Document of Interest Provided By Councilmember Hamann on Civilian Review Boards

Home Browse Search

2. Board members, and subject officers or their attor- neys, may question the complainant and witnesses. 3. Steps 1 and 2 are followed for the subject officer. 4. Each party may make a closing statement. 5. The board deliberates in closed session. 6. The board returns to announce its finding. According to the ordinance, the parties may present evi- dence “on which reasonable persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs,” including hearsay. The chairperson rules on objections, but other board members can overrule the chair. (See “A Hearing by Berkeley’s Police Review Commission.”) C ITIZEN R EVIEW OF P OLICE: APPROACHES AND I MPLEMENTATION 23 A HEARING BY BERKELEY’S POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION The chairperson calls the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. A complainant has alleged that (1) an officer unlawfully taped a telephone conversation with her and (2) failed to give proper explanation by stating that her complaint was a civil, not a criminal, matter.The police officer’s attorney begins by asking the panel to dismiss the case on procedural grounds because the officer was an IA investigator at the time of the incident.The chairperson refuses. The chairperson then invites the complainant to state her complaint briefly.The woman describes her call to the police after a business partner jumped her locked fence, banged on her door, and demanded payment for an over- due bill.The complainant asks to play the tape recording of her original 911 call, but the chair rules the tape is irrelevant to this officer’s case. (The complainant has filed a complaint against another officer in which the tape is pertinent.) The chair refuses two more requests by the officer’s attorney to dismiss the case. On one of the attor- ney’s motions, he says he will get an opinion from the city attorney.The officer’s attorney asks the complainant several questions, after which two board members ask her questions. The officer (who comes in uniform) is sworn in, but he says he has no statement to make.The complainant asks the officer several questions, including,“Don’t you feel bad about not protecting me [by coming out to her home when she reported the trespass that was the origin of the case]?” The officer’s lawyer objects to the question, and the chair tells the complainant to save these kinds of statements for her closing argument. A commissioner asks the officer,“Do you tell people you are taping them?” “Usually,” he responds.The chair then asks the lieutenant,“Does the department have a policy to record conversations and tell people whether they are taping them?” The lieutenant says there is no rule, but the practice is usually to tape and tell. Complainant:“May I say something?” Chair:“No.” The chair asks the officer why he did not tell the complainant to file a criminal complaint and let the district attorney decide whether the incident was a criminal matter.The officer shrugs his shoulders.The lawyer then asks the officer questions and gives her closing statement, repeating her three motions for dismissal.The complainant, too, gives a concluding statement, saying,“I am at a disadvantage here because the officer has an attorney, but I cannot afford one.” She adds that it is insulting for the officer and his attorney to be chewing gum throughout the entire proceeding.The officer gets up and throws out his gum; his attorney does not. The board leaves to deliberate at 7:15 p.m. and returns at 7:43 p.m.The chair reports that the board voted 3 to 0 not to sustain the first allegation (illegal tape recording) and 2 to 1 not to sustain the second allegation (improper advice). As the meeting breaks up, the complainant tells the chair that she is very upset; board members remain about 5 minutes longer to listen to her frustrations with the hearing process and outcome.The PRC officer explains to the complainant her right to appeal the decision.