Document of Interest Provided By Councilmember Hamann on Civilian Review Boards

Home Browse Search

Reviews are held during the day in a soundproof, locked room in the city hall basement where the CRB files are kept under lock and key. The investigating sergeant for a given complaint brings the key to the room and unlocks it for the panelists before the review. The sergeant begins the session with a 3–5 minute sum- mary of the case, distributes copies of the case file (including pertinent department policies and procedures), and leaves. However, the investigator leaves a pager number so that panelists can call with questions during their deliberations. The CRB legislation also requires the department to make available an officer with the rank of captain or higher, neither from IA nor a commander of the officer involved in the case, to answer questions relat- ed to department policy and procedure. For example, panelists once called the designated captain to ask whether it was department policy that officers take all subjects sprayed with Mace to the hospital; he informed them that officers have the discretion to take them to the police station basement to wash out their eyes. Panelists do not have access to the IA investigator’s case file in advance. Instead, they review the file after the investigator has left. After the panelists have completed their silent review, the chair introduces the allegations one by one. Each member gives his or her recommended finding and rationale. Questions and discussion follow. Findings On occasion, panelists ask the investigating sergeant to conduct additional investigation, such as interviewing a new witness or reinterviewing an existing witness. If the panel is still unsatisfied with the quality of the investiga- tion, it can appeal, in sequence, to the IA commander, the chief, the mayor, and the city council. The city council, with its full subpoena power, can itself interview witness- es and request documents. Panels have never needed to go beyond the IA sergeant to request additional investigation. (See “A CRB Review Reverses a Department Finding.”) At the end of the discussion (if they have not requested any additional investigation), the chairperson tape records the panel’s finding and justification. As can IA investiga- tors, panelists may choose among four findings: unfound- ed, exonerated, unprovable, and sustained. Panels make their determination based on a preponderance of the evi- dence. Although panelists do not vote, they disagreed on only 5 of the 141 allegations they reviewed during the first 9 months of 1998. When not unanimous, the dissent- ing panelist may read his or her finding into the tape along with the rationale for dissenting. After the taping, the chairperson opens an envelope the investigating ser- geant left that contains IA’s findings. The panels’ findings are consistent with the IA findings about 95 percent of the time. When the session is over, the chairperson telephones the investigator, who retrieves the tape and written report. (City hall is a 5-minute walk from police headquarters.) The IA unit sends CRB’s findings, along with its own findings, to the subject officer’s division commander, the deputy chief, and the chief for review. If the chief sus- tains the finding, the case goes through the chain of command for penalty recommendations, starting with the officer’s sergeant and ending with the chief, who makes the ultimate disciplinary determination. In 1997, the chief disagreed with 6 of the 80 panel find- ings. In all but one of the six, he increased the severity of C HAPTER 2: CASE S TUDIES OF N INE O VERSIGHT P ROCEDURES 48 A CRB REVIEW REVERSES A DEPARTMENT FINDING Police officers got into a tussle with a suspect. An officer hit the man in the face and then handcuffed him.The man filed a complaint alleging improper use of force. An IA investigation cleared the officer of any wrongdoing. CRB concluded the complainant was right.When the case came back to the department and went through the chain of command, the deputy chief said he agreed with the CRB panel and asked IA to do additional investigation. Based on its additional investigation, IA ended up agreeing with CRB’s finding. According to Lt. James Sheppard, the IA commander,“It turned out that the CRB panel had picked up on the fact that the man was lying flat on the ground on his stomach with his arms under his chest when he was hit, and passive noncompliance does not justify hitting a person.”