My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Document of Interest Provided By Councilmember Hamann on Civilian Review Boards
sbend
>
Public
>
Common Council
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Community Police Review Board (CPRB)
>
Document of Interest Provided By Councilmember Hamann on Civilian Review Boards
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/23/2020 10:09:33 AM
Creation date
6/23/2020 10:08:26 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council - City Clerk
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
181
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
C ITIZEN R EVIEW OF P OLICE: APPROACHES AND I MPLEMENTATION <br />117 <br />each police academy to explain to recruits how to <br />stay out of trouble and what the citizen review <br />process is. Hughes presents eight sustained cases <br />that have come before CRA, asking the recruits <br />what they would do in each situation. She com- <br />pares their responses with what the police officers <br />actually did in the situations. An example of a case <br />Hughes presents is described below. <br />After several squad cars responded to a gang <br />shooting, the last officer to arrive saw a male in <br />the back of a cruiser; the officer pointed his <br />flashlight at the man, and the man made an <br />obscene gesture to the officer. “What would you <br />do?” Hughes asks. After getting the recruits’ <br />responses, Hughes continues. “The officer <br />walked around the car, opened the door, and <br />punched him. Later, he learned that the other <br />officers had stowed the man in the cruiser <br />because the person had witnessed the shooting <br />and was terrified he would be retaliated against <br />if the gang members knew he was going to testi- <br />fy. So, the man overreacted when the officer <br />made him visible with his flashlight.” Hughes <br />then explains how citizens feel when officers <br />engage in misconduct. <br />— According to Orange County Deputy Patrick <br />Reilly, “All deputies know the [Citizen Review] <br />Board [CRB] exists—it is discussed in the acade- <br />my and during supervisor tests.” In addition, CRB <br />is the subject of an entire general order dated <br />August 7, 1997, that begins, “The purpose of this <br />policy is to ensure all agency employees are aware <br />of the Orange County Citizen Review Board <br />(CRB).” After describing the board’s composition, <br />the bulletin goes on to observe, “All agency <br />employees shall appear before the CRB when for- <br />mally notified in writing. Failure to appear may <br />result in disciplinary action.” <br />Other departments have gone out of their way to <br />show good faith in working with their oversight <br />systems. <br />• Lt. Robert Skomra, former commander of the <br />Minneapolis Police Department’s IA unit, on his own <br />initiative, went to every Civilian Police Review <br />Authority meeting, bringing a different IA investigator <br />with him each time. “You can’t tell people [i.e., CRA] <br />you’re a valuable asset unless you go in person.” <br />• Robert Duffy, when he became chief of the Rochester <br />Police Department, came to a meeting in which his <br />IA investigators were training Civilian Review Board <br />members to introduce himself and to explain how <br />valuable the board’s work was to the department. <br />Working With the Union <br />The local officers’ union can be more important than the <br />chief or sheriff—and have different concerns than the <br />chief or sheriff—in making sure citizen oversight func- <br />tions properly. The union can challenge the process in <br />the courts, influence line officers to cooperate with or <br />hamper the procedure, and expedite or delay proceedings <br />when it represents subject officers during interviews and <br />hearings. It is therefore crucial for oversight planners, <br />staff, and volunteers to address union concerns about <br />the review process. <br />Historical conflict between most police <br />unions and citizen oversight bodies <br />Most police unions have traditionally opposed citizen <br />oversight—often successfully—through litigation or lob- <br />bying. In one jurisdiction, the union asked city council <br />members to vote against renewing the appointment of a <br />board member who had had the highest rate of recom- <br />mendations for sustaining complaints. <br />However, police unions have increasingly been unable <br />to defeat citizen review proposals. In some jurisdictions, <br />unions have either chosen not to oppose oversight pro- <br />posals or even supported them. Opposition has declined <br />in part because leaders have decided that a review system <br />was inevitable and because, as one union president said, <br />“We’re not getting gored by it.” According to a union <br />treasurer in another city, “If there had been no sworn <br />[officers] on the board, the union would have opposed <br />it. But we knew we could not litigate it—oversight was <br />inevitable—so we wanted to make the best of what could <br />have been a bad situation.” (See “Not All Police Unions <br />Have Opposed Citizen Oversight.”)
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.