Document of Interest Provided By Councilmember Hamann on Civilian Review Boards

Home Browse Search

C HAPTER 5: ADDRESSING I MPORTANT I SSUES IN C ITIZEN O VERSIGHT 98 Portland Police Bureau includes a notice about the review board with the letter it sends to complainants reporting their case findings (see exhibit 5–3). Some Tucson beat officers hand out the independent police auditor’s business cards. Officers who work the beat where the auditor is located periodically come in to ask for new supplies of cards, as do the secretaries at depart- ment substations. Issues of Oversight Mechanics Jurisdictions need to address—or reexamine—several organizational issues related to the structure of their oversight process. Oversight’s legal basis Citizen review bodies have been established by munici- pal ordinance, State statute, voter referendum, mayoral executive order, police chief administrative order, and memorandum of understanding. The vast majority have been established by municipal ordinance.1 Typically, the authorizing body or legislation grants the oversight body the power to adopt rules and regulations and develop procedures for its own activities and investigations. Examples of these rules include Berkeley’s 16-page “Regulations for Handling Complaints Against Members of the Police Department” and Minneapolis’ 28-page “Civilian Police Review Authority Administrative Rules.” (See chapter 8, “Additional Sources of Help.”) Eligible complainants and cases San Francisco accepts anonymous complaints but sus- tains them only with corroboration. Most jurisdictions permit aggrieved citizens and the parents of juveniles to file complaints. San Francisco also allows organizations to file complaints. The Berkeley Police Review Com- mission designated itself as the complainant in one case. Many oversight systems do not accept complaints by one officer against another officer. Deciding what types of cases to review or investigate has important implications for staffing needs, system costs, and, above all, case processing delays (see “Minimizing Delays” on page 101). Mark Gissiner, past president of the International Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement, recommends, on the one hand, that systems not try to handle every type of complaint because the result can be a large backlog of cases whose resolution is delayed significantly, especially if hearings are held on each case. On the other hand, Gissiner says, oversight systems should investigate or review all cases involving use of firearms. Because most oversight systems have been established in response to an incident in which the police shot some- one, the public expects an oversight body to review these cases. Indeed, the St. Paul and Orange County boards automatically review all cases in which an EXHIBIT 5–2. OCC INCIDENT INFORMATION CARD Tucson officers who work the beat where the auditor is located periodically come in to ask for new supplies of business cards, as do the secretaries at department substations.