HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-06-1998 Communication #3 page 5
ITEM NO. 3 CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS
PRESENTED OR AMENDED.
Lehman/ (Reads agenda item #3).
Thomberry/ Move adoption of the calendar.
Lehman/ Moved by Thomberry.
Van/Second.
Lehman/ Seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion?
Kubby/ I had a quick comment that I forgot to make last night. On page three, number
"e3", it's for money for the Public Housing Authority for new office space as
either part of the Civic Center addition or another suitable location that has to be
committed within on year. And I'm not sure, I just wanted to get an update on
what our time frame is for making the decision whether or not we expand and
how we might expand at the Civic Center.
Steve Atkins/ We expect to have the final drawings available to us, quite frankly, in a
matter of days. And I would hope that as early as your next Council meeting,
which would be the meeting of the 5th and 6th work session, to have a review of
that project for you. The commitment, it's important that HUD, obviously,
understands whether we're going to be utilizing those funds or not. If you choose
to proceed with that project, we can commit the funds to that project. If you
choose to do something else, we would have to go somewhere else. But we do
have to indicate a commitment within a year, just as it indicates. But we will have
it for you shortly.
Kubby/ Okay. My concern was I just didn't want this saying yes to this agreement dictate
our decision about the Civic Center because of timing. But it doesn't sound like it
will.
Atkins/ No, this does not. This is an acceptance of the grant that's been made available
to us, if we choose to use it or not.
Kubby/ Good, thank you.
orton/ Ernie, I want to comment on, I think it's Item 6 on page 4, e6 on page 4. This is,
I'm reporting for the Rules Committee which is myself and the Mayor, and
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of September 22, 1998.
F092298
//3 page 6
~ Marian, and we were reviewing the procedures of the Police Citizens Review
Board, and they had expressed interest in being able to hold meetings of that
Board, certain meetings of that Board, in places other than in City facilities. The
present regulation, the by-laws hold that all of their meetings would be held in
accessible City facilities, and the proposal is to change that, the resolution that I'd
like to move, I guess, well, it'd be part of the consent calendar, is as follows,
"Place of meetings both regular and special shall be held in an accessible City
facility. Meetings which are forums solely for community input may be in other
appropriate meeting places in Iowa City." Their view was that the latter kind of
meetings which are meetings in the formal sense in that a quorum of the'
Committee will be there, but they're held only for that, there's no business
transaction other than to hear from the citizens. And they've felt sometimes those
meetings might be held in places other than, say, the Public Library. They might
want to have them in a neighborhood center or a school or someplace where
people might feel free-er to appear and testify about their situation. So, --
Kubby/ Dee, does the word appropriate mean accessible as well?
Norton/ Well, I suppose it would be accessible, I suppose it could be that, too, I suppose.
Lehman/ Well, I think the word "appropriate" in today's world --
Norton/ Well presumably they wouldn't pick an inappropriate place. Maybe that word
just should be "accessible". Why not?
Karr/ I think appropriate was patterned after other by-laws. We made it consistent with
existing by-laws. And I believe "accessible" is included, yes.
Norton/ So appropriate has --?
Kubby/ Well as long as, if people would agree that that's our understanding then that's
fine.
Champion/ Oh, I think so.
Lehman/ It would be inappropriate if it wasn't accessible.
Norton/ Yeah fight, okay.
Kubby/ I'm glad we feel that way.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of September 22, 1998.
F092298
#3 page 7
Norton/ I think, still, is that the only Commission that has that prerogative? Don't the
others all meet in City facilities?
Karr/ On a regular basis, yes.
Norton/ But they might also hold forums, so presumably this change might come up for
some others.
Kan'/ That's correct. Or other ones may need to do field trips to observe other things
prior to making a decision also.
Lehman/ However, I think it's important to note that any decision making must be made
at a regular or special meeting held in a public facility. This is only for public
forums. Other discussion of the consent calendar? Roll call- (yes). Motion
carried.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of September 22, 1998.
F092298
#16 page 79
ITEM NO. 16 CONSIDER A MOTION GRANTING A 45-DAY EXTENSION TO
THE POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD FOR THE FILING OF REPORT
WITH THE CITY COUNCIL ON COMPLAINT #98-12.
Lehman/ (Reads agenda item #16).
Norton/ Move.
Lehman/Moved by Norton.
Kubby/Second.
Lehman/ Seconded by Kubby. Discussion?
Thomberry/ They need more time to look at a, at an item. Is this the same item they
wrote a pretty harsh letter to the Police Department saying hurry up?
Lehman/ I don't know. I don't know that that's the reasoning. I'm sure they need the
time or they wouldn't be asking us.
Kubby/ They asked the Police for more information.
Thomberry/ They also have to understand that sometimes the Police Department might
need a little bit more time also, and they came to us to get and extension of time.
They've got to understand that other entities might also need mom time.
Karr/ Mr. Mayor? This is the first time that the Council has received an extension for
this particular request, so it's for additional information for this particular item.
Thomberry/ Okay.
Kubby/ It's a different one than the one that you're thinking about.
Lehman/Other discussion? Roll call- (yes).
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of September 22, 1998.
F092298
Prepared by: Marian Kart, City Clerk, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5041
RESOLUTION NO. 98-303
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE BY-LAWS OF THE POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW
BOARD TO ALLOW COMMUNITY FORUMS TO BE HELD IN NON-CITY'FACILITIES
IN IOWA CITY.
WHEREAS, the Police Citizens Review Board desires to amend its by-laws to allow community
forums to be held in non-City facilities in Iowa City; and
WHEREAS, the Police Citizens Review Board recommended approval of said amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA, THAT:
1) That Article V. Board Meetings, Section 3 Place of Meetings, of the Police Citizens Review
Board by-laws adopted by Resolution 97-394 on December 9, 1997 is hereby deleted and
replaced with a new Article V. Board Meetings, Section 3 Place of Meetings as follows:
Meetings, both regular and special, shall be held in an accessible City facility. Meetings
which are forums solely for community input may be in other appropriate meeting places
in Iowa City.
2) The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this
Resolution.
Passed and approved this 2Zndday of~,~ .t ~~..~
CITY'CLERK City Attorney's Office ~ _~1.,
It was moved by Thornberry and seconded by Vanderhoef the Resolution be
adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
X Champion
X Kubby
X Lehman
X Norton
X O'Donnell
X Thomberry
X Vanderhoef
POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD
A Board of the City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa C~y IA 52240-1826
(319)356~5413
September 30, 1998
R. J. Winkelhake, Chief of Police C(~[~)~~7
Iowa City Police Department
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City IA 52245
Dear Chief Winkelhake:
The Police Citizens Review Board is beginning a systematic review of
policies, procedures and practices of the Iowa City Police Department. We
expect to place one or more topics on the agenda for each regularly
scheduled monthly meeting of the Board. However, reviews may occur more
often.
The Board wishes to review the issue of building searches and asks that a
presentation b® made by a member of the Department at our October 13
meeting. The presentation should not exceed fifteen (15) minutes and will
be followed by a question and answer session. This meeting will commence
at 7:00 p.m. in the Lobby Conference ROom. Please reply to Sandy Bauer so
that we can finalize the agenda.
Would you also please provide twelve (12) copies of this policy/procedure to
accommodate the Board's review prior to the October 13 presentation.
Thank you for your ongoing cooperation.
