Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-11-2010 Police Citizens Review BoardAGENDA POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD May 11, 2010 — 5:30 P.M. LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM 410 E. Washington Street ITEM NO. 1 CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL ITEM NO. 2 INTRODUCTION OF NEW MEMBER ITEM NO. 3 CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED • Minutes of the meeting on 04/13/10 • Minutes of the meeting on 04/15/10 • ICPD SOG #10 -01 (Spanish Language Education) • ICPD General Order #99 -05 (Use of Force) • ICPD P.A.U.L.A. Report — April 2010 ITEM NO. 4 NEW BUSINESS • Discussion of Conflict of Interest • Update Complaint Forms ITEM NO. 5 OLD BUSINESS Comprehensive Review of PCRB Ordinance, By -Laws, SOP's Motion to accept ICPD General Order 01 -01 (Racial Profiling) ITEM NO. 6 PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM NO. 7 BOARD INFORMATION ITEM NO. 8 STAFF INFORMATION ITEM NO. 9 CONSIDER MOTION TO ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION based on Section 21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22 -7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. ITEM NO. 10 MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS • June 8, 2010, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm • July 13, 2010, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm • August 10, 2010, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm • September 14, 2010, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm ITEM NO. 11 ADJOURNMENT MEMORANDUM POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City DATE: May 5, 2010 TO: PCRB Members FROM: Kellie Tuttle RE: Board Packet for meeting on May 11, 2010 Enclosed please find the following documents for your review and comment at the next board meeting: • Agenda for 05/11/10 • Minutes of the meeting on 04/13/10 • Minutes of the meeting on 04/15/10 • ICPD SOG #10 -01 (Spanish Language Education) • ICPD General Order #99 -05 (Use of Force) • ICPD P.A.U.L.A. Report —April 2010 • Complaint Deadlines • PCRB Office Contacts — April 2010 • Summary of By -Law and SOP Review from April 13 meeting Other resources available: National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement NACOLE provides information regarding civilian oversight in law enforcement nation wide. For more information see: www.NACOLE.org DRAFT POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES — April 13, 2010 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Donald King called the meeting to order at 5:36 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Janie Braverman, Royceann Porter MEMBERS ABSENT: Joseph Treloar, Vershawn Young STAFF PRESENT: Staff Catherine Pugh (5:31 p) and Kellie Tuttle OTHERS PRESENT: Lt. Hart, Sgt Droll, and Office Smithey of the ICPD; and public Caroline Dieterle, Nicole Karlis, and Dean Abel (5:33p) RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL None. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Braverman and seconded by Porter to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended. • Minutes of the meeting on 03/09/10 • ICPD General Order 01 -01 (Racial Profiling) — *removed from consent calendar ICPD Quarterly /Summary Report (Quarter 1) — IAIR /PCRB, 2010 ICPD Use of Force Report — January 2010 • ICPD Use of Force Report — February 2010 • ICPD Department Memo #10 -09 (January- February 2010 Use of Force Review) ICPD P.A.U.L.A. Report — March 2010 Motion carried, 3/0, Treloar and Young absent. *Motion by Braverman, seconded by Porter to remove ICPD General Order 01 -01 (Racial Profiling) from the consent calendar and reconsider at the next meeting under Comprehensive Review of PCRB Ordinance, By -Laws, SOP's to continue the discussion on recommending the ICPD hand out a PCRB form when they have someone file a complaint in PD. Motion carried, 3/0, Treloar and Young absent. Braverman wanted to confirm that the numbers on the Quarterly /Summary Report (Quarter 1) — IAIR /PCRB was up to date. Hart said he would check into it and have Captain Wyss report back at the next meeting. Braverman asked too clarify on the February Use of Force Inc#09921, what the reference to the red dot was. Hart explained that its an infrared laser for tasers and gives guidance to the officer when using the taser. NEW BUSINESS Discussion of Conflict of Interest — The Board agreed to table this item until the next meeting when all members were present. PCRB April 13, 2010 Page 2 OLD BUSINESS Comprehensive Review of PCRB Ordinance, By -Laws, SOP's — The Board received a summary in their packet of the discussion from the March 9th meeting and a summary of the previous Complaint Registry/Monitoring System discussions. A brief review was done of the summary. Braverman handed out an outline (archived in the April 13th meeting packet) with points for the Board to talk about concerning By -Laws and Standard Operating Procedures. The Board discussed the ideas and Braverman will summarize the discussion and include in the next meeting packet for further consideration. PUBLIC DISCUSSION None. BOARD INFORMATION None. STAFF INFORMATION Tuttle informed the Board of the resignation from Vershawn Young and that the vacancy had been announced and the deadline for applications was Wednesday, May 5th and Council could appoint on Monday, May 10th, however the vacancy not effective until July 1, 2010. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change) • April 15, 2010, 12:00 PM, Lobby Conference Rm — Added at 4/13 meeting • May 11, 2010, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm • June 8, 2010, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm • July 13, 2010, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm Motion by Braverman, seconded by Porter to hold a special executive session only meeting on Thursday, April 15th at 12:00 PM. Motion carried, 3/0, Treloar and Young absent. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Braverman, seconded by Porter. Motion carried, 3/0, Treloar and Young absent. Meeting adjourned at 7:02 PM POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2010 M eting Date) NAME TERM EXP. 1/19 2/9 2/17 3/9 4/13 Janie Braverman 9/1/12 X NM X X X Donald King 9/1/11 X NM X O/E X Joseph Treloar 9/1/13 X NM X X O Vershawn Young 9/1/13 O NM X O O/E Royceann Porter 9/1/12 - -- - -- - -- X X Abigail Yoder 9/1/12 - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- --- - -- - -- - -- - -- KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting - -- = Not a Member DRAFT POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES —April 15, 2010 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Donald King called the meeting to order at 12:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Janie Braverman, Royceann Porter (12:09p), Joseph Treloar, Vershawn Young MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Staff Catherine Pugh and Kellie Tuttle OTHERS PRESENT: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (1) Accept PCRB Report on Complaint #10 -02 EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by Young and seconded by Braverman to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section 21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22 -7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. Motion carried, 4/0, Porter absent. Open session adjourned at 12:02 P.M. REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 12:36 P.M. Motion by Treloar, seconded by Braverman to dismiss PCRB Complaint #10 -02 for lack of standing based on City Code section 8 -8 -3 (B). Motion carried, 5/0. Motion by Treloar, seconded by Braverman to submit PCRB Complaint #10 -03 based on the allegations contained in PCRB Complaint #10 -02. Motion carried, 5/0. Motion by Young, seconded by Treloar to give additional direction along with PCRB complaint #10 -03 to the Chief. Motion defeated, 0/5. