Document of Interest Provided By Councilmember Hamann on Civilian Review Boards

Home Browse Search

The evidentiary hearing The subject officer appears with a union attorney at the CRA office for a half-hour “prehearing” at which the panel chairperson and the CRA executive director agree on the witnesses they will be bringing to the evidentiary hearing and the information and materials that each side will be permitted to introduce, such as the incident report, medical records, and department training manual. The panel chairperson rules on what information may be introduced. The prehearing makes it possible to avoid spending time at the hearing deciding what type of evi- dence will and will not be admissible. Based on the union attorney’s and executive director’s schedules, the panel chairperson schedules a hearing 6 to 8 weeks after the prehearing. Panel members (except the chairperson, who has attended the prehearing) know nothing about the case until the hearing begins. Each panel holds a private, audiotaped evidentiary (administrative) hearing lasting from a few hours to, on occasion, several days. Patricia Hughes, CRA executive director and a former assistant city attorney, prosecutes the case, and the police union lawyer defends the officer. CRA does not have subpoena power, but officers must testify under the Garrity ruling. After witnesses are sworn in, each side questions its witnesses, who are then cross- examined by the opposing side (followed by recross). The prosecutor explains why she believes the officer’s behavior violates a department policy or procedure. Panel members may question witnesses and usually do. The chairperson rules on any objections raised by the union attorney or executive director. The panel may admit all evidence that furnishes proof of guilt or inno- cence, including reliable hearsay if it is the type of evi- dence that “reasonable persons are accustomed to rely on in the conduct of their serious affairs.” While the officer remains during the entire hearing, the complainant leaves the hearing after giving his or her testimony because the Minnesota Data Practices Act give employees (e.g., offi- cers) privacy in administrative hearings. The prosecutor may present a final rebuttal to the union attorney’s clos- ing statement. Findings The panel deliberates in private, using a clear and convinc- ing standard to sustain or not sustain the complaint(s). The CRA executive director sends a letter to the subject offi- cer and deputy chief presenting the panel’s finding. Within 5 days of receiving the panel’s finding, the officer or complainant may write to ask the panel to reconsider its finding. About 5 percent of cases are appealed; few appeals are granted. The police department’s disciplinary panel reviews CRA’s finding and recommends discipline. The officer may appear before the disciplinary panel with a union representative to challenge the offense severity but not to contest the CRA finding. The panel forwards its discipli- nary recommendation to the chief for final review. The ordinance requires that the chief decide on discipline based on the results of the hearing and then, within 30 days, provide CRA and the mayor with a written expla- nation of the reasons for his or her action. The chief may not reverse a CRA finding but has the authority to decide whether to punish the officer and what discipline to impose. (See “A Sample Hearing.”) Other CRA activities CRA has three other responsibilities. Monthly CRA meetings The CRA board members and staff hold an open meeting the first Wednesday of every month at 5:00 p.m. in an office building. The executive director keeps the public apprised of CRA’s activities, providing updates on the number of cases opened and resolved. The board asks if anyone in the audience wishes to express general con- cerns about police behavior. Patricia Hughes relates the following story: A few citizens expressed objections at one meeting to the manner in which officers were conducting apartment searches to find suspected drug dealers. In these instances—a tiny minority of all drug searches—the officers had raided the wrong address or the drug dealing had apparently been occurring while the legal tenants were not present. However, because the raids involved no-knock entries with shotguns and orders for everyone in the apartment to lie down at once on the floor (including a woman sleeping in the nude), the ten- ants had been embarrassed, frightened, and angry. I met with department inspectors to share the C HAPTER 2: CASE S TUDIES OF N INE O VERSIGHT P ROCEDURES 34