Sincerely,
Paul Hoffey
PCRB Chair
cc: PCRB ~
MEMORANDUM
POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD
A Board of the City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City IA 52240-1826
I319)356-5413
TO: R.J. Winkelhake, Chief of Police
FROM: Sandy Bauer, PCRB
DATE: September 25, 1998
Could you please provide the PCRB with an update on the status of two prior
requests:
1. By letter dated August 21, 1998, the Board made inquiry
regarding data collection within the department on traffic stops.
2. With regard to 898-10 {summarily dismissed), what was the
disposition of the internal investigation?
I have attached a copy of each of these letters for your reference.
Your prompt attention to this matter would be appreciated. Thank you in
advance for your cooperation and assistance.
1998
ANNUAL REPORT
OF THE
POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD
GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES
The Police Citizens Review Board was created by Ordinance No.
97-3792 of the City of Iowa City on July 15, 1997.
The Board was established to assure that investigations into claims of police
misconduct are conducted in a manner which is fair, thorough and accurate
and to assist the Police Chief, the City Manager and the City Council in
evaluating the overall performance of the Police Department as a whole by
having it review the Police Department's investigation into complaints. The
Board is also required to maintain a central registry of complaints and to
provide an annual report setting forth the numbers, types and disposition of
complaints of police misconduct. To achieve these purposes, the Board shall
comply with Chapter 8 of the Iowa City Code, the Board's By-Laws, and the
Police Citizens Review Board's Standard Operating Procedures and
Guidelines.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998
~CRB.(Board) Preparation
Five Board members were selected by the City Council for staggered terms
and took office on September 1, 1997. An administrative assistant was
hired through the City Clerk's Office to provide support with administrative
and clerical duties. In compliance with the ordinance creating the Board, an
independent legal counsel was hired on October 2, 1997 to furnish legal
advice and guidance. The City Clerk afforded initial assistance, which was
vital during the early period of Board familiarization with procedural rules and
regulations.
Beginning in September 1997, all Board members and the administrative
assistant attended the Iowa City Citizens Police Academy for a twelve-week
program to better understand police policies, procedures and practices.
The Board began its schedule of business meetings on September 10, 1997.
PCRB Annual Report '97-'98/10/6/98 -I
Complaints Received: Types and Number of Allegations
A numbering system for complaints was adopted using the last two digits of
the calendar year and the number of the complaint in the order received. For
example, the first complaint received in 1997 would be designated 97-1.
The Board received twenty-four complaints, seven in 1997 and seventeen
to-date in 1998. The Board has issued its public report on nineteen of these
complaints, and five complaints are pending. The following data is based on
the nineteen complaints for which the Board has completed its review.
There are twenty-two types of allegations as listed on the citizen complaint
forms. A complainant may make several allegations on a single complaint
form so that the sum total of allegations is not necessarily the same as the
total of complaints actually reviewed by the Board.
Harassment 15
Denial of Human Rights 5
Verbal Abuse/Profanity/Slander 4
Violation of Civil Rights (videotaping) 4
Denial to Live in Peace 4
Excessive Force 3
Malicious Prosecution 3
Illegal Stop without Probable Cause 2
Property Damage 2
Attempt to Incite 2
Rudeness 1
Unlawful Arrest 1
Improper/Unlawful Search/Seizure 1
Abuse of Power 1
Trespassing 1
Failure to Forward/Respond to
Written Correspondence 1
Illegal Investigation 1
Unreasonable Traffic Stop 1
Officer Misidentified Himself 1
Considered Improper to Take Breath Test 1
Not Allowed to Take Medication 1
Improper Procedure 1
56
PCRB P~aual Re~,~ '97-'9g/10/6/95.5'
Complaint Resolutions
Complaints of misconduct of police officers are investigated by the police
department. The Police Chief submits the results of the investigation
(Chief's Report) to the Board indicating whether the allegations are sustained
or not sustained. If the complaint is against the Police Chief, the City
Manager conducts the investigation and submits the report.
Upon receipt of the Chief's or City Manager's Report, the Board reviews it
and the citizen's complaint. After review, the Board finds the allegations are
sustained or not sustained and forwards its report to the City Council with
copies to the Police Chief, the officers involved, the City Manager and the
complainant. Of the fifty-six allegations listed in the nineteen citizen
complaints, one was sustained and the remainder were not sustained,
Recommendations for improvement in police policy, procedure or conduct
were made in five of the Board's reports to the City Council. Two of the
recommendations were contained in the reports by the Police Chief and three
were the result of the Board's review.
PCRB # 97-1 The Police Chief recommended: "Whenever
possible officers need to inform other officers of
the cause of the pursuit."
"It would be a benefit for the sergeant and all
supervisors to receive periodic training dealing in
how to effectively take complaints from the
public."
PCRB #97-2 The Police Chief recommended: "The officer may
have handled the situation differently in that she
should not repeat what she has heard without
personal knowledge," "This has been corrected by
counseling and training."
PCRB #97-4
and #97-6 The Board recommended: "The Department may
wish to consider the preparation of a guideline or
policy clarifying under what circumstances
videotaping is necessary or appropriate."
PCRB #97-5 The Board recommended: "The Department might
consider further clarifying the policies and
PCRB Pamual R~pott '97-'98/10/6/98.3
procedures governing the arrest and transport of
persons cited for public intoxication. The
Department should seek assurance that persons
released to the custody of the Johnson County Jail
routinely receive adequate and appropriate
treatment."
Name Clearing Hearings
The Board is required by ordinance to not issue a report, which is critical of
the sworn officer's conduct until after a 'name clearing hearing" has been
held, consistent with constitutional due process law. The Board is required
to give notice of such hearing to both the police officer and the complainant
so that they may testify before the Board and present additional relevant
evidence.
During the course of the fiscal year, the Board scheduled two name-clearing
hearings. One was held with the officer in attendance, and the other was
not held because the officer did not attend.
Mediation
Formal mediation is available to the complainant and police officer at any
stage of the process until the Board adopts its public report; the request for
mediation must be consented to by all parties involved. During the period
covering this report, mediation was requested seven times, none of which
was completed, because:
complainant chose not to follow through
· complainant withdrew from the process
request came after the Board completed its review
These requests came from the complainant in #97-2, #97-3, #97-7, #98-1,
#98-2, #98-3, #98-4, #98-5, #98-6, #98-7, #98-8, and #98-9.
Level of Review
The Board decides, by a simple majority vote, the level of review to give
each Police Chief's or City Manager's report and the Board may select one or
more of any of the six levels of review in the City Code. For this reason, the
number of levels of review does not correspond to the number of complaints
filed with the Board. Decisions regarding levels of review were as follows:
PCRB Annual Repot '97.'98/10/6/98.4
Level a - 10 On the record with no additional investigation.
Level b - 3 Interview/meet with complainant.
Level c - 1 Interview/meet with named officer.
Level d - 4 Request additional investigation by the Police Chief or
City Manager, or request police assistance in the
Board's own investigation.
Level e - 6 Performance by Board of its own additional
investigation.
Level f - 0 Hire independent investigators.
Requests for Extension of Time
The Board's report to the City Council must be completed within thirty (30)
calendar days of receipt of the Chief's or City Manager's report. The City
Council has the authority to grant requests for extensions to this deadline
when good cause is shown, The Board requested extensions of time on five
(5) complaints for the following reasons:
The complainant expressed an interest in mediation.
· Too many reports were due in a short period of time.
· Additional information was being requested from other sources.