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Young, seconded by Braverman. Motion carried, 5/0. Meeting adjourned at 12:38 P.M. POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2010 (Meeting Date) NAME TERM EXP. 1/19 2/9 2/17 3/9 4/13 4/15 - -- = Not a Member Janie Braverman 9/1/12 X NM X X X X Donald King 9/1/11 X NM X O/E X X Joseph Treloar 9/1/13 X NM X X O X Vershawn Young 9/1/13 O NM X O O/E X Royceann Porter 9/1/12 - -- - -- - -- X X X Abigail Yoder 9/1/12 - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting - -- = Not a Member PCRB REPORT OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL Re Investigation of Complaint PCRB #10 -02 Complaint PCRB #10 -02, filed March 26, 2010, was summarily dismissed based on City Code section 8 -8 -3 (B): Definition of Complaint; Complaint Process in General: B. Any person with personal knowledge of the alleged police misconduct may file a PCRB complaint with the board. In order to have personal knowledge ", the complainant must have been directly involved in the incident or witnessed the incident. If the person with personal knowledge is underage or otherwise unable to complete a PCRB complaint form, the PCRB complaint maybe filed by such person's designated representative. The city manager, the police chief, the city council or the board itself may file a PCRB complaint based on a reasonable belief that police misconduct has occurred regardless of personal knowledge. The person or official filing the PCRB complaint may hereafter be referred to as the "complainant ". DATED: April 15, 2010 N d Q C-) CJ� =, c_ CD Iowa City Police Department P.A. U. L.A. Report -April 2010 (Possession of Alcohol Under Legal Age) Business Name [occupancy] Monthly Totals Year -to -Date Totals PAULA Visit (occupancy loads updated Oct '08) visits arrests visits arrests ear -to -date 808 Restaurant & Nightclub [176] 4 18 24 49 2.042 Airliner [223] 0 0 5 3 0.600 American Legion [140] 0 0 8 0 0.000 Aoeshe Restaurant [156] Atlas World Grill [165] Blackstone [297] Bluebird Diner [82] Blue Moose [436] 8 8 1.000 Bob's Your Uncle 260* Bo -James [200] 1 0 5 0 0.000 Bread Garden Market & Bakery [It's] Brothers Bar & Grill [556] 3 2 21 8 0.381 [The] Brown Bottle [289] Buffalo Wild Wings Grill & Bar [189] Caliente Night Club 498] 1 0 6 0 0.000 Carl & Ernie's Pub & Grill [92] 1 0 1 0 0.000 Carlos O'Kelly's [299] Chefs Table [162] Chipotle Mexican Grill [119] [The] Club Car [56] 0 0 2 0 0.000 Coaches Corner [160] 1 0 1 0 0.000 Colonial Lanes [502] Dave's Foxhead Tavern [87] David's Place (aka Dawit's) [73] 1 0 1 0 0.000 DC's 120] 0 0 5 1 0.200 [The] Deadwood [218] 0 0 1 0 0.000 Devotay [45] Donnelly's Pub [49] 0 0 1 0 0.000 [The] Dublin Underground [57] 0 0 1 0 0.000 [Fraternal Order of] Eagle's [315] El Banditos 25 El Dorado Mexican Restaurant [104] [BPO] Elks #590 [205] El Ranchero Mexican Restaurant [161] Englert Theatre [838] [The] Field House (aka Third Base) [4201 4 11 21 67 3.190 Firewater [114] 2 0 3 0 0.000 First Avenue Club [280] Formosa Asian Cuisine [149] 0 0 2 0 0.000 Gabes [261] 0 0 1 0 0.000 George's Buffet [75] Givanni's [158] Godfather's Pizza [170] Graze [49] Grizzly's South Side Pub [265] 2 0 8 0 0.000 Guido's Deli [20] Hawke ye Hideaway [94] [The] Hilltop Lounge [90] IC Ugly's [72] 1 0 2 0 0.000 India Caf6 [100] ~' Jimmy Jack's Rib Shack [71] © �+ Jobsite [120] 3 0 8 0 0 QO(Tj --,C "' Joe's Place [281] 0 0 3 a Joseph's Steak House [226] Karaoke La Reyna [78] "? C`) U7 C17 ­4 ad La Reyna [49] ti Linn Street Caf6 [80] Cn ---s � Los Portales 161 A Martini's [200] 0 0 1 0 0.000 Masala [46] Mekong Restaurant [89] Micky's [98] [The] Mill Restaurant [325] [Loyal Order ofl Moose 4761 [Sheraton] Morgan's [231] Motley Cow Cafe [82] Okobo'i Grill [222] Old Capitol Brew Works [294] 2 0 2 0 0.000 One -Eyed Jake's [299] 3 13 10 28 2.800 One-Twenty-Six 105 Orchard Green Restaurant [200] Oyama Sushi Japanese Restaurant [87] Pa liai's Pizza [113] Panchero's (Clinton St) [62] Panchero's Grill (Riverside Dr) [95] Piano Lounge [65] Pints [180] 10 1 0.100 Pit Smokehouse [40] Pizza Hut [116] Pizza Ranch [226] Quality Inn /Highlander[971] Quinton's Bar & Deli [149] 1 0 0.000 [The] Red Avocado [47] Rick's Grille & Spirits [120] Riverside Theatre [118] Saloon [120] Sam's Pizza [174] 1 0 0.000 [The] Sanctuary Restaurant [132] Shakespeare's [90] 4 0 0.000 Short's Burger & Shine [56] 1 0 0.000 Slippery Pete's [178] 3 0 0.000 Sidelines [200] 1 0 0.000 Sports Column [400] 3 5 16 27 1.688 Star Lounge [144] 2 0 2 0 0.000 Studio 13 [206] 1 0 3 0 0.000 [The] Summit [736] 4 5 22 60 2.727 Sushi Popo [84] Takanami Restaurant [148] TCB [250] 7 0 0.000 Thai Flavors [60] Thai Spice [91] Times Club @ Prairie Lights [60] T. Spoons [102] Union Bar [854] 2 1 16 12 0.750 VFW Post #3949 [197] [The] Vine Tavern [170] 3 3 5 3 0.600 Vito's [320] 1 0 7 0 0.000 Wig & Pen Pizza Pub [154] [Iowa City] Yacht Club [206] 0 0 1 1 1.000 Zio Johno's Spaghetti House [94] Z'Mariks Noodle House 47 Totals: 45 58 251 268 1.068 Other PAULA at non - business locations: 11 31 r,a PAULA Totals: 69 299 currant month year-to-date CD includes outdoor seating area C? ti Cn ---s � A Cn —! OPS 03.1 USE OF FORCE Date of Issue General Order Number April 28, 2001 99 -05 Effective Date Section Code N June 12, 2009 OPS -03 C.A.L. E.A. Reference -- 1.3.1 - 1.3.8,1.3.13 INDEX AS: Use of Force Significant Force Use of Force Model Arrests I. PURPOSE Reporting Investigation Canine Warning Shots The purpose of this policy is to provide members of the Iowa City Police Department with guidelines on the use of deadly and non - deadly force. II. POLICY The Iowa City Police Department recognizes and respects the value and special integrity of each human life. In investing officers with the lawful authority to use force to protect the public welfare, a careful balancing of all human interests is required. Therefore, it is the policy of the Iowa City Police Department that police officers shall use only that force that is reasonable and necessary to accomplish lawful objectives and effectively bring an incident under control, while protecting the lives of the officers and others. C° OPS 03.2 III. DEFINITIONS Definition - Deadly force (Section 704.2, Code of Iowa) for the purpose of this policy shall mean any of the following: 1. Force used for the purpose of causing serious injury. 2. Force which the actor knows, or reasonably should know, will create a strong probability that serious injury will occur. 3. The discharge of a firearm, in the direction of some person with the knowledge of the person's presence there, even though no intent to inflict serious physical injury can be shown. 4. The discharge of a firearm, at a vehicle in which a person is known to be. Definition - Serious injury (Section 702.18 Code of Iowa) Means disabling mental illness, or bodily injury which creates a- substial risk of death or which causes serious permanent disfigglerneg, or" `y protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodilyD i'nembL:5r or- organ. `ry- Definition = "Reasonable force (Section 704.1, Code of Iowa)--` 7` Is that force and no more which a reasonable person, in dike circumstances, would judge to be necessary to prevent an injury or loss and can include deadly force if it is reasonable to believe that such force is necessary to avoid injury or risk to one's life or safety or the life or safety of another, or it is reasonable to believe that such force is necessary to resist a like force or threat. Reasonable force, including deadly force, may be used if an alternative course of action is available if the alternative entails a risk to life or safety, or the life or safety of a third party, or requires one to abandon or retreat from one's dwelling or place of business or employment. Definition - Reasonable officer: Objective Standard "The 'Reasonableness' of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. Graham v. Connor, 109, S.Ct. 1865,1872. (1989) 2. "Reasonableness" also takes into account that police officers make judgements in a split second under circumstances that are "tense, OPS 03.3 uncertain, and rapidly evolving - about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation. Graham v. Connor, 109 S.Ct. 1865,1872. (1989) Definition — Less Lethal Munitions (as used in this policy) Means systems which are designed to stun, temporarily incapacitate, or cause temporary discomfort to a person. IV. Code of Iowa - Use of Force in Making Arrests and Preventing Escape Section 804.8 Use of force by peace officer making an arrest. A peace officer, while making a lawful arrest, is justified in the use of any force which the peace officer reasonably believes to be necessary to effect the arrest or to defend any person from bodily harm while making the arrest. However, the use of deadly force is only justified when a person cannot be captured any other way and either: 1. The person has used or threatened to use deadly force in committing a felony, or 2. The peace officer reasonably believes the person would use deadly force against any person unless immediately apprehended. A peace officer making an arrest pursuant to an invalid warrant is justified in the use of any force which the peace officer would be justified in using if the warrant were valid, unless the peace officer knows that the warrant is invalid. Section 804.13 Use of force in preventing an escape. A peace officer or other person who has an arrested person in custody is justified in the use of such force to prevent the escape of the arrested person from custody as the officer or other person would be justified in using if the officer or other person were arresting such person. .