Executive Summary
For over two decades, the New York City Police Department (NYPD) has operated a psychological screening regime that flagrantly violates state licensing laws, federal employment selection standards, and fundamental civil rights protections. Through the systematic use of unlicensed and unsupervised personnel—falsely presenting themselves as “psychologists” or “Dr.” during assessments—the department has made legally consequential determinations regarding applicant fitness without meeting even the minimum thresholds required under New York Education Law §§ 7605, 6512, and 6513.
These violations are compounded by the NYPD’s use of “psychological holds”—a deliberately misleading designation applied to applicants not for clinical reasons, but to obscure processing delays or administrative shortcomings. These holds are entered into internal databases and mischaracterized in external employer inquiries, causing long-term reputational and professional harm to disqualified applicants, many of whom are Black, Latino, or female—raising serious questions of disparate impact under Title VII, UGESP, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL.
This is not a bureaucratic oversight. It is a systemic and institutionally protected framework of legal noncompliance—a fact made more egregious by the formal certification of compliance under the Professional Policing Act of 2021 (PPA), which NYPD received despite ongoing violations of its hiring, reporting, and fitness standards.
The NYPD’s continued reliance on illegally conducted assessments, compounded by the deceptive use of psychological holds, reflects not just operational misconduct but a broader institutional conspiracy of silence and complicity, sustained by Albany, City Hall, and One Police Plaza. Each of these centers of power has either looked the other way or actively enabled a hiring pipeline that undermines due process, evades licensing law, and erodes public trust in one of the most consequential gatekeeping mechanisms in government.
Immediate state and federal intervention is not only warranted—it is legally and morally imperative.
I. Introduction: Smoke, Mirrors, and Mutual Silence
The New York City Police Department’s long-standing use of unlicensed individuals posing as psychologists—and the equally troubling practice of deceptive psychological “holds”—is no accident of bureaucracy, nor the product of administrative oversight. It is a sustained, institutionally sanctioned system that has operated for decades with impunity. These practices are not marginal or anomalous; they are embedded in the daily functioning of the NYPD’s Candidate Assessment Division, touching the lives and careers of thousands of prospective and current employees.
What appears at first glance to be a technical violation of New York State Education Law is, in fact, a calculated mechanism of control. Unlicensed evaluators and improperly imposed psychological holds are wielded not as tools of professional assessment but as instruments of exclusion, often with devastating personal and professional consequences. Behind closed doors, these practices function to sideline individuals—disproportionately Black, Latino, female, or otherwise marginalized—through an opaque process that masquerades as medical objectivity but in truth operates without lawful authority or oversight.
Yet the persistence of this scheme cannot be fully understood without recognizing the triangulated structure that sustains it. The NYPD does not act alone. Its ability to defy licensing laws, anti-discrimination statutes, and professional standards is reinforced by a silent but potent alliance: Albany, which has declined to enforce Education Law and licensing mandates; City Hall, which has refused to intervene despite years of documented complaints; and One Police Plaza, the institutional epicenter of the misconduct itself. This triad operates less like independent checks on power and more like a closed loop of mutual protectionism—where inaction is rewarded, scrutiny is discouraged, and legal violations are rationalized as administrative prerogative.
The stakes are profound. Public trust in law enforcement is contingent on the perception—and reality—of fair and lawful practices. When those tasked with upholding the law are permitted to systematically violate it, confidence erodes. The civil rights implications are equally grave: candidates have been disqualified, stigmatized, and denied employment based on procedures that would not withstand even cursory legal scrutiny. And while state and federal anti-discrimination statutes such as Title VII, the NYSHRL, the NYCHRL, and the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP) provide a framework for legal redress, the very agencies charged with enforcement have thus far failed to act.
This essay seeks to expose the full scope of the NYPD’s unlawful candidate assessment practices and the institutional architecture that enables them. It will show how deceptive psychological holds and unlicensed evaluators not only violate state Education Law (§§ 7605, 6512, 6513), but also flout basic principles of due process and equal opportunity employment. More critically, it will argue that these abuses persist not because of oversight gaps, but because of coordinated indifference—a triangle of complicity spanning Albany, City Hall, and the NYPD itself.
