Garris is part of a more significant issue within the New Rochelle Police Department, where excessive force seems to be more of a norm than an exception. When will there be a fundamental shift in mindset and policy changes to address this deeply ingrained culture of overreaction? The time for reform is long overdue, and the leadership of New Rochelle must take decisive steps to ensure this type of tragedy never happens again.

The shooting of Mr. Garris should prompt all of us, including law enforcement, to reflect intensely on when and why deadly force is used. If we are serious about building trust between the police and the communities they serve, we must hold officers to the highest standard regarding the sanctity of human life. Mr. Garris deserved a chance for his life to be preserved—not taken in an instant due to overreaction. This incident underscores the critical importance of this issue and the need for immediate action.New Rochelle officials can still right this wrong by taking swift action. Dismissing Detective Conn of his duties as a police officer would be crucial to rebuilding trust and ensuring accountability in policing practices. Without such action, the community will question whether justice is served when the badge is involved.