Document of Interest Provided By Councilmember Hamann on Civilian Review Boards

Home Browse Search

(e.g., excessive force, inappropriate language). The inves- tigator then identifies the department’s policy or proce- dure that appears to have been violated. The executive director may dismiss the case during this preliminary investigation stage. The investigator sends a letter to the complainant with a copy of the complaint form asking the person to correct any errors and sign and return it within 15 days. The executive director sends a notice of the complaint filing to the officer, deputy chief, and chief. When the investi- gator wants to take a formal statement from the officer, the chief sends a Garrity warning (see “Glossary”) requiring the officer “upon pain of disciplinary action” to make an appointment with CRA to answer questions. CRA investigations The investigator interviews any witnesses the com- plainant may have identified and does any additional needed leg work, such as confirming visually that a wit- ness had an unobstructed view of an incident from her bedroom window and enough street lighting to see the nighttime activity clearly. Investigators have gone door to door in neighborhoods leaving business cards for potential witnesses. Investigators interview the subject officer last. About half the officers bring a union representative or attorney, who may caucus with the officer but not speak. The investigator sends two copies of a transcript of the taped interview to the officer, one of which the officer signs and returns. At the conclusion of the investigation, the investigator forwards the file to the executive director that includes the investigator’s conclusion regarding the probable cause for each allegation. If the recommenda- tion is that there is no probable cause, the investigator recommends a finding of either insufficient evidence or exoneration. If there is probable cause, the investigator cites the policy or procedure that the subject officer appears to have violated. Patricia Hughes, the executive director, makes a final determination regarding probable cause. At this stage, but sometimes before the probable cause finding or during or after the prehearing (see next sec- tion), the officer and CRA executive director may strike the equivalent of a plea bargain, with the officer stipulat- ing to one or more allegations (that is, admitting guilt) in exchange for CRA dropping one or more other allega- tions (see “Stipulations Reduce CRA’s Caseload”). The complainant is not consulted regarding the nature of the stipulation. If there is no stipulation and no offer and agreement to mediate (see “Other CRA activities” on page 34), the CRA chairperson appoints a three-member panel to hear the case, designating one of the members (including himself, if he so chooses) as the panel chair. C ITIZEN R EVIEW OF P OLICE: APPROACHES AND I MPLEMENTATION 33 STIPULATIONS REDUCE CRA’S CASELOAD Patricia Hughes, the CRA executive director, initiated stipulations after a police union representative suggested that his client would agree to having committed one allegation if CRA would drop the other complaints. Because the number of hearings had created an accumulation of pending cases, Hughes saw stipulations as an opportunity to reduce the backlog. After a stipulation, CRA informs the chief of which allegations were sustained and tells IA that the findings are the result of a stipulation. Officers have never agreed to stipulate in cases of alleged use of excessive force. Officers and their representatives have learned that if the executive director decides there is probable cause that the officer committed the alleged misconduct, a CRA panel will sustain all of the allegations in about three- quarters of the cases. As a result, it is usually in the officers’ best interest to agree to a stipulation to get some of the allegations dropped. Because officers have been increasingly willing either to stipulate or agree to mediation, there were only five hearings from January 1, 1998, through November 30, 1998.