Document of Interest Provided By Councilmember Hamann on Civilian Review Boards

Home Browse Search

C ITIZEN R EVIEW OF P OLICE: APPROACHES AND I MPLEMENTATION 101 Trying to secure subpoena power could involve oversight planners in lengthy court battles with officers’ unions that they may not win. In addition, in the process of the liti- gation, planners may incur significant legal costs (see the second page of appendix E) and lasting poor relations with the police or sheriff’s department. Although subpoe- na power could in some limited circumstances be useful for forcing citizens (e.g., complainants or, more likely, witnesses) to testify or provide documents, oversight staff are unlikely to want to exert such coercion. Other structural issues Jurisdictions that decide to have a citizen review board must settle other organizational and operational issues, some of which include the following: • Should the entire board hear or review every case, as in Orange County and St. Paul, or should rotating groups of three or four members hear cases, as in Berkeley, Minneapolis, and Rochester? • Should board members know what IA’s findings are in advance of their own hearing? In Rochester, they do not. • Legislation in Orange County and St. Paul permit boards to hire their own investigators if they are dissatisfied with internal affairs’ investiga- tions, but neither has ever done so. Although there are cost implications in hiring an investigator, the option may help motivate IA to do a better job with its own investigations. • Where and when will hearings be held? As noted earli- er, most jurisdictions try to house their oversight bod- ies some distance from the police station. (Because the St. Paul Police Department administers the oversight body, housing it in the public safety building is not an issue.) Most board hearings in Rochester take place during the day so the police department does not have to pay IA investigating sergeants overtime to attend evening meetings. Sometimes this creates a problem for employed board members who work a regular 9-to-5 day. • Will the standard of evidence for sustaining a com- plaint be a preponderance of the evidence or the more stringent clear and convincing evidence? Some boards use one, some the other. Subject officers favor the more stringent standard, while complainants favor the more lenient standard. • Finally, how can unacceptably long delays in review- ing and hearing cases be avoided? Delays are a prob- lem for some oversight bodies. Minimizing Delays Many oversight bodies struggle to keep the review, hear- ing, or auditing process from taking months and even years to end. The annual report of the Tucson independent police auditor observes: “A concern that is frequently raised by complainants is the length of time taken to complete an investiga- tion.” Nearly two-thirds of complainants interviewed in a study of New York City’s citizen oversight process reported the process took too long.3 According to Jerry Sanders, former San Diego police chief, “Delays harmed the credibility of the review process here more than any- thing else.” Sanders adds, “They also put officers under enormous stress” waiting for their cases to be decided. Delays were such a problem in San Francisco that the police commission directed the Office of Citizen Complaints to explain its backlog of cases. OCC’s report, issued in February 1998, observed that most cases were completed within 1 year of receipt; when they were not, circumstances beyond OCC’s control were often responsi- ble, including the unavailability of participants or docu- ments; delays requested by union representatives, criminal litigants, and attorneys; and staff attrition. The San Jose independent auditor’s annual report includes a chart illustrating a sample of 10 cases and the number of days the complaint remained at different stages of the review process (see exhibit 5–4). To reduce delays, many jurisdictions have established deadlines by which police departments and oversight bodies must complete their reviews. The Orange County review board, Portland’s city council acting as the Police Internal Investigations Auditing Committee, and the Flint ombudsman’s office have never used their sub- poena power.