Document of Interest Provided By Councilmember Hamann on Civilian Review Boards

Home Browse Search

asked”by IA investigators (See “An Officer’s View of the Auditor’s Monitoring Activity”). Typically, Perez waits for a pause in the questioning and then says she has a question, such as,“I’d like him to clarify where he was standing when. . . .”The investigator then repeats the question to the subject officer or witness. Some IA inves- tigators permit Perez to ask questions only at the end of each interrogation; others allow questions during the interview. Some investigators allow her to ask questions directly of the subject officer or witness. The auditing process Perez audits a random sample of completed investiga- tions and all cases involving allegations of excessive force. The police department must comply if she requests additional investigation in a case. The auditor may also speak directly with civilian witnesses regarding the fair- ness and completeness of investigations. The auditor does not sustain or disapprove of IA find- ings, and she does not make disciplinary recommenda- tions. Instead, she reports on whether the investigation was fair and thorough. In effect, the auditor reviews IA’s performance, not subject officers’behavior. Perez has not had to talk with the chief or city manager to resolve a disagreement with IA. She did send back a case that IA did not sustain because she felt the investi- gating supervisor had disregarded key evidence implicating an officer. Internal affairs conducted addi- tional interviews and sustained the allegations. Other activities Perez looks for patterns of complaints in her audits and telephones the IA commander if she finds a need for improvement. Perez expressed concern about supervisors repeatedly overlooking previous complaints against indi- vidual officers in deciding on discipline. As a result, the department formed, and invited her to participate on, a task force to examine how discipline was being meted out and how previous complaints should fit into the dis- ciplinary decision. If the chief refuses to implement a policy recommendation, the auditor can appeal the refusal to the city manager, to whom both she and the chief report. In fiscal year 1997–98, Perez arranged for four cases to be settled through informal mediation because the citizens did not want to file formal complaints but did want to express an objection to an officer’s behavior. Perez brought the parties together and mediated the disagreements herself. Staffing and budget The auditor’s office includes two full-time staff: Perez and an administrative assistant who takes citizens’initial complaints and has the authority to audit completed investigations. C HAPTER 2: CASE S TUDIES OF N INE O VERSIGHT P ROCEDURES 64 AN OFFICER’S VIEW OF THE AUDITOR’S MONITORING ACTIVITY The uncle of a suspect an officer had arrested filed a complaint with IA claiming the officer needlessly pointed a gun at him. The assigned IA investigator told the officer there would be an investigation and that Liana Perez, the auditor, would be present. The investigator told him Perez would have questions but the investigator would repeat the questions to the officer, who should then direct his answers back to the IA investigator, not to the auditor. Just before the interview, the union representative also told the officer to wait for the investigator to repeat each of the auditor’s questions. Perez asked several questions through the investigator to get a clear picture of what happened. The officer had been part of a team doing a high-risk stop of a homicide suspect who turned out to be the suspect’s lookalike brother. Because five members of the department’s gang intelligence unit had been involved in the incident, some of Perez’ questions were designed to determine when each one arrived, where they were positioned, and what they did. Her goal was to determine whether any of the officers had seen the subject officer point the gun but had not admitted to it in their reports. Perez also asked questions to determine how far the subject officer was from the uncle, where the officer was going to secure the weapon (which belonged to the suspect), and whether there were any physical barriers to a clear view between the officer and the uncle. IA exonerated the officer.