Document of Interest Provided By Councilmember Hamann on Civilian Review Boards

Home Browse Search

[Civilian oversight systems] are often put together quickly and with little thought as to their workabil- ity or with much consideration as to how they fit into the review systems already in place.2 Citizen Review of Police is intended to make it easier to plan an oversight proce- dure (or decide how to improve an exist- ing procedure) in a thoughtful manner by presenting the options available for structuring a citizen review mechanism. Another reason for conflict regarding citizen oversight is that—even with advance planning—public officials, police and sheriff’s department execu- tives, union leaders, police officers, and community activists usually have different expectations of what over- sight should and can accomplish. This publication should help these parties identify and agree on reasonable and feasible objectives—and dispel unrealistic fears about what the process may do—so they can try to avoid the battles that many other jurisdictions have experienced. Features of the Report Sources of information for the publication The information presented in this report comes from five principal sources: 1. Literature on citizen oversight of the police (see chapter 8, “Additional Sources of Help”). 2. In-person interviews in Berkeley and San Francisco, California; Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota; and Rochester, New York, with oversight staff (directors, board members, auditors, ombudsmen, investigators); complainants; law enforcement administrators, inter- nal affairs investigators, police union leaders, and sub- ject officers; local elected and appointed officials (e.g., city council members, mayors, city managers); and representatives of citizen groups. C HAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 4 A SHORT HISTORY OF CITIZEN REVIEW The demand for citizen oversight first occurred in the 1950s and 1960s as a result of the civil rights movement and the perception in many quarters that law enforcement responded to racial unrest with excessive force. Many of these early review procedures were short lived.1 Citizen review revived in the early 1970s as urban African-Americans gained more political power and as more white political leaders came to see the need for improved police accountability. Most oversight procedures have come into existence after a high-profile case of alleged police misconduct (usually a shooting or other physical force incident), often involving white officers and minority suspects. Racial or ethnic allegations of discrimination are often at the heart of movements to introduce citizen oversight.2 By 2000, citizen review has become more widespread than ever before in the United States.As of early 1998, there were more than 90 citizen review procedures. Almost 80 percent of the largest cities had some form of citizen review.3 However, only a small fraction of law enforcement agencies in the country had citizen oversight. 1. Snow, Robert,“Civilian Oversight: Plus or Minus,” Law and Order 40 (December 1992): 51–56. 2. Terrill, Richard J.,“Civilian Oversight of the Police Complaints Process in the United States: Concerns, Developments, and More Concerns,” in Complaints Against the Police:The Trend to External Review,ed.Andrew J. Goldsmith, Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1991; see also Walker, Samuel, and Vic W. Bumphus,“The Effectiveness of Civilian Review: Observations on Recent Trends and New Issues Regarding the Civilian Review of Police,” American Journal of Police 11 (4) (1992): 1–26. 3. Walker, Samuel,Achieving Police Accountability,Research Brief, Occasional Paper Series no. 3, New York: Center on Crime Communities & Culture, 1998: 5. Citizen Review of Police is intended to make it easier to plan an oversight proce- dure in a thoughtful manner by presenting the options available for structuring a citizen review mechanism.