� V. PROCEDURES > DEADLY FORCE °I-= A. Purpose of statement F G� 1. To delineate the Department's policy regarding the use of dea by force. X =� r OPS 03.4 2. To establish policies under which the use of deadly force is permissible. B. Policy 1. Officers of the Iowa City Police Department may fire weapons to stop or incapacitate an assailant to prevent serious bodily injury or death. For this purpose and to minimize danger to innocent bystanders, the officer should shoot at the center body mass, whenever possible. 2. An officer may use deadly force to protect him /herself or others from what he /she reasonably believes to be an immediate threat of death or serious injury. 3. An officer may use deadly force to effect the capture or prevent escape if: a. the person used or threatened to use deadly force in committing a felony, and b. the peace officer reasonably believes the person would use deadly force against a person unless immediately apprehended. 4. No distinction shall be made relative to the age of the intended target. 5. Warning shots by officers of the Iowa City Police Department are prohibited. 6. A verbal warning shall be utilized prior to an officer discharging a weapon unless it would compromise the safety of the officer or others. 7. Shooting at or from a moving vehicle is prohibited, excepTimddj� the following circumstances: a. When the occupant of the vehicle is utilizing dZd7ly rce against the police officer or other persons. b. As a last resort to prevent death or serious injury to officers or other persons. c. As a last resort to apprehend a person who has just committed a felony resulting in death or serious injury.. d. The discharge of firearms shall not be utilized when circumstances do not provide a high probability of striking an OPS 03.5 intended target or when there is substantial risk to the safety of other persons, including the risk of causing vehicle accidents. C. Injuries resulting from Use of force. 1. Officers shall render appropriate first aid to any person injured or complaining of pain following the use of force. 2. EMS will be summoned to the scene to ensure deliver of appropriate medical treatment when: S2 a. Requested by the subjects) involved. b. The extent of an injury is unknown or not visible. r c. The nature or extent of the injury dictates. Officers shall err on the side of caution, requesting EMS to respond to the scene if in doubt about the existence or extent of an injury. D. Surrender of firearm. When officers or employees discharge a firearm that results in personal injury or death to any person, the officer or employee shall surrender that firearm to his /her supervisor or a higher authority consistent with departmental directives. Firearms involved in police shooting incidents shall not be unloaded, cleaned, nor in any way altered from the condition immediately following discharge other than to make the weapon safe for transport. 1. When more than one officer or weapon has been involved in a shooting situation resulting in any injury or death, the involved weapons must be surrendered to the commanding officer in accordance with departmental directives. 2. The commanding officer receiving such firearm or firearms shall immediately secure and document the same as evidence. LESS LETHAL FORCE A. Where deadly force is not authorized under this policy, officers should assess the incident in order to determine which less lethal technique will best de- escalate the incident and bring it under control in a safe manner. Officers shall use no more force than is reasonably necessary to gain control of an individual or situation. Officers are authorized to use force consistent with the Use of Force model. OPS 03.6 B. Definition -Use of Force. Use of force is any contact applied by an officer that significantly restricts or alters the actions of another and /or compels compliance with the demands or instructions of the officer. This includes the use of restraint devices such as handcuffs. C. An officer shall use no more force than that officer reasonably feels is necessary in the performance of their official duties. Use of force to an officer is justified in, but not limited to, the following situationj: 1. To protect the officer or others from physical harm. 2. To control an arrestee or a potentially violent person. 3. To restrain or subdue a resistant individual. Approved restraint devices are handcuffs (hinged and chain styfe), flexcuffs and nylon leg restraints. 4. To bring an unlawful situation safely and effectively under control. D. Officers shall offer medical treatment at a hospital to any non - combative person who has been exposed to a chemical irritant / OC spray. Officers shah , decontaminate a person exposed to a chemical irritant and continue to monitor the condition of that person until they are no longer in the custody of the officer. NOTIFICATIONS A. Any officer who discharges a firearm in the course of their duty, shall immediately contact his /her supervisor. (This does not apply to animal euthanasia where supervisory permission to discharge the weapon must be sought prior to the destruction of the animal ((see section B in "REPORTING USE OF FORCE INCIDENTS ")) or training situations) If this is not practical, the officer shall contact the on -duty patrol supervisor. The notified supervisor shall then contact the following individuals: 1. The involved officer's division commander. a. It shall be the Division Commander's responsibility to notify the Chief of Police. b. If the Division Commander cannot be notified, a watch supervisor shall notify the Chief of Police. OPS 03.7 2. The County Attorney of the county in which the incident occurred. 3. The City Attorney. 4. The City Manager. 5. The Criminal Investigation Commander or his /her designee. 6. Other as Required by the Mandatory Call Matrix B. The on -duty watch supervisor shall be immediately notified or summoned to the scene of any incident where use of force results in a physical injury. C. The on -duty watch supervisor shall be immediately notified when a chemical irritant / OC spray is utilized. N D. The on -duty watch supervisor shall be immediately notifiee whgg a conducted energy device is discharged. REPORTING USE OF FORCE INCIDENTS G- A. Discharge of Firearms -report required. F = =r - Any officer who discharges a firearm for any reason or purpose 6'ffier than those exceptions listed in this section, shall make a written report to his /her immediate supervisor as soon as circumstances permit. This written report will then be forwarded through the chain of command to the Chief of Police for review. Exceptions to the requirement of a written report applies to the following circumstances in which no accident or injury results: 1. The discharge of firearms on firearm ranges or in an area for firearms practice. 2. Sporting events to include lawful hunting and organized shooting matches. B. When, in accordance with applicable law, it becomes necessary for an officer to discharge a firearm to destroy an animal which presents a danger or is seriously injured or ill, the officer will, prior to discharging the firearm, request permission to do so from the on -duty supervisor. If such action must be immediately taken in order to protect the officer's or another person's safety, the officer need not delay action in order to request this permission. In this circumstance, however, the Watch OPS 03.8 Supervisor must be notified immediately after the firearm is used. A Use of Force report is required. C. Review Committee Use of force incidents shall be reviewed by a committee consisting of a minimum of three sworn personnel. The committee shall consist of a Division Commander, the Sergeant of Planning and Research and /or Training Sergeant, and a third person designated by the Division Commander. This group will, at a minimum, meet every two months to review the Use of Force reports from the previous two months. 1. The purpose of this committee shall be to review all facts and reports concerning use of force incidents for: appropriateness of force used, for any training which may be necessary, and /or any need for policy changes. This committee will make recommendations on these matters to the Chief of Police. All shooting incidents, with the exception of the destruction of animals, shall be reviewed by a Division Commander and a committee made up of five members of the department. This committee shall include a Lieutenant, a Sergeant, and three officers. 