II. One Police Plaza: The Epicenter of Institutional Deception
At the heart of the NYPD’s psychological screening process lies a systemic deception—one rooted not in administrative oversight but in deliberate institutional misconduct. One Police Plaza, the NYPD’s headquarters, has long been the command center where legally dubious practices are designed, implemented, and perpetuated under the guise of public safety. Chief among these is the widespread use of unlicensed individuals posing as “psychologists” to conduct candidate assessments, coupled with the strategic deployment of “psychological hold” designations that serve as bureaucratic smoke screens for internal inefficiencies and discriminatory exclusion.
For decades, the NYPD has normalized the use of psychological evaluations performed by individuals who are neither licensed nor authorized under New York State law. Candidates are routinely evaluated, diagnosed, and disqualified by staff who lack valid licenses as required by Education Law §§ 7600–7610. Titles such as “Doctor” or “Psychologist” are conferred upon these individuals, not based on lawful licensure, but to bestow a veneer of legitimacy upon an inherently unlawful process. These acts violate the criminal provisions of Education Law §§ 6512 and 6513, which prohibit the unauthorized practice of a licensed profession and make it a felony to knowingly aid and abet such conduct.
One of the most insidious mechanisms embedded in this scheme is the use of the “psychological hold”—a non-clinical, non-diagnostic designation that the NYPD applies to candidates for reasons that have nothing to do with mental health. Applicants who are simply waiting for routine documents, such as college transcripts or DMV driving abstracts, are flagged as being under “psychological review.” This tactic is not based on any assessment or professional judgment; rather, it stems from an internal NYPD practice whereby investigators—often uniformed police officers—seeking to expedite their caseloads push delays into the psychological system. By misclassifying administrative delays as psychological concerns, the NYPD creates a paper trail that misrepresents the reason for delay, while transferring responsibility to a department already shielded by medical privacy laws.
This deceptive practice has far-reaching consequences. First, it creates a false narrative that the candidate was flagged for legitimate psychological concerns, stigmatizing the applicant in the eyes of external employers. When those candidates decline NYPD appointments or pursue other career opportunities, the NYPD has—according to multiple sources with direct knowledge of the Candidate Assessment Division—routinely reported to background investigators that the individual was placed on psychological hold. In effect, this becomes an unofficial blacklist, damaging applicants’ employment prospects and violating both the spirit and the letter of federal and state civil rights law.
The NYPD’s attempt to shield this conduct under Education Law § 7605 fails both textually and functionally. That section, which lists specific exemptions to the licensing requirement, does not apply to NYPD psychological evaluations. Subdivision (1), in particular, does not provide a blanket exemption for municipal employees. The exemption only applies if the employee’s use of the title “psychologist” and delivery of psychological services are lawfully assigned duties of a salaried position. Yet the NYPD does not maintain civil service positions for “licensed psychologists” as part of its uniformed candidate evaluation team, nor does it follow the supervisory or limited permit structures outlined in § 7605(2). The Municipal Police Training Council (MPTC) standards, which NYPD is bound by, make clear that psychological evaluations must be performed by licensed psychologists in good standing with the State of New York. There is no carve-out for NYPD to substitute licensure with internal designation or to use civilians masquerading as licensed professionals.
Thus, the NYPD’s practices are not only unlawful—they are strategically engineered to exploit legal ambiguities and shield the agency from accountability. By hiding administrative misconduct behind a medicalized label, the department is able to frustrate appeals, mislead the public, and perpetuate discriminatory screening outcomes that disproportionately affect Black, Latino, and female applicants.
One Police Plaza, then, is not merely the site of policy failure—it is the very epicenter of institutional deception. The use of unlicensed personnel, false designations, and psychological holds form an interlocking system designed to obscure violations of law and civil rights. These practices demand not just reform, but legal intervention.
III. City Hall: Strategic Silence and Political Convenience
Successive mayoral administrations—across political affiliations—have publicly championed reform while quietly enabling the NYPD’s unlawful psychological screening apparatus. Through deliberate omission, City Hall has functioned not as a check on NYPD misconduct, but as its political shield. Nowhere is this clearer than in its refusal to investigate or dismantle the NYPD’s systemic reliance on unlicensed psychologists and the deceptive use of “psychological holds,” which continue to undermine lawful hiring practices, violate civil rights, and distort the applicant pipeline.
