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 3 LARGER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES HAVE INTERNAL AFFAIRS UNITS TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF POLICE MISCONDUCT Most large police and sheriff’s departments have internal affairs (IA) units (sometimes called professional stan- dards units) that investigate allegations of officer misconduct filed by citizens or other officers. In some depart- ments, IA units not only recommend findings to the chief or sheriff, they also recommend the types of discipline (sometimes following guidelines that provide a range of punishments for different types of misconduct). In some departments, officers’ supervisors investigate minor alleged misconduct, leaving serious cases to the IA unit. Some departments use supervisory panels composed of command-level staff who, after reviewing IA’s investi- gation results, come to a finding and, if appropriate, recommend discipline. In smaller departments, the chief or sheriff investigates citizen complaints, or the complaints become a command responsibility. In all departments, the chief or sheriff makes the final determination of discipline, although in some jurisdictions an appointed or elected official (e.g., police commission) may overrule the decision. • Union leaders. • Citizen groups and public interest organizations. Oversight directors may find it helpful to ask new over- sight investigators or board members to read the publica- tion to learn more about the field. Citizen Review of Police describes citizen oversight procedures in nine jurisdictions. The descriptions are intended to: • Enable jurisdictions that may consider setting up a citi- zen oversight process to benefit from the experience of communities that have already established procedures. • Enable jurisdictions that already have citizen review to improve their procedures based on the experiences of these nine cities and counties. The publication does not promote any particular type of citizen review—or citizen oversight in general. Rather, it is intended to: • Help jurisdictions decide whether they want to create some form of citizen oversight of police or modify the system they already have. • Help jurisdictions select a citizen oversight system that will best meet their particular needs. Citizen Review of Police does not evaluate the nine citi- zen oversight systems; rather, it describes their operations and the problems they have faced. The report also does not focus on the activities of police and sheriff’s department internal affairs units except insofar as they interact with civilian oversight bodies (see “Larger Law Enforcement Agencies Have Internal Affairs Units to Investigate Allegations of Police Misconduct”). The need for the report There has been a considerable increase in the number of oversight procedures that various cities and counties have implemented in the 1990s (see “A Short History of Citizen Review”). However, many of these procedures have had a troubled history that has involved opposition from con- cerned citizens and community organizations and from law enforcement agencies and police unions. In many cases, the procedures have been revamped, in some cases litigat- ed, and in at least one city (Washington, D.C.) abandoned. One reason for controversy in many jurisdictions has been the lack of advance planning for an oversight system. The main problem with many citizen review procedures . . . is that they have not had a clear vision of their role and mission . . . . This has usually been the result of a failure of civic lead- ership. Both community activists and govern- ment officials have not taken the trouble to study what other jurisdictions are doing, to borrow the best practices and to learn from their mistakes.1