2. The purpose of this committee will be to review all facts and reports concerning shooting incidents (absent destruction of- animals, such cases being reviewed by the Use of Force Review committee) for appropriateness of force used, for any training recommendations which are necessary, and /or any need for policy changes. This committee will make recommendations on these matters to the Chief of Police. D. Reporting a Use of Force Incident. 1. A Use of Force report with a written narrative regarding any use of force incident will be included with an incident report. The report(s) shall contain the following information: a. Arrestee /suspect information. CD b. Incident number(s), date and time of incident, and rep(Sftinc, officer. c. Description of actual resistance encountered. -° E• d. All required fields completed in Use of Force report.-`' OPS 03.9 e. The force used by the officer to overcome the resistance and the specific weapon or technique used. f. A description of any alleged or actual injuries to either the officer or suspect. g. Pictures taken of any injuries to either the officer or suspect h. Exposure to Chemical Irritant / OC spray will additionally require the documentation of hospital treatment being offered, supervisor notification, and decontamination procedures. i. A Conducted Energy Device deployment will additionally require the documentation of medical treatment, if medical treatment is refused by the suspect, supervisor notification and the number of cycles /applications used. 2. When the only use of force is the application of handcuffs, double locked, no use of force report is necessary. The application of handcuffs, double locked will be documented on a written complaint or citation or in the body of an incident report. 3. A supervisor of the reporting person shall review the report for adherence to Department policy and procedure and document their conclusions. 4. All reports concerning use of force shall be forwarded through the chain of command to the Division Commander for review. E. At a minimum, the Chief of Police and /or designee will conduct a documented analysis of all reports and incidents of force annually.�An analysis of reports and incidents of force could reveal pftrnscr '11 trends that indicate training needs, equipment upgrades ana7d F, p6itcy modifications. (7); INVESTIGATION OF USE OF FORCE RESULTING IN DEAT14 -OR SERIOUS INJURY w 1`7:7 A. When any member of the police department is involved in an incident resulting in death or serious injury, a thorough and objective investigation of facts and circumstances will be initiated as soon as practical by the Chief of Police's designees and completed as soon as practical. OPS 03.10 B. The Chief of Police or his /her designee shall decide whether the DCI and /or any other outside agency shall be called to assist in the investigation. C. If an incident resulting in death or serious injury which involves a sworn Iowa City police officer occurs in another police jurisdiction, the officer shall cooperate with that jurisdiction, as set forth in Iowa City Police Department directives. D. The on -duty watch commander /supervisor shall ensure that appropriate case reports are initiated and that potential evidence is preserved. E. The officer(s) or employee involved in the death or serious injury shall be relieved of field duty without the loss of pay or benefits, pending the results of the departmental investigation. Other officers or employees involved in the incident also may be relieved of field duty without loss of pay or benefits at the discretion of the Chief of Police, while the investigation is pending: 1. The officer or employee shall be available at all times for official interviews and statements regarding the case, and shall be subject to recall to duty at any time. The officer or employee must receive permission from the Chief of Police, or the Chiefs representative, prior to leaving the metropolitan area. If such permission is given, the officer or employee shall supply phone number(s) of their location and duration of their absence. 2. The officer or employee will not discuss the case with anyone except the prosecuting attorney and /or persons designated by the Chief of Police or their designee. This does not prohibit the officer or employee from discussions with their attorney. If the officer or employee may be the subject of internal review or criminal charges their constitutional rights and administrative protections will be maintained. The officer or employee will attend post- traumatic stress counseling at the discretion of the Chief of Police. E5 o 3. At the discretion of the Chief of Police, the officer or er 3.o'.ye%_ nay` y 1 be returned to duty upon departmental receipt of not4eation-.1rom -_ the counselor or mental health professional indicatinge of0'cer' _Y fitness for duty. -fir• ?? F. The investigation and administrative leave policy outlined ferein s not"'' intended to imply or indicate the officer or employee has -acted improperly, but is designed to safeguard the officer or employee and the Department. OPS 03.11 G. The Chief of Police may appoint one or more individuals to conduct a separate yet parallel (administrative) investigation into a use of force incident to ensure all personnel followed departmental policies end guidelines. ° L�C_) y ::7i USE OF FORCE MODEL A. Police officers are given the unique right to use force, eve .`deadly force, against others for legitimate law enforcement pure. .6- s. The right to use force carries with it an obligation to use that force i a responsible manner. Police agencies have an obligation to provide their employees with the policies, training, and tools necessary to accomplish their mission. Selection of a use of force response from the options articulated in this model will be based on: the skills, knowledge, and ability of the officer; the perceived threat and amount of resistance offered by a subject; and consideration of the situational framework. A defined Use of Force model will enhance the department's ability to manage the use of force and will benefit the officer by providing guidance, resources, and options. B. Officers of the Iowa City Police Department shall follow the principles of the Use of Force model. The model describes an escalation of force, which is based on a reasonable officer's perception of threat or resistance. As a subject's resistance escalates, more force options become available to the officer. When resistance stops, the officer must de- escalate, but only after control (e.g. handcuffing) is accomplished. Officers of the Iowa City Police Department must generally employ the tools, tactics, and timing of force utilization consistent with the Model's proscription and training protocols. Due to the fact that officer /citizen confrontations occur in environments that are potentially unpredictable, "tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving" (Graham v. Connor, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 1872. (1989) the officer may utilize tools, tactics, and timing outside -the parameters of the Model. However, these applications of force must meet the same test of reasonableness as those which have been previously identified and approved by the Department. C. Reasonable officer's perception /Reasonable officer's response (see attached matrix) Samuel Hargadine, ief of Police WARNING This directive is for departmental use only and does not apply in any criminal or civil proceeding. The department policy should not be construed as a creation of higher legal standard of safety or care in an evidentiary sense with respect to third -party claims. Violations of this directive will, only form the basis for departmental administrative sanctions. LEVEL ONE Perception - Subject is compliant Response - Cooperative controls (includes: positioning, communications skills, handcuffing searching techniques, arrest and transport controls) OPS 03.12 mental preparation, spatial positions and techniques, COOPERATIVE • '• USE OF FORCE MODEL - FUNCTIONAL PROFILE COMPLIANT LEVEL I COOPERATIVE CONTROLS MENTAL PREPARATION > > > PERCEPTION SKILLS RISK ASSESSMENT SURVIVAL ORIENTATION SPATIAL POSITIONING > > > OFFICER STANCE BODY LANGUAGE RELATIVE POSITIONING COMMUNICATION SKILLS > > VERBAL NON - VERBAL HANDCUFFING POSITIONS > > > > WALL STANDING PRONE KNEELING N HANDCUFFING TECHNIQUE > CONTROL D n � 4 J SEARCHING TECHNIQUES > > > > WALL --a STANDINGE2---'m PRONE M KNEELING -r--1 = �ti SPECIALIZED TECHNIQUES > > > OPPOSITEX c.a FRISK — STRIP ARREST TECHNIQUES > > SINGLE OFFICER MULTIPLE OFFICERS ESCORT CONTROLS > > SINGLE OFFICER MULTIPLE OFFICERS TRANSPORT CONTROLS > > SINGLE OFFICER MULTIPLE OFFICERS OPS 03.13 LEVEL TWO Perception - Subject is passively resistant Response- Contact controls (includes: contact controls, conflict management techniques, mass formation arrest techniques (multiple officer lifts, stretchers, wheelchairs etc.) N �j CD l7 C"-) .ter C �' i �' W OPS 03.14 LEVEL THREE Perception- Subject is actively resistant Response - Compliance techniques (includes: neuro - muscular controls, joint manipulation, nerve compression, chemical irritants, e.g. OC spray, controlled stopping devices for fleeing vehicle incidents) COMPLIANCE TECHNIQUES USE OF FORCE MODEL - FUNCTIONAL PROFILE RESISTANT (Active) LEVEL III COMPLIANCE TECHNIQUES ENFORCEMENT ELECTIVES: I & II > NERVE COMPRESSION TECHNIQUES COMPLIANCE CONTROLS > CHEMICAL IRRITANTS, CROWD CONTROL CHEMICAL MUNITIONS > CONTROL TACTICS > HEAD NERVE COMPRESSION TECHNIQUES: > NECK NEURO- MUSCULAR CONTROLS > ARM > LEG CONTROL TACTICS > WRIST ROTATION > ELBOW LEVERAGE BICYCLE > TAKE DOWN TECHNIQUES VEHICLE PURSUIT TACTICS > COMMUNICATIONS /ASSESSMENT SKILLS > PACING/TRAILING TECHNIQUES N O :>.