City Hall’s control over the municipal budget includes direct oversight of funding allocated for police recruitment, psychological assessments, and personnel operations. Yet year after year, successive mayors and their budget directors approved millions in funding for a psychological screening process that clearly violated New York Education Law §§ 6512, 6513, and 7605. These statutes criminalize both the unauthorized practice of psychology (a felony under § 6512) and the knowing facilitation of that practice (a misdemeanor under § 6513). Education Law § 7605 limits exemptions strictly to salaried government employees performing duties within their official scope—exemptions that do not apply to the NYPD’s contracted, part-time, or unlicensed evaluators.
Despite this clear statutory framework, City Hall has never demanded a legal audit of the NYPD’s psychological assessment program. Nor has it referred the matter to the Department of Investigation or convened a task force to review compliance. These failures were not due to lack of notice. Civil rights attorneys, whistleblowers, and former candidates have raised concerns for years. The persistent silence from City Hall cannot be dismissed as bureaucratic inertia—it constitutes a policy decision.
That policy may subject the City of New York to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a federal remedy for the deprivation of constitutional or statutory rights under color of law. When a municipal policy, practice, or custom causes such a deprivation—as articulated in Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978)—the municipality itself becomes a proper defendant. In this case, City Hall’s willful inaction in the face of known statutory violations has helped normalize a discriminatory and unlawful screening protocol that disproportionately excludes Black, Latino, and female applicants from NYPD employment. The consequence is a hiring system that not only fails to comply with federal equal employment standards, including Title VII and the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), but also one that may give rise to colorable § 1983 claims for damages.
Importantly, claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) are unlikely to survive because of the Intercorporate Conspiracy Doctrine, which holds that agents of a single entity (like City officials and NYPD personnel acting on behalf of the same municipal employer) cannot conspire among themselves for § 1985 liability. But this limitation does not extend to § 1983 claims. Here, City Hall’s sustained failure to act in the face of known civil rights violations—coupled with its continued funding and tacit endorsement of the program—supports a theory of Monell liability for maintaining a policy or custom that permits, encourages, or ignores unlawful psychological evaluations.
The political benefits of such inaction are as strategic as they are cynical. By allowing the NYPD to police itself, City Hall maintains plausible deniability while preserving its influence over who enters law enforcement. The psychological hold mechanism, cloaked in medical privacy and procedural ambiguity, provides an ideal vehicle for exclusion without accountability. The result is a controlled pipeline—one that systematically filters out dissenting, diverse, or otherwise “nonconforming” candidates without requiring formal disqualification.
Simultaneously, City Hall presents itself as a champion of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). Reports are published. Commissions are formed. Keynote speeches are delivered. Yet these efforts ring hollow against the backdrop of systemic, unchecked gatekeeping that erodes trust and undermines legal protections. What City Hall has perfected is equity theater—a performative display of inclusion designed to placate public expectations while protecting institutional continuity and political capital.
In short, City Hall’s inaction is not neutral—it is enabling. Through sustained silence, strategic deflection, and budgetary complicity, it has allowed unlawful, discriminatory practices to metastasize under the cover of reform. The result is a deeply compromised hiring process that violates state licensing laws, federal civil rights statutes, and the foundational principles of public trust.
IV. Albany: Regulatory Power Without Regulatory Will
At the state level, Albany holds expansive authority over professional licensing and law enforcement oversight. Yet when it comes to the NYPD’s unlawful use of unlicensed psychologists and deceptive psychological holds, the State of New York has proven itself unwilling to act. Through the inaction of the New York State Education Department (NYSED) and the Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS), Albany has allowed an unlawful screening apparatus to operate in plain sight, thereby undermining its own statutory mandates and delegitimizing the very oversight systems it was entrusted to uphold.
Start with the basics: Education Law §§ 7605, 6512, and 6513 prohibit the unlicensed practice of psychology and criminalize both unauthorized activity and the knowing employment of unlicensed individuals. The legislative text is clear. The State Education Department is empowered to investigate and discipline such violations, and the Board of Regents retains final authority over licensure and professional conduct. And yet, despite mounting evidence—including documented use of “Dr.” titles by individuals with no license, and psychological assessments being conducted by persons outside the statutory exemptions of § 7605—Albany has taken no meaningful action.