Comp!a!nt Histories of Police Officers
The City ordinance responsible for establishing the Police Citizens Review
Board requires that the annual report shall not include the names of the
complainants or officers involved in complaints which were not sustained,
and shall otherwise be in a form which protects the confidentiality of all the
parties while providing the public with information on the overall
performance of the police department. In an early meeting the Board
decided it did not wish to use the names of officers or complainants in cases
where the complaint was sustained. For this purpose, all officers, with the
exception of the Police Chief, have been assigned number codes by the
department. The number in the left-hand column is the number code of the
officer, and the numbers on the right-hand column are the numbers of the
complaints in which the officer's conduct was complained of.
I~CRB Annual Report '97-'98/10/6,'98 -5
Number Code Complaint
of Officer Number
970414 #97-2
780911 #97-3, #97-4, #97-6, #98-8, #98-9
970309 #97-5
900129 #97-7, #98-13
970308 #97-7
950829 #98-1, #98-8, #98-9, #98-15
670916 #98-1, #98-8, #98-9
880919 #98-1, #98-8, #98-9
830701 #98-6
770411 #98-6, #98-9
780912 #98-7
950830 #98-8, #98-9
890327 #98-13
970106 #98-15
891023 #98-15
The Police Chief (no assigned number) was named in four (4)
complaints - #98-3, #98-4, #98-5, and #98~7.
PCRB By-Laws
By-Laws governing the conduct of the Police Citizens Review Board were
drafted by Board members and staff in October and November 1997, and
adopted November 6, 1997. The City Council approved the By-Laws on
December xx, 1997.
Standard OperatingI Proc~lures and Guidelines
The Standard Operating Procedures & Guidelines for the Police Citizens
Review Board were approved by the Board on September 15, 1998. The
document covers procedures for the complaint process, formal mediation
guidelines, protocol of the Board meetings, the complaint review process,
the process of the review of police policies, procedures and practices, and
the content of the annual report which is submitted to the City Council. The
Standard Operating Procedures and Guidelines have been forwarded to the
City Council for approval.
PCRB Annual Repc~t '97-'98/10/6/9g -6
Public Forum
The ordinance provides that the Board may hold general informational
hearings concerning Iowa City Police Department practices, procedures or
written policies, and such hearings will be public. On July 14, 1998, the
Board held its first Community Forum at the Iowa City Public Library, which
was attended by nearly seventy persons. Of that number, sixteen chose to
address the Board with comments regarding police department activities.
The Board also received written correspondence from eight individuals. A
second public hearing is scheduled for October 27, 1998 at the Newman
Center.
Various issues raised at the Forum have helped the Board to determine its
direction in bringing forth police policy matters for further study and public
discussion at regular monthly meetings. Professor David Baldus appeared
before the Board on September 8, 1998 to discuss methodologies in the
development of studies of police issues such as (1) use of force and (2) age
and race-based traffic stops. Information regarding both issues has been
requested from the police department.
Board Meetings
The second Tuesday of each month was selected by the Board for its
regularly scheduled meetings. Special meetings may be called by the
chairperson or shall be called by the Chairperson or Vice Chairperson at the
request of three or more members.
Due to the number and complexity of the complaints which have been or are
now before the Board, and the additional time sometimes necessary for more
information to be received from the police department, the Board decided to
schedule special meetings for every Tuesday of each month through the end
of 1998, for which a regular meeting was not already scheduled.
During its first year of operation, the Board has held forty-three regular and
special meetings generally averaging two to three hours in length. This
number does not include the twelve evening sessions at the Iowa City
Citizens Police Academy.
PCRB A~nual R~o~t '97-'98/10/6/98.7
Recommendations for Ordinance Changes
1. Section 8-8-3 D provides ~AII complaints must be filed with the Board
or the Iowa City Police Department within sixty (60) days of the
alleged misconduct.~
The Board recommends that the City Council amend Section 8-8-3 D
to allow more time for the filing of complaints to read as follows, 'All
complaints must be filed with the Board or the Iowa City Police
Department within ninety (90) days of the alleged misconduct.~
2. Section 8-8-7 B(6) provides, ~The Board's Report to the City Council
shall be completed within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of the
Chief's or City Manager's Report.#
The Board recommends that the City Council amend Section
8-8-7 B(6) to allow more time for the Board to complete its
investigations and reports and to make it unnecessary to request
extensions of the current deadline as often as in the past. The
amended Section 8-8-7 B(6) should read, "The Board's Report to the
City Council shall be completed within forty-five (45) calendar days of
receipt of the chief's or city Manager's Report.u
Concerns of the Board
There now exist two distinct methods for a person to file a complaint about
the Iowa City Police Department. The first is to fill out an ICPD complaint
form and file it with the ICPD. These complaints do not come to the PCRB
for review. The second is to fill out a PCRB complaint form and file it with
either the ICPD or the PCRB. These complaints do come to the PCRB for
action.
Both forms are available at the ICPD and which form is given to a
complainant or filled out and filed is completely outside the control of the
PCRB.
The PCRB has no knowledge of how many complaints are filed on the ICPD
forms, and so has an incomplete picture of the number of complaints filed
concerning the ICPD. Accordingly, its annual report to the City Council must
be presumed to be incomplete and may be misleading as to the overall
number of complaints about the ICPD.
PCRB .Annual Rep~t ~97~'98/10/6/98 -~
The PCRB will be better able to determine the pattern of allegations of police
misconduct and to more accurately fulfill its duty to report to the City
Council if a procedure is implemented to give the PCRB access to the total
number of complaints filed, whether on an ICPD or a PCRB complaint form.
PLANS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
1. Continue to review the ordinance;
2. Attempt to identify community standards;
3. Continue systematic review of Police Department policies, procedures
and practices;
4. Increase the number of forums, to include holding them at
neighborhood centers and schools;
5.
IN2RB Annual Rgpo~t '97-'9g/10/6/98 -9
Demographics
The demographic information obtained from complainants is reflected in the
following chart. The top line states the complaint number. This chart
provides only information from the nineteen complaints for which the Board
has submitted its report to the City Council.
PCRB Complaint #97- I 2 3* 4 5 6 7*
Age 60 32 52 35 26
Color W W W W W
National Origin US
Gender Identity M F F
Sex M M F F F
Sexual Orientation Heterosexual Heterosexual
Marital Status Married
Mental Disability N N
Physical Disability N N
Religion None
Race
PCRBComplaint#98- 1' 2* 3* 4* 6' 6* 7* 8* 9* 10 13 15
Age 19 42 61
Color W W
National Origin
Gender Identity
Sex F M M
Sexual Orientation
Marital Status
Mental Disability Yes
Physical Disability N
Religion
Race White/Asian
* Complaints #97-3, #97-7, #98-1, #98-2, #98-3, #98-4, #98-5, #98-6, 898-7, #98-8,
#98-9 reflect the same information from complaint #98-2, as they are one and the same
complainant.
PCRB A~mual R~.~t '97-'9~/10/6t98-]0
COMMISSION MEMBERS
Paul Hoffey, Chairperson
Leah Cohen, Vice-Chairperson
Patricia Farrant
Margaret Raymond
John Watson
PCRB 3nnuat Rq~o~ '97-'98/10/6/98 -l 1
CITIZEN REVIEW OF THE POLICE -- 1998 UPDATE
SAMUEL WALKERa
Department of Criminal Justiceb
University of Nebraska at Omaha
March, 1998
GROWTH OF CITIZEN REVIEW
citizen review of the police continues to spread at a
dramatic rate. There are currently 94 citizen review procedures
in the United States. This represents a 42% increase since early
1995, and a 147% increase since 1990.~
citizen .review procedures cover municipal police
departments, county sheriffs' departments, one university police
department, one state law enforcement agency, one housing
authority, and one Native American tribal police agency. There is
also one state agency that covers al! government agencies in the
state.