-j -°� i - -,a r ✓' GJ OPS 03.15 LEVEL FOUR Perception - Subject is physically assaultive and may cause bodily injury Response- Defensive tactics (includes: personal weapon defense, e.g. hands, knees, feet, active countermeasures, etc.; impact weapons, e.g. ASP, weapon retention techniques, conducted energy devices) *Deployment of canine for apprehension /protection shall be preceded by actions of suspect which are consistent with level 4 ( Assaultive- Bodily Harm) behavior. The exception to this is the deployment of canine for building searches or related circumstances, where the suspect actions are not known. In this circumstance procedures spelled out in the "Canine Operations" General Order (99 -04) shall be followed. c ° USE OF FORCE MODEL - FUNCTIONAL PROFILE ASSAULTIVE (Possible Bodily Harm) LEVEL IV DEFENSIVE TACTICS I ENFORCEMENT ELECTIVES: I, II, III -t, PERSONAL WEAPON DEFENSES > > > > > HEAD HANDS ELBOWS FEET KNEES rz.rr IMPACT WEAPONS ASP > STRIKES LESS LETHAL WEAPONS > > > > IMPACT PROJECTILES CANINE OPERATIONS CONDUCTED ENERGY DEVICES OTHER OPTIONS WEAPON RETENTION TECHNIQUES (Less Lethal) > > > FRONT REAR SIDE OTHER WEAPONS CANINE > CONTROL /APPREHENSION TECHNIQUES *Deployment of canine for apprehension /protection shall be preceded by actions of suspect which are consistent with level 4 ( Assaultive- Bodily Harm) behavior. The exception to this is the deployment of canine for building searches or related circumstances, where the suspect actions are not known. In this circumstance procedures spelled out in the "Canine Operations" General Order (99 -04) shall be followed. c ° c-; - I -t, rz.rr .o Ev OPS 03.16 LEVEL FIVE Perception - Subject is assaultive and likely to cause SERIOUS bodily injury or death Response- Deadly force (includes: weapon /weapons attack defense, lethal force utilization with service /supplemental weapons, forcible stopping techniques for assault with vehicle incidents) N O (D O USE OF FORCE MODEL - FUNCTIONAL PROFILE ASSAULTIVE LEVEL V DEADLY FORCE (Serious Bodily Harm /Death) ENFORCEMENT ELECTIVES; I, II, III & IV ATTACK DEFENSE > WEAPON > WEAPONLESS > WEAPON RETENTION TECHNIQUES . ire LETHAL FORCE UTILIZATION > SERVICE WEAPON > SUPPLEMENTAL WEAPON > OTHER OPTIONS OTHER OPTIONS: FORCIBLE STOPPING TECHNIQUES > CONTACT > ROADBLOCK N O (D O . ire L-0 W N Iowa City Police Department Standard Operating Guideline SOG #: 10 -01 Effective date: 04109/2010 Subject: Reference: Spanish Language Education Foreign Language Section: Issue #: ADM Original Comm igna ture: Original Issue: 5_ PURPOSE: With an increasing Spanish speaking population and the fact that access to interpreters is oftentimes unavailable at the scene, the Department is making Spanish language classes available to members of the department. The learning of a new language is an on -going process that will require an extended commitment from those electing to participate in the program. a DEFINITIONS: PROCEDURES: N C, Spanish Language training is open to all department members with preference being given to patrol officers. The initial allocation for this training has been set at $5000.00. When these funds have been depleted there will be an evaluation to determine the effectiveness and value of the program prior to the allocation of additional funds. The program will work as follows: 1. Department members may enroll in "for credit" Spanish language classes at Kirkwood Community College (KCC). Members wishing to attend a class at a location other than KCC shall submit a request and detailed information to the department's training officer for review and approval. 2. The department member will determine which section, level and location best fits their individual schedule and abilities. 3. The member will complete the application process for KCC and be responsible for associated "processing" fees. 4. The member shall advise the department's Training Officer of the section which they wish to enroll and provide accompanying documentation. 5. The member shall provide a listing of all required books and other materials to the Training Officer, who shall oversee the purchase of the materials. 6. The Department will pay for tuition, books and other required materials for the course upon presentation of the expenses to the Department's Training Officer. 7. The Department will not pay overtime for participation in this program. 8. As calls permit, supervisors may authorize the use of duty time for studying, with the understanding that ALL CFS have priority over studying. 9. Upon the completion of the course, the member shall provide documentation of the member's completion (C or better) of the class. 10. If a member fails to complete the class, or fails to receive a grade of a C or higher, the member shall reimburse the department for all associated fees and expenses. 11. Successful members may submit a request to enroll in advanced coursework if funds are available. If funds are limited, priority will be given to someone who hasn't had a Spanish course funded through this program. N t'7 ryry® ]muse May 11, 2010 Mtg Packet PCRB COMPLAINT DEADLINES PCRB Complaint #10 -01 Filed: 02/11/10 Chief's Report due (90days): 05/12/10 Chief's Report filed: ? ? / ? ? / ?? PCRB Mtg #1 (Review) PCRB Mtg #2 (Review & Assign) -------------------------------------------- PCRB Report due (45days): PCRB Complaint #10 -03 Filed: 04/15/10 Chief's Report due (90days): 07/14/10 Chief's Report filed: ? ? / ? ? / ?? PCRB Mtg #1 (Review) PCRB Mtg #2 (Review & Assign) PCRB Report due (45days): PCRB MEETING SCHEDULE June 8, 2010 July 13, 2010 August 10, 2010 September 14, 2010 40-"e.,_4 oc:- (2!- Sj1( rte+ REVISED May 11, 2010 Mtg Packet PCRB COMPLAINT DEADLINES PCRB Complaint #1.0 -01 Filed: 02/11/10 Chief's Report due (90days): 05/12/10 Chief's Report filed: 05/10/10 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PCRB Mtg #1 (Review) 05/11/10 PCRB Mtg #2 (Review & Assign) ? ? / ? ? / ?? PCRB Report due (45days): 06/24/10 PCRB Complaint #10 -03 Filed: 04/15/10 Chief's Report due (90days): 07/14/10 Chief's Report filed: ? ? / ? ? / ?? PCRB Mtg #1 (Review) ? ? / ? ? / ?? PCRB Mtg #2 (Review & Assign) ? ? / ? ? / ?? PCRB Report due (45days): ? ? / ? ? / ?? PCRB MEETING SCHEDULE June 8, 2010 July 13, 2010 August 10, 2010 September 14, 2010 POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD OFFICE CONTACTS April 2010 Date Description None Summary of Review By -Laws and SOPS —Notes from April 13, 2010 meeting Board members present: Don King, Royceann Porter, and Janie Braverman Staff present: Catherine Pugh and Kellie Tuttle Others present: Lt. Hart, Sgt Droll, and Office Smithey of the ICPD; and public Caroline Dieterle, Nicole Carlis, and Dean Abel Schedule — note proposed change Ordinance review — March meeting By -Laws and SOP review — April meeting Review of other boards in other jurisdictions and review of ACLU model — May meeting (Joe Treloar to look at other jurisdictions) Discussion of recommendations — June or July meeting (depending on status of pending PCRB complaints) Items in italics are from the Notes for April 13, 2010 meeting provided by Janie Braverman. Ordinance Review New item 8 regarding name change for board. Don King said he supported the name change in the interest of clarity of the board's purpose. It will take an amendment to the ordinance to change the name. As per information supplied by Captain Johnson of the ICPD, Kellie Tuttle reported that of 11 complaints in 2009, six were filed with the PCRB. The other five were all internally initiated, so that all citizen initiated complaints came to the PCRB as well as the ICPD. By -Laws Review 1. exparte contacts — is this in keeping with other City boards? (Article V, Section 10) "A member who has had a discussion of an agenda item outside of a public meeting with an interested party shall reveal the contact, name the other party and share the specifics of the contact, copies if in writing or a synopsis if verbal." There is no clear definition of "interested party." Catherine will check with the City Attorney's office regarding the intent of this provision. The board will consider recommending clarifying revisions. 