NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly and his spokesman Paul Browne are getting slammed for admitting that Kelly had indeed been interviewed for a controversial documentary on radical Islam, The Third Jihad, shown to almost 1,500 police officers over a several-month period and and running on what an internal report described as “a continuous loop.”

This, after both Kelly and Browne fervently denied any participation or knowledge of what they called “unauthorized” screening of the film on NYPD property. Kelly issued multiple letters to leaders in the Muslim community back in March 2011 saying the department “did not participate in [the film’s] production,” and Browne as recently as this past Monday told The New York Times that the filmmakers had relied on old interview clips and had never spoken with the commissioner.

Since then, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has lamented the “terrible judgment” of the NYPD in the film’s screening, and Muslim community groups have called for the resignation of Kelly and Browne while the Commissioner defended the unnamed sergeant who arranged for the video’s screening.

The New York World would like to know: Have Ray Kelly or Paul Browne violated any NYPD conduct or ethics rules in the radical Islam documentary fiasco?

If you have information or insights to share, please comment below, write us, or tweet to @thenyworld.

What we’ve found

1:10pm update – The NYPD has an internal policy prohibiting false statements, and while any documents from the department’s Internal Affairs Bureau are hard to come by, Christopher Dunn of the New York Civil Liberties Union sent the New York World a copy, excerpted here:

It would seem that both Kelly and Browne violated this false statement policy – Kelly by “lying in an official Department document” when he signed letters last year claiming no involvement in Third Jihad’s production, and Browne when he possibly “created false description of events” by first claiming Kelly’s interview had not taken place, and then stating that it was he who had recommended Kelly do the interview.

That means those calling for Kelly’s and Browne’s resignations could be right: penalties for such violations include dismissal, and the policy states explicitly that those who make “a false statement regarding a material matter” will have to leave the Department.

“I suppose it is safe to say that facts about the police commissioner’s participation in a movie like this are ‘material matter,’ said Dunn. “It would certainly not be a stretch to say that, if Browne lied, that would call for dismissal under the policy. Given that he was personally involved in arranging for the interview, one would certainly think that he knew what he told the Times was not accurate, but that is as far as one can go at this point.”

It is harder to assess the actions of Commissioner Kelly, and Dunn noted that it would depend on the interpretation of “the production of the film” as used in the letter: as someone who is regularly interviewed for articles and videos, Kelly’s interview may not equate to participating in the production of the final product.

But a spokesman for the film’s producers said Kelly spoke on camera for 90 minutes and was fully aware of the movie’s focus. “So he was not involved other than sitting there for 90 minutes? Give me a break,” said NYPD Confidential’s Leonard Levitt. “You don’t have to look at the patrol guide to determine if Kelly and Browne gave false statements, just use common sense. How could Kelly say [in the letter] that the department was not involved when he was personally involved?”

So who determines what constitutes a false statement and what merits dismissal? Only the NYPD’s Internal Affairs Bureau reviews such cases. The New York World has asked the NYPD whether the two violated department regulations – but the public information office is overseen by Browne, and the bureau is overseen by Kelly himself. As the case of alleged rape involving the Commissioner’s own son (and Good Day New York TV host), Greg Kelly, has shown, there is an obvious conflict of interest when it comes to looking into anything related to the Commissioner. Kelly junior’s case was handed over to the Manhattan DA because of the conflict.

Said Mr Levitt: “If the NYPD can’t investigate a rape, how can they investigate anything else related to Ray Kelly?”