Document of Interest Provided By Councilmember Hamann on Civilian Review Boards

Home Browse Search

C HAPTER 6: RESOLVING P OTENTIAL C ONFLICTS 112 There are at least four specific areas in which police officers feel citizens do not understand police work: 1. Case law (and the agency’s own rules) governing police behavior, such as when officers may conduct searches (and what types of searches) and when they may use deadly force against a fleeing felon. 2. The nature of police discretion, both in terms of what officers have the flexibility to do and what they may not do. 3. How officers are trained, in light of the fact that, in the absence of a policy or procedure, training is policy. 4. The manner in which the totality of the circumstances influences an officer’s behavior—for example, when courtesy is not always a viable option.1 Several considerations may reduce these concerns: • By reviewing materials they receive before or at each hearing, which typically include the work product of the IA investigation as well as relevant department policies and procedures, board members report they generally can determine whether officers engaged in misconduct. In addition, a department supervisor attends hearings in many jurisdictions (e.g., Berkeley, Orange County, and Tucson) or is available on call (e.g., Rochester) to answer questions about department operations. • Regarding board members’ lack of expertise, Jackie DeBose, a 10-year member of Berkeley’s Police Review Commission, observes, “This is a citizens’ review, not a court of law, so they [board members] should look at the problem as private citizens.” In addi- tion, Sgt. George Cardenas, the only sworn member of Omaha’s Citizens Complaint Review Board (CCRB), notes, “In looking at whether officers violated a policy or procedure, board members are pretty good at deter- mining the answer. But most cases [in his jurisdiction] are of the ‘he said/she said’ variety, so they don’t need special expertise.” • Although selecting only individuals with police experi- ence for board membership would negate the purpose of citizen oversight, citizen review systems that investi- gate allegations of misconduct can hire investigators with pertinent law enforcement expertise. Most of the Minneapolis Civilian Police Review Authority’s inves- tigators are former police officers who worked in other jurisdictions. Of course, these investigators need to be screened, trained, and supervised closely to make sure they do not show bias in favor of subject officers dur- ing their investigations. • Although it is generally true that only physicians and attorneys investigate their respective colleagues for misconduct, many organizations and individuals have in fact criticized these licensing boards for ineffectively monitoring and disciplining members of their profes- sions.2 It is also notoriously difficult to find physicians who will testify in court against other physicians and lawyers who will testify against other lawyers. As a result, the analogy with only police overseeing other police is a poor one. If anything, the analogy reinforces the case for not leaving oversight to members of the profession being monitored.3 Furthermore, as Mary Dunlap, director of San Francisco’s Office of Citizen Complaints, points out, “Lay jurors already factually resolve allegations of police misconduct [and physician and lawyer malpractice] in civil and criminal justice trials that are a key element of the American justice system.” • Oversight directors need to educate officers about what their staffs do as well as to describe their backgrounds and training. According to Todd Samolis, coordinator of the Rochester Civilian Review Board, “At a panel for middle school students that I ran jointly with 10 officers, the officers were stunned to learn about the extensiveness of the mediation and academy training board members receive, especially impartiality train- ing.” Oversight staff in Rochester and Minneapolis attend roll calls so they can describe their operations and training to officers. The process is unfair Although many officers believe that the oversight process is unfair because, as previously discussed, citizen review- ers are unfamiliar with police work, officers also find the process unfair for other reasons. Many officers feel over- sight staff have “an agenda”—that is, the staff believe it is their personal mission or assignment from the elected officials who appointed them to reduce police officers’