Laserfiche WebLink
a Minneapolis hotel. In 1997, the city council and the <br />mayor saw the need to determine whether CRA was <br />providing the appropriate oversight in the most cost- <br />effective manner and if it had the structure and staff to <br />do so. As a result, they appointed a redesign committee <br />that held focus groups, took public testimony, looked at <br />how other jurisdictions configured their citizen over- <br />sight procedures, and then recommended changes in <br />how CRA operated, most of which the city council and <br />the mayor adopted. <br />In 1997, 715 individuals contacted CRA with concerns <br />about possible police misconduct. Of these, 114 were sat- <br />isfied with an explanation of the police department’s poli- <br />cies and procedures. Another 87 callers were satisfied <br />when investigators called the subject officers’supervisors <br />to resolve the complaint. In 332 cases, there was no basis <br />for a complaint, the caller was referred elsewhere, or citizens <br />failed to follow up their initial reports. Twenty-three <br />cases were pending. <br />The remaining 159 individuals signed formal complaints <br />(see exhibit 2–7). Of these, the CRA executive director <br />found no probable cause in 46 cases because of insuffi- <br />cient evidence. The executive director exonerated officers <br />in another 54 cases because the facts in the allegations <br />were untrue or, while true, did not constitute misconduct. <br />The executive director dismissed another 30 cases, for <br />example, because the complainant failed to cooperate. <br />Fourteen cases were successfully mediated, and five <br />cases were pending as of the end of the year. Of the <br />10 cases in which the executive director found probable <br />cause, 9 were sustained, 6 by stipulation (see next sec- <br />tion) and 3 at hearings. One case was still pending at <br />the end of the year. <br />C ITIZEN R EVIEW OF P OLICE: APPROACHES AND I MPLEMENTATION <br />31 <br />THUMBNAIL SKETCH:MINNEAPOLIS <br />Model: citizens investigate (type 1) <br />Jurisdiction: Minneapolis, Minnesota <br />Population: 358,785 <br />Government: strong mayor, city council <br />Appointment of chief: mayor nominates, city council approves <br />Sworn officers: 919 <br />Oversight funding: $504,213 <br />Oversight staff: seven full time <br />Minneapolis’ Civilian Police Review Authority (CRA) operates in two stages: <br />1.Paid, professional investigators and an executive director investigate citizen complaints to determine whether <br />there is probable cause to believe misconduct occurred. <br />2.Volunteer board members conduct hearings to determine whether to sustain the allegations in probable <br />cause cases. <br />In 1998, subject officers stipulated to a sustained finding in about half of the cases in which the CRA executive <br />director found probable cause. CRA arranged for successful mediation in another 14 cases. As a result, only 10 <br />hearings were held in 1998.