It is estimated that citizen review procedures cover law
enforcement agencies responsible for about 25% of the United
States population.2
citizen review is most prevalent in large cities. Almost
three-quarters of the police departments in the 50 largest cities
~ This report was completed in part with the support of the
Center on Crime, Communities, and Culture of the Open Society
Institute. The author would like to thank the Center for its
support.
~ The author would like to thank Betsy Wright Kreisel, Greg
DeLone, and Paula Kautt for their assistance in preparing this
report.
1
review. The most significant growth in the past three years,
however, has occurred in smaller cities.
The total of 94 procedures reported here does not include
court-appointed monitors resulting from consent decrees settling
law suits against the police in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and
Steubenville, Ohio.
LOSSES
The growth of citizen review has been offset by a fen
losses. The civilian Complaint Review Board in Washington, DC,
was abolished in 1995 as a result 'of the city's financial crisis.
An ordinance for a new review is currently under consideration,
however. Meanwhile, the citizen review procedures in Atlanta,
Boston, and Richmond, Virginia are non-functional.
These cities are not included in the total of 94 citizen
review procedures reported here.
REVISION OF EXISTING PROCEDURES
Along with the creation of new citizen review procedures, a
number of existing ones have been revised or replaced by new
procedures. A referendum created a new citizen Police Review
Board in Pittsburgh. A 1996 ordinance revised the powers of the
Oakland citizens Police Review Board. The creation of a full-time
paid staff member represented a significant change in the
Portland, Oregon, Police Internal Investigations Advisory
Committee (PIIAC) .
CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS
As this report is being prepared, proposals for citizen
review procedures are under discussion in Eugene, Oregon,
Knoxville, Tennessee, Boise, Idaho, Sacramento, California, and
other cities. New or revised citizen review procedures are under
consideration in Cincinnati and Washington, DC.
ANALYSIS OF TRENDS
The rapid growth of citizen review reflects a pervasive
demand for police accountability on the part of the public.
A 1992 Harris Poll found that 80% of respondents favored
some citizen input into police complaint procedures, with only 4%
favoring an "all police" review system.3
It is significant that new procedures have been created in
many cities with relatively small racial minority populations.
Historically, citizen review has been a civil rights issue,
reflecting the demands of the African American community. Recent
trends suggest that the public at large is increasingly concerned
about police accountability, and views some form of citizen input
into the complaint process as a way to achieve it.
TYPES OF CITIZEN REVIEW
As noted in earlier reports, citizen review takes many
different forms.~ Four basic categories are used in this report.
Class I systems are those where individual complaints are
investigated by non-sworn personnel.
Class II systems are those where non-sworn persons review
complaint investigations conducted by sworn police officers.
Class III systems are those where complaints are handled by
the police department, but where a complainant who is unhappy
with the disposition may appeal to a board that includes at least
some non-sworn persons.
In class IV systems, also known as Auditor systems,
responsibility for complaints remains with the police department,
but non-sworn persons are authorized to conduct regular audits of
the complaints process.
citizen review procedures also vary considerably in terms of
their role and mission. Some embody a broad vision of their role,
and are engaged in active community outreach, review of police
policies and procedures, and identification of "problem" officers
with multiple complaints.5 Other review procedures take a very
narrow view of their role and do not engage in these activities.
Previous reports indicated the citizen review procedures
only had the power to recommend discipline to police chief
executives. That is not correct. The Milwaukee Fire and Police
Commission, for example, has the power to discipline police
officers. Some police commissions in other areas also have
authority under their city charters to impose discipline.
RESEARCHING CITIZEN REVIEW
Researching citizen review of the police 'involves a number
of difficulties. No agency is responsible for monitoring
developments in the field. In many instances, the creation of a
new procedure is not reported in the national news media,
including law enforcement or other criminal justice media.
Finally, many local officials are not informed about procedures
in their own jurisdiction. The Justice Department survey of
police management and administrative policies and procedures
incorrectly reported a number of law enforcement agencies as
having citizen review and failed to report some procedures that
do e×ist.~ Telephone calls to police departments and other city
officials frequently yield inaccurate information.
Consequently, this report presents a nearly complete list of
existing citizen review procedures. The author makes no claim
that it is 100% complete, however. As noted above, procedues are
under discussion in several cities as this report is being
completed, and may well be adopted shortly after publication.
1. Samuel Walker and Betsy Wright, Citizen Review~of the Police,
1994: A National Survey (Washington: Police Executive Research
Forum, 1995).
2. Estimate by author based on population of cities and counties
reporting citizen review procedures.
3. "Public solidly Favors," Law Enforcement News (October 31,
1992).
4. Walker and Wright, Citizen Review of the Police, 1994.
5. Samuel Walker and Betsy Wright Kreisel, "Varieties of citizen
Review: The Implications of Organizational Features of Complaint
Review Procedures for Accountability of the Police," American
Journal of Police, XV (1996, No. 3): 65-88.
6. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Law Enforcement Manaqement and
Administrative Statistics, 1993 (Washington: Government Printing
Office, 1995).
5
Citizen Review of the Police -1998 Update
Samuel Walker
University of iqebraska at Omaha
CITIZEN R~VIEW AGENCIES, 1998
I. 50 LARGEST CITIES (37 Total)
Albuquerque, NM Independent Counsel IV
**[Atlanta] [Non-functional]
Baltimore, MD Complaint Evaluations. Board I
**[Boston] FNon-functional]
Charlotte, NC Civilian Complaint Review Board II
Chicago, IL Office of Professional Standards I
Cincinnati, Olt Office of Municipal Investigations
Clcvelaud, O~-I Police Review Board I
Dallas, TX Citizens Police Review Board I~[
Denver, CO Poblic Safety Review Comnfission I
Detroit, MI Office of thc Chief Investigator I
Fresno, CA Ombudsman I
Honolulu, HI Police.Commiaion I
Houston, TX Civilian Review Commission II
Indianapolis, IN Ci0zen Police Complaint Office II
Kansas City, MO Office of Citizen Complaints II
Long Beach, CA Citizen Police Complaint Commission I
Los Angeles, CA Inspector General IV
Memphis, TN Civilian Law Enforcement Review Board II
Miami, FL Office of Professional Compliance Il
Milwattkec, WI Fire and Police Commission I
Minneapolis, MN Civilian Police Review Authority I
New Orleans, LA Off]cc of Municipal Investigation I
New York, NY Civilian Complaii~t Review Board I
Oakland, CA Citizcos' Police Review Board I
Omaha, NE, Citizen Review Board 1II
Plfiladelphia, PA Police Advisory Commission I
Phocuix, AZ Disciplinay Review Board III
Pittsburgh, PA Citizen Police Review Board I
Portland, OR Police Internal Investigations Auditing IV
Colnmillec
St., Louis, MO Board of Police Commissioners I
7
San Antonio, TX CttieFs Adv/sor7 Act/on Board III
San Dieg6, CA Citizen Review Board
San Francisco, CA Office of Citizen Complaints
San Jose, CA Independent Police Auditor IV
Seattle, WA Internal Investigations Auditor IV
Toledo, OH Civilian Review Board II
Tucson, AZ Independent Police Auditor IV