Indeed, Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) requests have been submitted to the New York State Education Department (NYSED) to determine whether any investigations, enforcement actions, or referrals to the Attorney General’s office have ever been initiated in response to the NYPD’s long-running use of unlicensed psychological evaluators. To date, those requests remain pending. However, based on the persistent lack of public enforcement activity and the absence of any reported disciplinary actions involving the NYPD’s psychological screening program, there is growing concern that the licensing body charged with overseeing one of the most sensitive domains of public employment—psychological evaluations for armed law enforcement officers—has remained disturbingly passive. Without clear evidence to the contrary, the perception is increasingly that New York’s professional regulatory regime exists in name only.
The same can be said for the Professional Policing Act (PPA) and the oversight functions of DCJS. The PPA was enacted as a reform measure following decades of scandals and calls for professionalization in policing. It was meant to ensure that police officers across the state met uniform standards for training, certification, and fitness. In theory, DCJS is tasked with certifying entry-level psychological evaluations through the Municipal Police Training Council (MPTC) and enforcing compliance. In practice, however, the PPA has been reduced to window dressing—a framework that offers the appearance of legitimacy while doing little to challenge violations on the ground.
Despite clear standards set by the MPTC, which require that psychological assessments be conducted by licensed psychologists, DCJS has failed to investigate or penalize the NYPD’s long-running use of unlicensed evaluators. Nor has it stepped in to review the widespread manipulation of “psychological hold” statuses that stall or sabotage candidates for reasons unrelated to actual mental health conditions. In effect, DCJS has outsourced enforcement to the very agencies it is supposed to oversee—allowing the NYPD to submit self-certifying documentation while circumventing the licensing and assessment requirements built into the PPA.
Why the silence? The answer lies in political expediency. For Albany, confronting the NYPD or the City of New York on licensing and certification violations would require taking on powerful municipal stakeholders and police unions that have long resisted outside scrutiny. It would require acknowledging systemic regulatory failure and subjecting the state’s own oversight agencies to legislative and public inquiry. Albany has consistently opted for avoidance.
Legislators, too, benefit from the status quo. Challenging the NYPD or exposing unlawful practices carries political risk. By staying quiet, Albany avoids alienating law enforcement lobbies while preserving relationships with New York City officials who control billions in state-administered funding. The result is a triangle of complicity: Albany defers to City Hall, City Hall defers to One Police Plaza, and One Police Plaza answers to no one.
This dereliction has real consequences. It reinforces a system where professional licensing laws are selectively enforced, where civil rights violations are concealed behind bureaucratic loopholes, and where public confidence in regulatory oversight is systematically eroded. It is not merely a passive failure; it is an affirmative choice to look the other way—to wield regulatory power without regulatory will.
In doing so, Albany has enabled the very conditions it was empowered to prevent. The legal authority to stop this exists. The paper trail—documented through FOIL responses, licensing records, and sworn testimony—is increasingly undeniable. What’s missing is the political will to act.
V. The Triangle in Action: How the Cover-Up Works
The NYPD’s unlawful use of unlicensed psychologists, deceptive “psychological holds,” and opaque screening criteria did not flourish in a vacuum—it has been sustained by a self-reinforcing triangle of complicity. This triangle consists of One Police Plaza, City Hall, and Albany, each of which benefits from the arrangement while avoiding meaningful accountability. Together, they form a durable system of mutual protection that shields misconduct from public scrutiny, undermines civil rights, and quietly filters out candidates who do not conform to the department’s unwritten standards.
At One Police Plaza, the NYPD is granted wide discretion and operational autonomy under the pretext of managing a large, complex law enforcement agency. This latitude allows it to maintain internal screening protocols that include the use of unlicensed evaluators, deliberate procedural delays, and subjective disqualifications masked as clinical judgment. By funneling applicants into “psychological hold” status—often for reasons wholly unrelated to mental health—the department generates a paper trail that cloaks administrative delays as medical discretion. These practices allow investigators to shift blame for backlogs onto psychologists and frustrate appeals by placing them behind a wall of medical privacy protections.
City Hall, for its part, gains plausible deniability. Mayoral administrations—across political affiliations—routinely delegate hiring and screening to the NYPD without requiring rigorous oversight or transparency. This arms-length posture allows politicians to promote “equity” in public statements while silently endorsing systems that exclude diverse applicants through procedural gamesmanship. City Hall benefits from the political optics of “professionalized” policing and from avoiding open conflicts with powerful police unions. At the same time, the city’s Law Department plays defense, shielding the department from accountability by contesting lawsuits, limiting disclosures, and negotiating settlements without ever addressing the underlying structural abuse.