2. voting — must have record of why abstaining (Article V, Section 12) "A member who abstains shall state the reason for abstention." Catherine said that the only valid reason for abstention is conflict of interest. This provision hasn't been consistently observed in the past. The board will observe it going forward. The board will discuss this when the full board is present, in connection with the discussion of the City's conflict of interest policy. recommend attendance at Police Citizen's Academy? The board will recommend attendance at the Police Citizen's Academy. The board will pay the cost of any board member's registration fee. The board may consider making it mandatory 4. absences — three consecutive or four in the course of a period of time? (Article III, Section D "Three consecutive absences of a Board member, without excuse of the Chairperson, from regular or special meeting may result in a recommendation to the City Council from the Board to discharge said member and appoint a new Board Member. The board will recommend a revision so that three unexcused absences in any one year would also be grounds for a recommendation to discharge a member. SOP Review Would need revisions regarding the name - clearing hearing (see notes on Ordinance review) Revisions would be required. 2. Note Section V.A. — reserved right to identify officer(s) by name in a sustained complaint 3. Note Section VII.B. — annual report may include recommendations to amend Ordinance 4. Note Section VIII. E. — contacts and requests for information to be in writing. Is this consistent with other boards? "Requests for information from the PCRB to the Police Chief or City Manager shall be in writing." The board will recommend adding "when possible" to this Section. The board would like to have the ability to meet directly with the Police Chief and /or the City Manager when appropriate. Other Mike Smithey, present as a citizen, also an officer with ICPD, suggested that the board consider recommending the addition of a non - voting member, perhaps the Union President, as a resource for the PCRB. This would be an active -duty officer with up -to- 2 date training, who might be in a better position to answer questions the PCRB might have about policy and procedure as it applied to the actions of an officer involved in a specific complaint. Currently, the PCRB has no tool to invite a representative of the ICPD into executive session in order to discuss a complaint in detail. Nor will the PCRB discuss details of any pending complaint in open session. This may make it difficult for the PCRB to have access to all the information it would like to have — or that the ICPD would like it to have — when reviewing a complaint. Sergeant Droll also raised the question of whether the PCRB can effectively judge an officer's conduct without that kind of information. Either adding a non - voting ICPD member to the board or allowing the board to confer with ICPD in executive session would require a change in the ordinance. Smithey also asked to clarify that a fully independent review board, following the ACLU model, would essentially be an internal affairs division. He expressed a concern that there would be some bias against the police officer(s) if that were the case. Dean Abel, a citizen, asked if the PCRB used its subpoena power would the resulting interview be in open or executive session. Catherine clarified that if it related to a specific complaint, it would be in executive session. POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240 -1826 (319)356 -5041 PR4 February 11, 2010 Name Address City, State, Zip RE: PCRB Complaint # Dear : The Police Citizens Review Board acknowledges receipt of your recent Complaint. In addition to the Iowa City Police Department's investigation and the subsequent PCRB's review, Section 8 -8 -4 A of the PCRB ordinance requires that formal mediation be offered to the parties. This can only occur if all parties agree to meet with a mutually acceptable third -party mediator (non -City staff). The mediation would be an attempt to reach a resolution of your complaint. The mediator would be a neutral party who is specially trained in mediation. If all parties agreed to participate in formal mediation, it would be offered at no expense to the parties. If you are interested in pursuing formal mediation, please contact Kellie Tuttle or Marian Karr at 356 -5041. You may also request to meet informally with the police officer who is the subject of your complaint and the department supervisor of the police officer in an effort to resolve your complaint informally. If you would like to proceed with an informal meeting, please call the Chief of Police, Sam Hargadine at (319)356 -5270. Either alternative may be requested at any point during the investigation process. Sincerely, Donald King, Chair Police Citizens Review Board cc: Sam Hargadine, Chief of Police PCRB POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240 -1826 (319)356 -5041 February 11, 2010 Sam Hargadine, Chief of Police Iowa City Police Department 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240 Dear Chief Hargadine: B#4�r? The Police Citizens Review Board has received PCRB Complaint # filed on mo /dd /yr. Formal mediation is available at any time during the Police Department's investigation and the PCRB's review upon written consent of the complainant and the police officers involved in this complaint. A letter has been sent to the complainant advising that formal mediation may be available upon agreement of all parties. Would you please present the enclosed letter to the appropriate officers named in the above - mentioned complaint. If they express an interest in formal mediation, would you please contact the City Clerk's Office, and we will then provide the officers with the mediation packet. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, Donald King, Chair Police Citizens Review Board (Enclosures) cc: PCRB POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240 -1826 (319)356 -5041 February 11, 2010 Dear Officer D Ps 4 e�g7 F The Police Citizens Review Board recently received PCRB Complaint #. In addition to the Iowa City Police Department's investigation and the subsequent PCRB's review, Section 8 -8 -4 A of the PCRB ordinance requires that formal mediation be offered to the parties. Mediation could occur if all parties agree to meet with a mutually acceptable third -party mediator (non -City staff) in an attempt to reach a resolution of your complaint. This mediator would be a neutral party who is specially trained in mediation. Mediation would be conducted at no expense to the parties. If you are interested in pursuing formal mediation, please advise Chief Hargadine whom, in turn, will contact Kellie Tuttle or Marian Karr at 356 -5041. You may also request to meet informally with the complainant in an effort to resolve this complaint informally. If you would like to meet with the complainant informally, please contact Chief of Police, Sam Hargadine. Either alternative method may be requested at any point during the investigation process. Sincerely, Donald King, Chair Police Citizens Review Board cc: PCRB MATERIAL PRESENTED AT THE MAY 11TH MEETING BY JOE TRELOAR DISCUSSION TO BE HELD AT THE JUNE 8TH MEETING COLUMBIA Citizens Police Review Board Contact Us Complaints & Appeals Meetings Provides an external and independent process for review of actual or perceived misconduct thereby increasing police accountability to the community and community trust in the police. Reviews appeals from the police chief's decisions on alleged police misconduct, hosts public meetings and educational programs for Columbia residents and police officers, reviews and makes recommendations on police policies, procedures and training, and prepares and submits annual reports that analyze citizen and police complaints to the City Council. Members must be residents of Columbia and registered voters. Members may not be employed by the City, be a party to any pending litigation again the City, be an elected public office holder, or be a candidate for elected public office. The length of terms is three years, with openings occurring in October. Members & Terms: • Mary Bixby - Term Ending November 1, 2010 (Human Rights Commission Representative) • Stephen Alexander - Term Ending November 1, 2011 • Carroll Highbarger - Term Ending November 1, 2011 • Ellen LoCurto- Martinez - Term Ending November 1, 