Virginia Beach, VA Investigation Review Panel
**[Washington, DC] [AbolishedI
I1. SECOND 50 LAJ~GIEST C'[T;rES (12 Total)
Dayton, OH Citizcns Appeal Board III
Grand Rapid, MI Police CMlian Appeal Board II1
ttartford, CT Investigation Review Board II
Las Vegas, NW Use of Force Review Board II
Lincoln, NE Citizen-Police Advisory Board II
R~eigh, NC Citizen Complaint Office II
**[Richmond, VA] [Non-functional]
Rochester, ND' Civilian ReGew Board II
St. Petersburg, FL Police Citizens Review Cornnfittee II
Spokane, WA Civilian Review Panel III
8
Syracuse, NY Civilian Review Board II
Wichita, KS City Manager's Review Board III
Yonkers, NY Professional Standards Review Board II
III. SMALL CITIES (30 Tot.al)
Berkeley, CA Police Review Commission I
Billings, MT Police Commission III
Binghamton, NY Police Community Relations III
Advisory Board
Boulder, CO Internal Affairs Review Panel II
Bridgeport, CT Board of Police Co~nmissloners III
Cambridge, MA Police Review and Advisory Board II
Clarkstown, NY Civilian Conlplaint Review Board I
Dubuque, IA Cominnnity Advisory Panel II
Evanston, IL Hnman Sen'ices Cominittee III
Fairficld, CA Citizen Complaint Audit Committee II
Fort Collins, CO Human Relations Comnfission II
Flint, M1 Ombudsman I
Greenville, SC Civil Service Commission I
lo~a City, IA Police Citizens Review Board II
Lansing, MI Board of Police Commissioners I
9
McAllen, TX Police Human Relations Committee I
Novato, CA Police Advisory and Review Board II
Oak Park, IL Citizens Police Oversight Committee II
Orlando, FL Citizen Police Review Board II
Pasadena, CA Use of Force Rev/ow Board II
Risk Management Review Board
Disciplinary Review Board
Richmond, CA Riclunond Police Cormnission I
St. Cloud, MN Citizens Police Review Board II
Santa Cruz Citizens Police Review Board III
Schenectady, NY Objective Review Committee II
Stuart, FL Indcpeudcnt Review Board 1I
Teaneck, NJ Civilian Complaint Review Board I
Term Hautc, IN Merit Board III
Wilmington, NC Steering Review Committee II
Winstou-Salem, NC Citizcn-Police Review Board IIi
Youngstown, OH Police/Commu~fity Review Advisory I
Board
IV. COUNTY SHEPdFFS' DEPARTMENTS (10 Total)
Broward County, FL Professional Standards Coimnittee II
Metro-Dado County, FL Independent Review Board II
Hawaii County, HI Hawaii County Police Conmfission I
Jefferson County, KY Police Merit Board II
Monroe County, NY Center for Dispoto Settlement II
10
Los Angeles County, CA Special Counsel IV
Orange County, FL Independent Citizens Review Board II
Prince George's County, MD Citizen Complaint Oversight Panel
San Diego County, CA Citizens' Law Enforcement Review I
Board
Seminole County, FL Civilian Review Board II
V. OTHER (5 Total)
Chicago Housing Authority Police Citizen Review Board II
State of Iowa Ombudsman I
Mucklcshoot Tribe, WA Review Board I
University of California-Berkeley Police Review Board III
Vermont Depamhent of Public State Police Advisoo' Commission
Safety
11
REVITi~LIZING THE NEW YORK CCRB=
A PROPOSAL FOR CHANGE
Samuel Walker
Department of criminal Justice
University of Nebraska at Omaha
and
Soros Justice Fellow
September 1997
REVITALIZING THE NEW YORK CCRB:
A PROPOSAL FOR CHANGE
BASIC PRINCIPLES
A professional level of policing requires effective mechanisms
of accountability to the public.
Across the United States and around the world, law enforcement
agencies have accepted the principle that accountability can be
enhanced through citizen involvement in the review of complaints
against the police. Citizen review continues to spread rapidly in
the United States, is universal in the rest of the English-speaking
world, and is increasingly found in other countries.~ -
Through the existing Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB),
New York City has accepted the basic principle of citizen
involvement. Unfortunately, the CCRB has failed to function
effectively.2
The following proposal outlines specific steps that can be
taken to revitalize the CCRB. These steps include:
(1) redefining the ~ission of the CCRB
(2) adding specific functions for the CCRB
(3) providing the CCRB with sufficient resources
(4) ensuring quality control within the CCRB itself
The steps outlined here do not represent anything new. Each
and every one is currently in place in other law enforcement
agencies and/or citizen review agencies in the United States.
1 Samuel Walker and Betsy Wright, citizen Review of the
Police, 1994 A National Survey (Washington: Police Executive
Research Forum, 1995). Since that report was issued, the number
of citizen review agencies has grown from 65 to about 90. Andrew
Goldsmith, ed., Complaints Against the Police: The Trend to
External Review (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991).
2 "... the CCRB has largely failed in its mission." NYCLU, A
Third Anniversary Overview of the Civilian Complaint Review
Board, July 5, 1993-July 5, 1996 (New York: NYCLU, 1996), p. 1.
2
MISSION
The CCRB needs to define its mission in terms of a proactive
role in improving the quality of police service.
To date the CCRB has defined its role in passive terms. It
receives, investigates, and disposes of individual citizen
complaints, but does little else. More seriously, the CCRB does not
3
appear to think that it should be doing more.
Other citizen review procedures across the country define
their roles in more proactive terms. Specifically, they take an
active role in identifying problems in their respective police
departments, recommending appropriate changes, and monitoring
compliance with these recommendations.4
The new Inspector General for the Los Angeles Police
Department, for example, examines such issues as access to
complaint forms, the quality of internal affairs investigations,
patterns and practices of police officer conduct, uneven discipline
of police officers, and the "code of silence" among police
officers, among others.5 This represents an exDansive, pro-active
definition of the role of citizen review. The CCRB should adopt a
similar definition of its role.
A proactive role for the CCRB in improving police service
includes the specific functions described below.
FUNCTIONS
Policy Review
3 The NYCLU argues that the CCRB does not even carry out
some of its currently mandated functions. NYCLU, Third
Anniversary Overview, pp. 1, 8, 14.
4 The contrast between these agencies and the CCRB is
plainly evident from even a cursory review of the periodic
reports issued by, for example, the Special Counsel to the Los
Angeles County Board, the San Jose [CA] Independent Police
Auditor, and the Portland [OR] Police Internal Investigations
Auditing Committee (PIIAC).
~ office of the Inspector General, Six-Month ReDort (Los
Angeles: Board of Police Commissioners, January 1997).
3
The CCRB should adopt the policy review function which is
performed by many other citizen review agencies.
Policy review involves taking an active role in reviewing
police department policies and procedures and making
recommendations for change.~
citizen complaints can serve as a basis for policy
recommendations, identifying recurring problems or particularly
serious problems. The policy review function is designed to serve
a preventive role: identifying and correcting problems before they
lead to a gross violation of citizens' rights.7
Policy review is one of the regular activities of the San
Diego County Citizens Law Enforcement Review Board, the San Jose
Independent Police Auditor, and the San Francisco Office of Citizen
Complaints.8
The policy review function does not intrude on the proper
management responsibilities of the Police Commissioner. In other
cities, the police chief executive is free to accept, reject, or
accept with modifications the recommendations of the citizen review
agency. The policy review function provides a valuable element of
for citizen input into police policy formulation and a process for
public debate over police policies. In this respect it serves to
open a police department to the public and contribute to greater
accountability.
Early Warninq System
The CCRB, in cooperation with the NYPD, should institute an
Early Warning (EW) System.
