Document of Interest Provided By Councilmember Hamann on Civilian Review Boards

Home Browse Search

Findings Board of inquiry findings are based on clear and convinc- ing evidence. Possible findings include unfounded, exon- erated, not sustained, and sustained. PRC presents its findings to the city manager and the chief. If the IA and PRC findings differ, a designee of the city manager reviews the decision and recommends to the city manag- er which finding to support. However, because IA has already completed its investigation and recommended a finding to the chief, the chief has typically already ruled on IA’s finding and, if appropriate, imposed discipline. Nevertheless, because the city manager has ultimate authority in disciplinary matters, he can overturn the chief’s decision after reviewing PRC’s finding. In prac- tice, however, the city manager does not try to reconcile different findings; the chief alone decides whether to reverse IA’s finding. Appeals Within 15 days after the complainant and subject officer have been sent PRC’s finding, either party may petition in writing for a rehearing. There had been no rehearings as of October 1998 because police officers had never requested one and complainants had not been able to document that they had newly discovered evidence. Commissioners and the PRC officer have no regular pro- cedure for learning what IA’s dispositions are. California statute (§832.7) provides that “Peace officer personnel records and records maintained by any state or local agency, . . . or information obtained from those records, are confidential and shall not be disclosed in any criminal or civil proceeding except by discovery.” As a result, the complainant does not learn whether or what kind of dis- cipline, if any, the chief imposes. (See “A Citizen Has Mixed Feelings About the PRC Process.”) Other activities PRC performs two additional functions. Public forum for complaints and policy issues At its general meetings held on the second and fourth C HAPTER 2: CASE S TUDIES OF N INE O VERSIGHT P ROCEDURES 24 A CITIZEN HAS MIXED FEELINGS ABOUT THE PRC PROCESS A Berkeley resident was stopped by a police officer and cited for a traffic violation.The citizen felt he had not committed the violation but had been singled out because of his ethnicity. A few weeks later, he heard about PRC from a friend, who had read about it in the newspaper. Several weeks later, he wrote a letter to PRC and the chief describing the incident and alleging several acts of misconduct by the officer. An internal affairs investigator telephoned the man to say that IA would investigate the case independently of PRC.The IA investigator interviewed him on the phone.The PRC investigator interviewed the man face-to-face in a 1-hour taped interview.The PRC investigator warned him that the outcome of the case was uncertain.The com- plainant was frightened and tired and concerned the police might retaliate against him for having filed the com- plaint. But he followed through. After the interview, the investigator sent him a copy of the transcript along with the officer’s statement. At the hearing, the complainant and the officer each gave a statement and asked each other questions.The three board members asked them questions, too.The commissioners then left the room for 20 to 30 minutes to delib- erate.Two board members found that the officer had engaged in an unprofessional backtalk, but all three exoner- ated the officer on the other allegations.The board member who dissented from the one negative finding explained his position. The PRC investigator told the complainant at the end of the hearing that he would not learn whether the officer would receive any discipline for the sustained allegation.The complainant felt frustrated by this, but he also want- ed to put the episode behind him. Overall, the complainant said,“If a similar incident happened again, I would still file a complaint with the PRC just to see justice done.”