Document of Interest Provided By Councilmember Hamann on Civilian Review Boards

Home Browse Search

• With the exception of complaints by one officer against another and incidents involving off-duty officers and nonsworn personnel, OCC alone conducts the San Francisco Police Department’s investigations involving alleged officer misconduct. (The department and OCC investigate use of firearms simultaneously and independ- ently.) This approach may increase the community’s confidence in the independence of the oversight process. Some police feel that OCC investigators are not compe- tent to evaluate their behavior. • Organizations, not just aggrieved individuals, may— and frequently have—filed complaints with OCC. Allowing organizations to file expands the opportunity for the community to contribute to the oversight of police behavior. It may also encourage or enable groups with political agendas to try to influence the oversight process. • Each OCC investigator’s finding is reviewed by as many as three supervisors. Trained legal staff review every sustained case. Multiple reviews increase the opportunity for quality control. Multiple reviews also require extra time and expense. • San Francisco voters approved an initiative that requires the city to hire one OCC investigator for every 150 police officers to ensure that there are adequate staff to address all citizen complaints. The required ratio also increases program costs. • OCC’s findings cannot be changed by the police depart- ment; only the police commission can overturn an OCC finding. The findings go into officers’files even if the department refuses to hand out any discipline. • Citizens in San Francisco can make the ultimate deci- sion on whether an officer is disciplined. If the chief and OCC director disagree on whether disciplinary action in a sustained case is appropriate, and the chief decides not to file the case with the police commission for a judgment, there is a process by which the police commission may elect to review the case and decide to hold a trial. • In its investigatory capacity, OCC acts as a neutral party between the complainant and the police officer. However, if the case goes to a chief’s or police com- mission hearing, OCC attorneys prosecute the officer. This dual role may blur the program’s mission in fact or in the public’s and police department’s perception, resulting in antagonism from some community groups and the police. For further information, contact: Mary Dunlap Director, Office of Citizen Complaints 480 Second Street, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94107 415–597–7711 Fred Lau Chief of Police San Francisco Police Department Hall of Justice 850 Bryant Street San Francisco, CA 94103 415–553–1551 Prentice Sanders Assistant Chief of Police San Francisco Police Department Hall of Justice 850 Bryant Street, Room 525 San Francisco, CA 94103 415–553–9087 Budget Item Funding Level Permanent salaries–miscellaneous $1,595,449 Overtime 10,323 Mandatory fringe benefits 373,339 Travel 1,500 Training 1,500 Membership fees 450 Professional and specialized services*7,500 Rents and leases 119,500 Other current expenses 39,602 Materials and supplies 12,493 Other fixed charges 600 Services of other departments 36,522 Total $2,198,778 *Contract fees to third parties, such as expert witnesses and translators. C ITIZEN R EVIEW OF P OLICE: APPROACHES AND I MPLEMENTATION 61 EXHIBIT 2–17. OFFICE OF CITIZEN COMPLAINTS 1998–99 BUDGET