An Early Warning System is an administrative procedure that
identifies police officers who are repeatedly involved in citizen
complaints or other problematic behavior.
6 Samuel Walker and Betsy Wright Kreisel, "Varieties of
Citizen Review: The Implications of Organizational Features of
Complaint Review Procedures for Accountability of the Police,"
American Journal of Police, XV (1996): 65-88.
7 The preventive role was defined thirty years ago by Walter
Gellhorn, with specific reference to complaints against the New
York city police: When Americans ComDlain (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1966).
8 See the official reports of these agencies.
4
The Christopher Commission investigation into the Los Angeles
Police Department found that a small number of officers were
responsible for a disproportionate share of citizen complaints and
use of force reports.9 The same phenomenon has subsequently been
identified in other police departments.~°
EW systems in other cities typically use a formula of three
citizen complaints in any 12 month period. Some departments also
use departmental reprimands, use of force incidents, or involvement
in civil litigation for use of force.
officers who are identified by the EW system are then subject
to some form of intervention, usually involving counselling or
retraining. The EW intervention is seen as an opportunity to
determine, for example, if the officer has a substance abuse or
family problem that can be addressed through counselling, or needs
additional training on certain aspects of police work.~
EW systems use unsustained as well as sustained complaints.
The point of the procedure is to identify problematic behavior
before it leads to a major incident. Because police officers should
not be subject to discipline for an unsustained complaint, the
resulting intervention is informal and is not entered into an
officer's personnel record.
A 1996 U.S. Justice Department conference on Police Inteqrity
recommended the adoption of early warning systems.TM
RESOURCES
The CCRB needs to have sufficient resources to accomplish its
assigned tasks.
9 Christopher Commission, Report of the Independent
Commission on the Los Anqeles Police Department (Los Angeles: The
Commission, 1991).
~0 "Kansas City Police Go After Their 'Bad Boys'," The New
York Times (September 10, 1991). "Wave of Abuse Claims Laid to a
Few officers," Boston Globe (October 4, 1992).
~ The Justice Department conference on police integrity
recommended the development of "nonpunitive" approaches to less
serious integrity violations: U.S. Justice Department, Police
Inteqrit¥: Public Service With Honor (Washington: Government
Printing office, 1997), p. 55.
~z U.S. Department of Justice, Police Inteqrit¥, p. 55.
5
Most important, this means having enough complaint
investigators to handle the complaint work load. With respect to
corruption investigations, for example, the Mollen Commission found
that the NYPD Field Internal Affairs Units (FIAUs), which were
assigned 95 percent of all cases was "woefully" understaffed.~3
At present, there are no professional standards regarding the
proper ratio of investigators to either the number of complaints or
the number of sworn officers. Consequently, the Mayor's Task Force
and the CCRB should undertake a national survey of citizen review
agencies to determine the ideal investigator/complaint ratio.TM
Plannin~ For the Future
In determining the proper level of staffing, the CCRB should
anticipate and plan for an increase in citizen complaints.
The experience of citizen review over the years has been that
improvements in complaint procedures often produce more complaints.
More people come forward as they feel more confident that their
complaint will receive a fair hearing, and as the complaint process
becomes more accessible and user-friendly.
The Christopher Commission found that citizens seeking to file
complaints at LAPD precinct stations were often harassed or
threatened. At the same time, The New York Times reported that San
Francisco, which has an independent citizen review board, received
fiv~ times as many complaints per officer as did the Los Angeles
police department.~5 Thus, a low number of complaints can reflect
not a high qualit~ of police service but a hostile and closed
complaint process.
~3 Commission to Investigate Allegations of Police
Corruption and the Anti-Corruption Procedures of the Police
Department, Commission Report (New York: The Commission, 1994),
p. 85.
~4 A 1993 NYCLU report on seven citizen review procedures in
other cities found great variation in the level of staffing:
NYCLU, civilian Review of Policinq: A Case Study Report (New
York: NYCLU, 1993).
~5 "Police Attacks: Hard Crimes to Uncover, Let Alone Stop,"
The New York Times (March 24, 1991). Christopher Commission,
Report of the Independent Commission.
~6 An evaluation of the Albuquerque complaints process found
that the department received a very low number of complaints in
6
In short, a risinq number of complaints is often a siqn of an
effective complaint process.~7 The news media, the police
department, and the public need to understand this point and
interpret changes in the volume of complaints accordingly
QUALITY CONTROL
The CCRB 'needs to institute quality control procedures to
monitor its own activities and ensure that it delivers the highest
quality of service.
These quality control measures are an essential part of the
proactive mission of the CCRB. Three specific quality control
measures are recommended.
Timely Disposition of Complaints
The failure of both police departments and citizen review
procedures to dispose of complaints in a timely fashion is a
pervasive problem across the country.
The old adage "justice delayed is justice denied" applies to
citizen complaints as well as to criminal cases. Both citizen
complainants and subject police officers have a right to have the
case disposed of quickly. Police administrators need to know if
they have in their employ an officer who is guilty of serious
misconduct.
The citizen review procedures in Los Angeles County and San
Jose, California have specifically addressed the problem of timely
complaint disposition.~
large part because the process was not well-publicized: Samuel
Walker and Eileen Luna, A Report on the Oversight Mechanisms of
the Albuquerque Police Department (Albuquerque: City Council,
1997).
~? This phenomenon, and related problems with official data
on citizen complaints, is discussed in Samuel Walker and Vic
Bumphus, "The Effectiveness of Civilian Review," American Journal
of Police, XI (No 4, 1992): 1-26.
~8 In San Jose, for example, "Class I use of force cases
must be completed within 180 days ...: San Jose, office of the
Independent Police Auditor, Year End Report - 1996 (San Jose,
1997), p. iii.
7
The CCRB should develop specific ~oals and timetables for
complaint disposition. Additionally, it should institute an
internal management system for monitorinq compliance with these
goals and timetables. At a minimum it should report the level of
compliance in its annual reports.
Audit of Complaint Investiqations
The CCRB needs to conduct regular audits of complaint
investigations to ensure that investigations are thorough and that
investigators treat complainants, witnesses, and police officers in
a fair and respectful manner.
In many other cities and counties, compliant investigation
interviews are tape recorded. Several of the auditor forms of
citizen review have the authority to review those tapes.~9 This is
an extremely important quality control procedure designed to
identify bias or disrespect toward any person being interviewed.
Audit of Complaint Intake
The CCRB needs to regularly audit the complaint intake process
at all locations where complaints are received.
A recurring problem across the country is that people seeking
to file complaints are not treated in a respectful manner and in
some instances are actively discouraged from filing complaints. The
Christopher Commission found a serious problem in this regard in
Los Angeles, for example.2°
The audit of complaint intake can be done through the use of
"testers," in a manner similar to the one used with respect to
housing discrimination. Such a program, in fact, can be modelled
afte~ t~e Random Integrity Testing Program already adopted by the
Commission to Combat Police Corruption.2~
Auditing of complaint intake should focus not just on the
~9 This function is performed by the Special Counsel to the
Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, the San Jose Independent
Police Auditor, and the Portland Police Auditor.
20 Christopher Commission, Report of the Independent
Commission.
2~ Commission to Combat Police Corruption, Executive Summary
(New York: The City, December 12, 1996).
8
activities of NYPD officers but on the staff of the CCRB as well.
