Document of Interest Provided By Councilmember Hamann on Civilian Review Boards

Home Browse Search

meeting. The IA investigating deputy is present at the hearing to answer questions about his or her investiga- tion. Sears advises on policy issues and provides admin- istrative support. The board has subpoena power, and county legislation provides for a fine of up to $500 or imprisonment for up to 60 days for anyone convicted of ignoring a CRB subpoena. However, the board has never subpoenaed anyone because the sheriff has issued a standing order requiring deputies to appear when called (but not requiring them to testify). The Central Florida Police Benevolent Association provides interested deputies with representation, but most deputies choose not to be represented because either they have decided not to answer questions or, more commonly, having already been cleared by IA, they feel they have nothing to fear. Finally, a criminal attorney, hired by the county on a retainer basis, comes to every hearing to answer questions on points of law, such as the proper interpreta- tion of the State statute on assault. Any board member may make a motion to place a com- plaint on a “consent agenda” if he or she feels that IA’s findings are appropriate and no further review or meeting time is needed to discuss the merits of the complaint. Any member may also have a complaint removed from the consent agenda and subject to a full CRB review. The meeting minutes for the August 1998 meeting show, for example: Motion was made by Mr. Mills, seconded by Mr. Rankin and unanimously agreed upon, to place this case on the consent agenda, thereby concurring with the findings of the Professional Standards investiga- tion that, based on a preponderance of the evidence, the following violations were sustained [the com- plaint and violation of policy followed]. Hearings follow Robert’s Rules of Order. For each hear- ing, the following individuals, in this order, give a state- ment and answer questions from board members: • The complainant. • Any witnesses for the complainant (although they rarely appear). • The sheriff’s investigating agent. • The subject deputy. • Any other sheriff’s employees present whom the chair chooses to recognize. • The complainant again (to rebut the testimony presented by others). At its discretion, the board may allow direct conversa- tions among the parties. Findings The board spends 15 to 20 minutes deliberating each case in open session. The chairperson calls for a vote, and each member explains his or her decision. A majority rules, but almost all cases are unanimous. Decisions are based on a preponderance of the evidence. The board chairperson signs a form letter that Melvin Sears sends to each complainant after each hearing. There is no appeal. CRB does not provide findings; rather, it sends a form memo to the sheriff agreeing or disagreeing with the IA finding in each case. The board agrees with IA findings 80–90 percent of the time. The board’s decision is only advisory to the sheriff. On rare occasions, the sheriff overrules the board: A robbery detective on a stakeout fired a shotgun at a robber’s car as it fled the scene, blowing out a tire. Because the sheriff’s office prohibits firing at auto- mobiles, IA determined that the deputy had violated department policy. The CRB, however, exonerated the deputy because members did not want to see deputies’ hands tied so stringently—they wanted to provide deputies with more latitude in the use of firearms. Nevertheless, the sheriff supported the IA finding and disciplined the deputy. Other activities The board may recommend fitness-of-duty evaluations, additional training, and other measures for officers whose cases come before it. CRB also has the authority to hire an investigator to conduct its own investigations. However, when members feel more investigation is need- ed, they ask IA to do so and bring back the case. The board has recommended several policy and procedure changes that the sheriff has implemented (see the exam- ples in chapter 3, “Other Oversight Responsibilities”). C ITIZEN R EVIEW OF P OLICE: APPROACHES AND I MPLEMENTATION 39