2011 • John McClure - Term Ending November 1, 2012 • Susan Smith - Term Ending November 1, 2012 • Steve Weinberg -- Term Ending November 1, 2012 • James Martin - Term Ending November 1, 2013 • Betty Wilson - Term Ending November 1, 2013 Establishing Legislation: Section 21 -46 Establishment; membership; qualifications; terms; and removal. (a) The citizens police review board is hereby established. (b) The board shall consist of eight (8) members appointed by the city council and a member of the commission on human rights appointed by the commission. Members shall serve without compensation. (c) Board members must be residents of Columbia and registered voters. Board members may not be employed by the city, be a party to any pending litigation against the city, be an elected public office holder, or be a candidate for elected public office. Board members should reflect the cultural and racial diversity of Columbia and have no serious criminal record. The police chief shall obtain a criminal history of all applicants for membership on the board and advise the city council of any convictions for violations of federal, state or local law. (d) Three (3) of the members first appointed by the city council shall serve terms of two (2) years, three (3) shall serve terms of three (3) years and two (2) shall serve terms of four (4) years. Thereafter, members appointed by the city council shall serve terms of three (3) years. The member appointed by the commission on human rights shall serve a term of one (1) year. No member shall serve more than six (6) consecutive years. Vacancies shall be filled for unexpired terms in the same manner as the original appointments. (e) The board may recommend to the city council that a board member be removed from the board if the member persistently fails to perform the duties of office. (Ord. No. 20331, § 1, 7- 20 -09) Section 21 -47 Officers; meetings; quorum; rules. (a) The board shall elect a chair and vice -chair from among its members. The term of these officers shall be one (1) year. The chair shall preside at meetings. The vice -chair shall preside when the chair is absent or otherwise unable to preside. (b) The board shall meet monthly. When requested by the board the police chief or the chief's designee shall attend board meetings to serve as an informational resource for the board. The board shall provide an opportunity for public comment at each monthly meeting. The board shall meet semi - annually with the chief of police to discuss issues of concern and to recommend ways that the police can improve their relationship with citizens. The board may also make recommendations regarding policies, rules, hiring, training and the complaint process. (c) Five (5) members shall constitute a quorum for conducting business. (d) The board may establish rules and procedures that do not conflict with this code or the rules and regulations governing internal affairs investigations. (e) Board members shall follow the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement ( NACOLE) Code of Ethics. (Ord. No. 20331, § 1, 7- 20 -09) Section 21 -48 Administration and training. (a) The city manager shall designate staff for the administration of the board. (b) New board members shall participate in orientation and training that includes review of the police professional standard unit's operating policies and procedures and a ride along with police officers. Training shall also include topics suggested by NACOLE in its recommended orientation and training for board members. (Ord. No. 20331, § 1, 7- 20 -09) Section 21 -49 Duties. The citizens police review board shall have the following duties: (1) Review appeals from the police chief's decisions on alleged police misconduct as provided for in this article. (2) Host public meetings and educational programs for Columbia residents and police officers. (3) Review and make recommendations to the police chief and city manager on police policies, procedures and training. (4) Prepare and submit to the city council annual reports that analyze citizen and police complaints including demographic data on complainants, complaint disposition, investigative findings and disciplinary actions. The reports should also describe the board's community outreach and educational programs. The reports should also set forth any recommendations made on police policies, procedures and training. The reports shall be submitted no later than March 1 for the previous calendar year. (Ord. No. 20331, § 1, 7- 20 -09) Complaints and Citizens Police Review Board Appeals Complaints of police misconduct must be filed with either the City Clerk or with the police department within one year of the date of the incident. File a Complain Upon receiving a complaint alleging police misconduct involving interaction with the public, the police department will conduct an investigation. Unless the officer is no longer working for the City of Columbia or unless the complainant withdraws the complaint, the internal affairs process will conclude with a decision by the Chief of Police. The police chief will notify the officer and the complainant of his decision and of the right to appeal to the Citizens Police Review Board. Both the police officer and the complainant have the right to appeal the police chiefs decision to the board. An appeal to the board must be made in writing and delivered to the city clerk. The clerk must receive the appeal within twenty - one (21) days after the notice of the chiefs decision was given. The appeal must be either hand delivered to the office of the city clerk or sent to the city clerk by United States mail, facsimile machine or electronic mail. A eal Police Chief's Decision Columbia Police Department Use this form to submit a complaint about a Columbia Police Department employee. Please see use the "Contact us" section for information about who to contact for other complaints or inquiries. Complaints may also be made through the City Clerk's Office at 701 E. Broadway, City Hall - 2nd Floor, Mailing address: P.O. Box 6015, Columbia, MO 65205. For information on how to obtain an advocate to assist you in the filing of your complaint, contact the Citizens Police Review Board via the City Law Department at 874 -7223. Citizen Complaint Form Complainant's Information Name Sex Address Race City Date of Birth State Work Phone Zip Code Email Home Phone Cell Phone Incident DetailsComplaints must be filed within 1 year of the alleged misconduct Location of Incident Date Time Officers(s) Involved Witnesses to the Incident (name, address, phone number) Liu iy) Include names and descriptions, times, badge numbers, etc.) Providing information about a complaint of action or inaction on the part of an employee of the Columbia Police Department constitutes a police report. The willful falsifying of information in a police report may be grounds for criminal violations or civil process by the employee accused. I have read the above statement and by selecting submit I swear or affirm that it is true. I have also read and understand the advisory paragraph immediately above. Please verify entries before selecting submit. Appeal to the Citizens Police Review Board After the Police Chief's Decision You have the right to have an advocate assist you with your complaint. You can have an advocate of your choosing. The City of Columbia maintains a list of trained volunteer advocates. If you would like a trained, volunteer advocate to assist you with your complaint, please contact the City of Columbia at 573 - 874 -7223. Section 21 -51 (d) Both the police officer and the complainant have the right to appeal the police chief's decision to the board. An appeal to the board must be made in writing and delivered to the city clerk. The clerk must receive the appeal within twenty -one (21) days after the notice of the chief's decision was given. Name: Address: City /State /Zip: Your complete mailing address for all correspondence regarding this complaint: I� J Phone Number(s): Email Address: CPD Tracking Number (if known): I request that the Citizens Police Review Board review my complaint. Submit LAS VEGAS LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE CITIZEN REVIEW �blasJONZ7MV • • • • 11 POLICY AND PROCEDURE MANUAL Revised as of 03/04/08 - - 1I Deleted: 21 11 CITIZEN REVIEW BOARD POLICY AND PROCEDURES TABLE OF CONTENTS page Section 1: Purpose 1 Section 2: Definitions 1 -2 Section 3: Administration and Procedure 3 -13 3.1 Review Board Composition, Term of Membership, Compensation and Vacancies 3 3.2 Facilitator for General Members of the Board 3 3.3 Records of the Review Board 3 3.4 Orientation and Training 3 -4 3.5 Standing to File a Complaint 4 3.6 Complaint Procedure 4 3.7 Jurisdiction 5 3.8 