Official reports by the CCRB itself, along with an evaluation
by the Vera Institute ten years ago and critical reports by the
NYCLU,22 indicate that a very large percentage of initial citizen
complaints are not fully processed. This larqe attrition rate is
cause for concern and needs to be investiqated. Cases are closed
administratively for a variety of reasons, including unavailability
or lack of cooperation of complainants. As the NYCLU points out,
the attrition rate may reflect "the nature and quality of the
contact by the CCRB intake and other personnel.''23
In short, the CCRB needs to institute its own internal quality
control procedures in order to both ensure the highest level of
service to its clients and to develop credibility with the
community. The CCRB needs to see quality control as part of its
basic mission.
Crackinq the "Blue Curtain"
Historically, one of the major barriers to the effective
control of both excessive use of physical force and corruption has
been the unwillingness of police officers to report the misconduct
of guilty officers. This has been referred to as the "blue curtain"
and the "code of silence."
In just the last two years, police departments have taken the
first steps to overcome this problem. In New York City, the
Commission to Combat Police Corruption has made a series of
recommendations related to this problem.24 In Los Angeles, the new
Inspector General (an office that represents the auditor form of
citizen review) has also addressed the problem of the code of
silence and made a series of recommendations.25
The CCRB needs to examine both the New York City and Los
Angeles initiatives and in cooperation with the NYCPD develop an
22 NYCLU, A Third Anniversary Overview, pp. 5-7.
23 NYCLU, A Third Anniversary Overview, p. 6.
24 Commission to Combat Police Corruption, The New York City
Police Department's Disciplinary System: How the Department
Disciplines its Members Who Make False Statements (New York,
December 12, 1996).
25 Office of the Inspector General, Six-Month Report (Los
Angeles: Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners, January
1997).
9
appropriate program for reducing both perjury and failure to report
officer misconduct.
CONCLUSIONS
The recommendations included in this report are designed to
revitalize the New York civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB).
It is important to emphasize that each and every one of these
recommendations is already in place in other cities and counties
across the country.
It is also important to stress that these recommendations
represent only one step in the direction of achieving a
professional level of police service in New York City. The CCRB is
only one part of the larger structure of police accountability.
Even a revitalized CCRB cannot, by itself, transform the NYPD.
There are many steps the NYPD itself must take to reduce misconduct
and become responsive to citizen concerns. The Mayor and the City
Council also have major responsibilities in this area.
10
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Samuel Walker is Kiewit Professor of Criminal Justice at the
University of Nebraska at Omaha.
He is currently a Soros Justice Fellow. A Fellowship from the
Center on Crime, Communities, and Culture of the Open Society
Institute is supporting research and writing on the s~bject of
citizen complaints against the police.
Professor Walker is the author of nine books on policing,
crime policy, and civil liberties. His books include Sense and
Nonsense About Crime (4th ed., 1998), The Color of Justice: Race,
Ethnicitv. and Crime in America (with Cassia Spohn and Miriam
DeLone, 1996), Hate Speech: The History of An American Controversy
(1994), and In Defense of American Liberties: A History of the ACLU
(1990) .
For the last seven years, Professor Walker has focused on the
subject of citizen review of complaints against the police. He is
the author of citizen Review of the Police, 1994: A National Survey
and the citizen Review Resource Manual, both published by the
Police Executive Research Forum (PERF).
With Eileen Luna, Professor Walker completed A Report on the
Oversiqht Mechanisms of the Albuquerque Police Department (1997).
He is also a consultant to KPMG Peat Marwick for an evaluation of
the complaints process in the Charlotte, NC, police department.
Professor Samuel Walker
Department of Criminal Justice
University of Nebraska at Omaha
Omaha, NE 68182-0149
402-554-3590
402-554-2326 (fax)
e-mail: semlen@unomaha.edu
11
A Primer on Police thepercentageofsustainedcomplaimsthat Proposirio,, 2: The compl~int rare is ofien
result in termination Of som~ other fo~ of a funcl[on of fhe cotnpla[n~ process. The
Complainl Dala discipline, more open the process, ~he hither lhe
number of complainls.
The Problems with Police Complaint
by Samnel Walker, Universi~, of · The 1991 Christopher Commission
Nebraska at Omaha Data
report found that people seeking to file
complaints a~inst ~he LAPD were
~he issne of citizen complaints is ~g~in The dynamics nnderl~ing official police "discouraged" fi'om doing so or "imim-
lin lite n~ws. The ~ss~u]~ on Abner compJahlc dat~ m'e e~tremely complicated, idaJod" by LAPD officers. Potemiul
~Louhna by New York City police offi- in many c~ses they may mcan examly lhe compJaimmts were made ~o wail
:ers in August ~997 raises serious qnos- opposile ofwlmt they appear to mcan. This long periods of time, thmalened wilh
fleas about bmh the exmm of police bm- leads (o my first proposi~ion: retaliatory defamation suits, or in the
~ali~y aad the effectiveness of citizen case of Hispanics, 1hreatened
review boards in curbing police miscon- Pr°t)°siH°n ]: Of~ci~l date on police referrnl to 1NS.
qaolily of police performance. A telephone survey by ti~e ACLU of
Citizens, the news media and public Southern Califoruia fonnd that officers
officials nsc official data on complaints Tremendoos variation exists among
aeainst tl~e police to either make a poiol police departments with respect to the at precinct stations systematically
~ refosed ~o give octI thc special 800 hum-
about the quality of poficing in a particular mtmber of citizen complaints flied and the bet for thc complaint hot line.
comnmnity or simply to try Io nnderstand I resulting comphtim rate. A few examples
what is happeniug and why. Community I illustrate the point:
~ San Francisco, on the mher hand, has a
activists, for example, often cite a rising ~t · large and independent citizen review
Following the Rodney King bcadng in
number of citizen complaints as evideuce ~ procedure for receiving complaints. The
of increasiug police miscondnct. Police ' 1991, the New )ark Tittles found lhat O/Dec of Citizen ComplaJn{s (OCC)
chiefs, meanwhile, often cite a Iow nnmbcr the complaint rate in San Fraucisco was pnblishcs brocbures explaining the
of complaints as evideucc that their offi- five times higher in San Francisco than complaints process in several lan-
cers are doing a good job on the su'eets, in Los Angeles. Given thc ifigh-profile guages, and OCC staff appear at corn-
Neither of those claims arc necessarily King case, the pnblic might have
munity meetiugs to explain the corn-
valid. This article provides the reader with expected Los Angeles ~o bare a higher plaint process.
au nnderstanding of official dala on com- complah~t talc.
plaints against the police, explainiog what · An evaluafiou I conducted with EiJeen
data exist and what thoseclata mean. * A 1991 study of complaims in ~he six
Luna in 1997 of the Albuquerque corn-
largest police agencies condacmd by plaints process found that the brochnre
I[e Da~a Anthooy Pate and Edwio Hamilton
explaining the complaint process was
fonnd that the complaint ralc ranged nnknown to virtually all community
from 36.9 per 100 officers in Hoos[on
There are essemia[ly three sets of dala and 27.1 in Chica(~() to 10.5 pc~ 100 in able al two of thc fonr police s~bsta-
~c[a~ed to complaints against tl~e police: Los Angeles and 5.5 in Philadelphia, lions. This helped to explain
First, there is Ihe nnmber of complaiuts thongh the Iatte~ lwo cities had more of
filed. This can be converted into the corn- a reputation of Imving high tales of extremely Iow complaint ~ate in
pl~Jllt iwte, expressed as comphdms per police misconduct. Albuqumque.
100 el per l,O00 officers, h can also be
expressed as compJaintsper 1,000citizcns · Between Jnly 1996 and Jnly 1997 the · Thc staff of the ACLU affiliate in
Mmyland had never heard of the board
in the commnnity. Los Angeles Police Department flint reviews compht/nts against one
received about 400 formal chizcn coin-
Maryland jurisdicfion's police officers.
