Document of Interest Provided By Councilmember Hamann on Civilian Review Boards

Home Browse Search

general orders that the examiner prepares for them— before the examiner submits it to the full citizens adviso- ry board at a public session for review and approval. The examiner submits the approved report to PIIAC. During her first year in 1994–95, Lisa Botsko, the exam- iner, used to send 60 percent of cases back to IA for additional work; by 1998, this had declined to 20 percent because “IA had figured out what I was looking for.” Botsko heard investigators saying, “Be careful, or PIIAC will send it back.” (See “Auditors Have Identified Problems With IA’s Investigations.”) Internal affairs also improved its reports because the bureau improved its training and guidelines for IA investigators. PIIAC (city council and mayor) The city council conducts PIIAC business once or twice a month during its regular weekly meetings. The council may piggyback other council work onto the PIIAC agen- da; at other times, council members may not meet as PIIAC for 2 or 3 months because no appeals reach them. The examiner schedules the meetings and the mayor chairs them. Typically, PIIAC hears one or two appeals a month. Sessions are open to the public and are televised by a local television cable channel. The complainant may come to the meeting, and someone is present from IA to answer questions. The committee has the power to compel attendance, testimony, and the production of documents and can administer oaths. The adviser and auditor present each case, and the com- plainant comments. While the subject officer may sit in with the other members of the audience, he or she is not questioned because the auditor listens in advance to the taped IA interviews and, as needed, has already requested IA to ask any questions of the officer she felt were omit- ted. Commissioners ask questions throughout. Each com- missioner then comments on the case and votes in public. A majority rules. The committee informs the chief in writing of one of the following: • No additional investigation is warranted. • IA should reopen the case to conduct additional investigation and report its findings to PIIAC. • The finding should be changed (see “When PIIAC and IA Disagree on a Finding”). C HAPTER 2: CASE S TUDIES OF N INE O VERSIGHT P ROCEDURES 44 AUDITORS HAVE IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS WITH IA’S INVESTIGATIONS The types of problems Lisa Botsko, the first examiner, and citizen advisers found in the past with some IA investigations have included: • Interviewing only officers and no neutral witnesses. • Neglecting to interview one or more important witnesses. • Not taking photographs at the scene. According to Botsko, leading questions asked by IA investigators remained a problem—for example, asking,“Was the subject being deliberately provocative and antagonistic to you?” instead of asking,“How was the subject behaving toward you?” On one occasion, IA investigated two officers who had arrested a juvenile for a sex crime without contacting the boy’s parents before removing him from school. On the audiotape of the interviews, the IA investigator examined the parents “under a microscope,” but not the officers—for example, challenging the par- ents’ statements but not the officers’.The investigator asked a civilian witness,“What do you mean the officer was screaming?” but did not ask the officer to describe his own behavior. Botsko and the auditors also have criticized IA and precinct sergeants for not following consistent procedures in collecting evidence regarding citizen complaints, writing reports, and including documentation in the case file. When Botsko reported to IA in 1997 that the precinct sergeants were not producing consistent reviews, the police bureau agreed to implement annual training for sergeants on how to prepare misconduct reports.