Meanwhile, Albany provides the legal and regulatory infrastructure—or the appearance of it. The New York State Education Department (NYSED) and Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) have statutory authority to enforce licensure requirements and certification standards. Yet no meaningful enforcement has materialized. As of this writing, FOIL requests submitted to NYSED seeking records of investigations or disciplinary actions remain outstanding. The failure to act against unlicensed practitioners or to conduct systemic audits of NYPD’s psychological screening raises serious questions about whether the state is intentionally avoiding friction with municipal stakeholders. Simultaneously, legislative inaction on known abuses reflects a desire to preserve institutional alliances, not public safety.
The net effect is a system where each actor deflects responsibility to the next. NYPD blames medical discretion. City Hall cites operational independence. Albany hides behind administrative process. And candidates—disproportionately Black, Latino, and female—are left without redress. Many never even learn the reason for their disqualification, as decisions are buried in vague language about “emotional suitability” or “incomplete documentation.” Opportunities for appeal are constrained by time, access to counsel, and the deliberate obfuscation of the true basis for rejection.
Legal complaints are often stalled, redirected, or buried in bureaucratic pathways, protected by layers of legal immunities and confidentiality doctrines. Applicants placed on psychological hold may be unaware that this designation—often premised on missing college transcripts or delayed DMV records—will be reported to outside employers as a clinical finding. In some cases, individuals who opted not to join the NYPD were subsequently rejected from other law enforcement jobs after departments were told they had been “flagged” during a psychological screening process.
In this web of mutual silence, the actual victims are erased—invisible to the public, abandoned by the institutions that claim to serve them, and denied the opportunity to serve their communities. The result is not just a flawed hiring process—it is a civil rights crisis cloaked in professional jargon and bureaucratic indifference.
VI. Conclusion: The Cost of Complicity
The NYPD’s systemic abuse of psychological evaluations—through the use of unlicensed practitioners, fraudulent holds, and opaque disqualifications—has not merely persisted; it has thrived under the watchful indifference of the very institutions tasked with oversight. This is not a case of administrative error or occasional misconduct. It is the product of a deeply rooted institutional co-dependence that elevates operational discretion over legal compliance, political convenience over civil rights, and bureaucratic evasion over democratic accountability.
Each node of the triangle—One Police Plaza, City Hall, and Albany—bears responsibility. The NYPD continues to operate its candidate assessment process with impunity, creating a paper trail that conceals unlawful behavior behind the pretense of medical evaluation. City Hall postures as a passive overseer, all the while benefiting from a controlled applicant pipeline and the political cover it provides. Albany, armed with clear statutory authority under the Education Law, the Professional Policing Act, and licensing regulations, has chosen inaction—failing to investigate, to enforce, or to intervene.
This triangular arrangement insulates misconduct, obstructs legal remedies, and systematically denies opportunity to thousands of candidates—disproportionately Black, Latino, and female—whose disqualifications often have nothing to do with psychological fitness and everything to do with institutional gatekeeping. These actions don’t just violate state licensing laws or federal employment standards like Title VII, UGESP, or the New York City Human Rights Law—they represent an affront to the principles of equal opportunity, due process, and governmental integrity.
This crisis cannot be resolved by internal memos or quiet policy adjustments. What’s needed is public reckoning and legal accountability:
Legislative oversight hearings must be convened—both in Albany and at the City Council—to bring these practices into the public light.
Criminal referrals should be made where violations of Education Law §§ 6512 and 6513 or fraud in public office have occurred.
The U.S. Department of Justice, through its Civil Rights Division, must open a formal investigation into the NYPD’s psychological screening program under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
In short, the triangle must be broken—not merely exposed. Transparency alone will not restore public trust; enforcement and consequence must follow. If unlicensed psychological assessments can continue without penalty—if deceptive holds can be weaponized against applicants and hidden behind bureaucratic walls—then the rule of law is no longer the standard. It is an illusion.
We are approaching a point of no return—where cynicism replaces civic engagement, and qualified candidates walk away not because they failed the process, but because the process failed them. If the law means anything, then it must be enforced not only against individuals, but against institutions. And if the public trust is to survive, it must be rebuilt on accountability, not complicity.