Second, there is the $tl.rtain rate, or the plaints. The Los Angeles County That jurisdiction had a very Iow cmn-
percentage of complaiots that are sustained Sheriff's Department, with about
in favor of II~e comphfinant, same number of sworn officers, plaint rate.
received over 4,000 complaints, accord- Proposl't[on 3: An increase in the number
Third. there is the numbm of officers ing to a Sept 7, 1997 report in tl~e Los
disciplined. This can iodude either the ~ Angeles 7Dnes. of comploint~ may be a sign of health.
nomber of officers lem~inated o~ the nnm- ~
ber sub eot to lesser discipline (suspension ~ Complaints may be increash~g because
wriueo rep~imaud, etc.) as the result of cit- ~ These variations in lbo complaim rate citizens are more aware of the complaints
izen complaints. This number can be con- ~ explained by diffeiences in police pcr[or- complab~/will receive a fair hearing.
verted iron the discipline rate~ representing ~ mance.
The numberofcomplaln~s in NewYork There are often no independen£, credible and assessments of performance will
City increased ten-fold bclwecn lite mid- witnesses, and fl~e ouly evidence is the inevitably be higb¥ subjective.
1960s and the mid-1970s. No one reason- conflicting lestimony of the complainant
ably argues that police performance deteri- aud the officen Except in the small number; There am a number of ways to indirect-
orated by a factor of ten in those years. The of gross physical force cases, there is ly gauge the quality of policing and a corn-
increase was probably a rcsuh of adminis- rarely any forensic evidence such as med- plaints system. First, is the complaints sys-
trative changes thai not only pablicized the leal reports. For this reason, complaints are tern open and nser-friend}y2 Is tbe syslem
complaints process bn~ also mnde it more often refened to as "swearing contesls." familiar to those professionals who are
open and accessible Io the public (sec Given lhese circumstances, it is unreuson- likely to refer people to it2 Are the~c
"Urban Reform and Police Accotmtability able to expect citizen review agencies to brochures and other information about it
in New York City: 1950- 1974," by Rona[d sustain a snbstantially higher rate of com- available? Are d~ey printed in all langnages
Kabn in R. LinebcnX, ed., Urbalt Problems plaints tbat internal review procednres, spoken in the community?Are there multi-
a~d Public Polir)'. Lexington: Lexington ple locations, where people cau file corn-
Books. 1975.). This is an example of thc ) Second, the sustah~ rate is meaningless plaints~ To a certain extent, the complaint
phenomenon known as "doing better and without takiu~ hno consideration the mun- rate is a rongh iodicntor o[ opeuness and
looking worse," as used by John Knowles bet of complaints. Let's assume for the accessibility. A police department with a
in his 1977 book on health in the Uuitcd n~omcnt that two police departments sus- very Iow complaint rate may have an inac-
States. laiu 10 percent of ail complaints. Oue cessible coml)hfint system. Or it may be
deparm~ent, however, receives five tbnes as extremely responsive and professional~
It is important to emphasize, however, many complaints. The net result is that one again, complaint data on their own do not
that other factors could be related to the deparmmnt snsmins five limes as many ndeqnamly measure tbe quality of police
iucreasingcomplah~ts. Police behaviormay~ cmnplaints. Thc complaint rate is the services.
in fact be getting worse. The official dam: same, but tt~e nun]bet of officers disci-
do not and by tbcmsdxes cannot ansxver plined is five times highen Second, with icspcct to tile quality of
the basic qnestions about the qnality of policing, is the po]icc department reguhuly
police s&'vices. By tt~e same token, a Third, i~ is nor true, as some people fre- ~he subject of scand~ds over g~oss udscon
declining uumber of complaints may be the qucntly claim, that internal affairs nnlts are dnct? Certain departments immediately
~csult of either improving police pcrfof ~ot~gher than citizen ]eview proccdLues, come to mind ns flLmkb~g lids t~st.
mancc or growing pnblic cynicism about This atxument may be based on misinter- Misconduct will never be completely dim-
the complaints process. By themselves, the proration of a 25-year-old stndy of corn- iuated. But the absence of repcamd scan-
data cannot answer the important qnestions plaints in Philadelphia (involving data that dais and repeated allegations of gross
ahot[t the quality of policing, are 35 years old). Ht~dson compared the abuse of citizens is at least one positive
dispositiou of complaints by the external indicator;
h'o[)oxidotz 4: 77~e xustai~ tale is ~ol a Police Advisory Bom'd (PAB) and the
~wlid measure c~ zhe q~?,cti~e~ess of a , Internal Police Bored of Inquiry (PBI). lie Third, bus lhe police departmen~ and/or
co~tp/ab~ls syxtem, did find fi:at the PIM sustained a hight: rate thc local citizen review procedure taken
of comphfints thsm thc PAB, but concluded proactive efforts to assess its own perlBr-
A 1993 study by Anthony Pate and that strict comparison was not possible mauce? Does either agency offer com-
Loric Fridell reports that police depart- because the two procedtnes handled differ- ) plainat~ts an opportunity to provide feed-
ments nationally sustain an average of: ent kinds of complaints. The PBI handled: back about how they were treated?
about 10 percent of ull citizen compluiuts, primarily internally generated complaints,
Civil r~ghts gronps the this figure as cvi- which were inherently easier to sustain As with crime rates and other statisticnl
dence that complaint iuxestigadons by than citizen complaints. Internal corn- data, complaint data do not tall thc whole
police interual allah's units are not thor- plaints are filed by another police officer story about the quality of a police agency.
ougb or unbiased. Citizen review procc- and o{'~en involve an allegation (e.g., sleep- Such data are certainly usefu[ in cvalnalmg
dm'es, meanwhile, sustabl compluints at a lng on duty, misuse ol police equipment) police organizations, bnt should bc nscd
slightly higher rate--about 13 percent, that involves a clea~ }5~ct situation, wilh care and exanlincd wifl~in the broader
conmxt of an agency's practices and rcla-
Unfortunamly, fl~ere a~e many problems Beyon~ lhe (omplaint Do~ tionships wilb its chizcns.
with ~hese data. First, it is likely thnt the
sastain tale will always be Iow, no runner If official complaint data are not valid Edilor'x Note: PERF invites readers'
whnt kind of comphfims system exisls. The indicators, how can wc assess the quality re~jJonsex to thix article. Please feel
typical complaint invot~cs an allegation of: of policing and the effectiveness of a corn- to sabmit ),our ideox to Subjecl to Debate
Iow level physical force (without injury) plaiot sysmm? The honest auswer, unfortu- for ~ossibJefi~ture publication.
nd/or verbal abuse or discourtesy. Such nam[y, is that there is no way of assessing
complaints are inherently difficult to sns- } the quality of policing in any precise quan-
lain in the absence of supportiug evidence, titative way. Policing is a human service
A NL'~& SLEFIER OF TIlE POLICE EXIsCU! IX E RESEARCH FORUM
Vol. 12, Nos. 1/2 January/February 1998
PERF Collects Survey
Dat~ on Police Education · Nea,[y 8o pc, toni o[ ,csponde,/Is ;,~,cc l,c phased in ore, tin,c, wilh ]2.] per-
ond Police Executive
Police Chief Profile and Tenure
Police Recruit Education Survey . ,.. ~. . chicfcxect,fivcs in t,tisdictkm~ oC500,000
Annual Meedng ......... 8