Document of Interest Provided By Councilmember Hamann on Civilian Review Boards

Home Browse Search

3. Telephone interviews with similar individuals in four other communities: Flint, Michigan; Orange County (Orlando), Florida; Portland, Oregon; and Tucson, Arizona. 4. Less comprehensive telephone interviews with other oversight staff across the country (Kansas City, Missouri; Omaha, Nebraska; San Diego and San Jose, California; and Syracuse, New York). 5. Five members of an advisory board assembled to guide and review the publication (see the back of the title page). The nine jurisdictions studied were selected based on the suggestions of the advisory board. The oversight proce- dures studied represent a variety of approaches to citizen oversight in different areas of the country and in jurisdic- tions of varying size and governance (see exhibit 2–1 in chapter 2, “Selected Features of the Nine Oversight Systems”). Terminology used in the report Different law enforcement agencies use different termi- nology to denote identical or similar activities. To avoid confusion,Citizen Review of Police usually uses the fol- lowing terms regardless of the local jurisdiction’s actual terminology: • Complainant (sometimes called “appellant”). • Board and board member (sometimes called panelist/panel member, commission/commissioner). • Executive director or director (sometimes called “officer” or “examiner”). • Police union (also called federation, association). • Internal affairs (IA) (some departments have renamed their IA units “professional standards”). “Findings That Review Boards and Police Departments Make” identifies and defines the principal terms used to describe possible findings regarding allegations of officer misconduct. A glossary following chapter 8 defines other specialized terms used in the report. C ITIZEN R EVIEW OF P OLICE: APPROACHES AND I MPLEMENTATION 5 FINDINGS THAT REVIEW BOARDS AND POLICE DEPARTMENTS MAKE Review boards and police departments generally use a common set of terms to identify the findings that their investigations can lead to: • Unfounded:The alleged act did not occur, or the subject officer was not involved in the act; therefore the officer is innocent. • Exonerated:The alleged act did occur, but the officer engaged in no misconduct because the act was lawful, justified, and proper (sometimes called “proper conduct”). • Not sustained:The evidence fails to prove or disprove that the alleged act(s) occurred. • Sustained:The alleged act occurred and was not justified (e.g., it violated department policy). Some oversight bodies and police departments come to findings that conclude the subject officer committed an act that was inappropriate but that hold the department responsible for the officer’s misconduct: • Policy failure: Department policy or procedures require or prohibit the act (e.g., an officer may not use a cruiser to drive someone to a bus stop whose car was towed). • Supervision failure: Inadequate supervision— the officer’s sergeant or lieutenant should have informed the officer not to engage in the act or to discontinue it (e.g., a sergeant asks a supervi- sor,“Here’s what I’ve got. Is that probable cause to arrest the guy?” and the supervisor gives the officer bad advice). • Training failure:The officer receives inappropriate or no training in how to perform the act properly (e.g., distinguishing an intoxicated person from someone going into diabetic shock).