Transaction of Business 5 3.9 Review Board Proceedings 5 3.10 Special meetings of the Review Board 5 -6 3.11 Review Board Staff 6 3.12 Screening Panel 6 -7 3.13 Hearing Panel 7 -10 3.14 Confidentiality 10 3.15 Department Imposition of Discipline 10 -11 3.16 Withdrawal of Complaints 11 3.17 Scope of Investigation 11 3.18 File Accessibility 11 3.19 Final Findings and Recommendations 11 -12 3.20 Mediation 12 3.21 Return of Records 12 -13 3.22 Judicial Interpretation 13 3.23 General Rules Pertaining to Members 13 3.24 Operating Agreement 13 3.25 Amendments to Policy and Procedure 13 CITIZEN REVIEW BOARD POLICY AND PROCEDURES Section 1: PURPOSE These policies and procedures are hereby adopted to facilitate the operations of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Citizen Review Board (hereinafter the 'Review Board ") in reviewing and handling citizen complaints filed against peace officers of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (hereinafter the "Department "). These rules are intended to provide for the fair, impartial, independent and prompt investigation of citizen complaints in a manner, which protects and enhances the public trust in law enforcement, while ensuring a just resolution of complaints for those involved. The review process of the Review Board shall be conducted consistently with the legal rights of the complainants, witnesses and peace officers involved, as well as the public they serve, with the goal of enhancing both public awareness of the review process and encouraging public confidence in the integrity of the review procedures. As provided by law, the Review Board shall make the procedures for the filing and handling of legitimate complaints public, as well as, the findings and recommendations by the Review Board concerning the complaints. Publication of information regarding procedures, findings and recommendations provides public confidence that legitimate complaints are appropriately resolved, police misconduct is seriously considered and corrective measures and police policy improvement recommendations are undertaken. These policies and procedures are intended to supplement Chapter 2.62 of the Clark County Code, Chapter 2.64 of the Las Vegas Municipal Code and Chapter 289 Nevada Revised Statutes. In the event of any conflict with these policies and procedures, said Statute and ordinances shall supersede only those provisions found in conflict. Section 2: DEFINITIONS All words used in these policies and procedures shall be given their plainly understood meaning. Words, which may be defined within these policies and procedures, shall be construed in accordance with the definition. The following terms shall be further understood to mean: (a) 'Board" means the board of county commissioners of Clark County, Nevada. (b) "Citizen" means a member of the public, regardless of age, legal citizenship or any other matter relating to a characteristic of the complainant. (c) "City" means the city of Las Vegas, Nevada. -i - (d) "Chair" means the chairperson of the Review Board or a panel thereof, the Vice Chair in the Chair's absence, or the designee of the chair. (e) "Clear and convincing" evidence means the intermediate level of burden of persuasion where the facts show that it is substantially more likely than not that the thing is in fact true. (f) "Complaint" means a written complaint properly filed with the Review Board. (g) "Complainant" means a person who files a complaint with the Review Board. (h) "Council" means the city council of Las Vegas, Nevada. (i) "County" means Clark County, Nevada. Q) "Department" means the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. (k) "Director" means the Executive Director of the Review Board or the Director's designee. (1) "District Attorney" means the District Attorney for Clark County, Nevada, and all deputy and assistant district attorneys within that office. (m) TAC" means the Department committee on fiscal affairs. (n) "Member" means a member of the Review Board. (o) "Officer" means the officer against whom a complaint is filed. (p) "Ordinance" means the city and county ordinance(s) creating the Review Board. (q) "Panel" means a five - member panel of the Review Board. (r) "Person" means those who may file a complaint who shall include an adult, a minor with an adult's assistance, an adult filing on behalf of a minor, or a vulnerable adult with assistance from a family member, a guardian or other court appointed representative. (s) "Review Board" means the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Citizen Review Board. (t) "Vice Chair" means the vice chairperson of the Review Board. -2 - Section 3: ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURE 3.1 Review Board Composition, Term of Membership, Compensation and \ /acancies All matters pertaining to the composition and selection of members, term of membership, compensation of members and vacancies, which arise on the Review Board, shall be governed by law, pursuant to Clark County Code, Chapter 2.62, and Las Vegas Municipal Code, Chapter 2.64. 3.2 Facilitator for General Meetinas of the Board The Executive Director of the Review Board shall be the designated facilitator for all meetings of the full Board. However, the facilitator shall not participate in the deliberations or decisions made by the board. It shall be the responsibility of the facilitator to ensure the orderly proceedings of all meetings and to prepare and present the agenda. The facilitator shall ensure that all parliamentary proceedings are in accordance with Robert's Rules of Order, and that the rules and policies of the Board are complied with in addition to performing such other tasks necessary for said meeting. 3.3 Records of the Review Board The office of the Executive Director shall maintain custody of all records, documents and materials of the Review Board. The Executive Director shall be responsible for providing all physical evidence, photographs, diagrams, police reports, witness statements and any other subpoenaed items to the hearing panel members for consideration at the time of the hearing. The chairperson of the hearing panel shall submit all requests in writing to the Office of the Executive Director for preparation of subpoenas, requests for production of documents, and any other administrative requests. The disposition report and agenda of the proceedings of the Review Board's hearing panel shall be maintained by the office of the Executive Director for a period of 5 years. At the conclusion of the proceedings, all records provided by the Department and copies thereof shall be returned to the Department. All other records shall be confidentially maintained by the Office of the Executive Director, absent order of court, for a period of five (5) years. 3.4 Orientation and Training The Director is responsible for the establishment of an orientation and training program. The Director has the exclusive authority to determine the content of -3- and manner of orientation and training, which shall include, at a minimum, the following subjects: a. Department policies and procedures b. Department civil service rules regarding conduct c. NRS 289.010 through 289.120, inclusive d. Department collective bargaining agreements involving officers e. Review Board policies and procedures f. Review Board jurisdiction g. Confidentiality of information h. Legal rights of citizens and officers i. Community perspectives on the Department j. Any other relevant matters, as determined by the Director All members shall complete orientation and all training before serving on any panel. The Director may remove any member who fails to complete orientation and training, including any additional training provided to members to update or supplement information provided. 3.5 Standina to file a Complaint An alleged victim, an alleged victim's legal guardian, parent or personal representative or any individual having personal knowledge of alleged officer misconduct shall have standing to file a complaint. Personal knowledge shall mean being an eve or ear witness to an incident involving alleged officer miscnnrlimt Complaints that are filed by someone other than the alleged victim are not subject to mediation unless the alleged victim also participates. 3.6 ComDlaint Procedure A complaint must be submitted in writing on a complaint form approved by this office. The alleged victim, or the complainant's parent, guardian or legal representative must sign the complaint. The approved complaint form is available with instructions in both English and Spanish. This form may be obtained by contacting the executive office of the Review Board. The complainant shall receive written notice of receipt of their signed complaint. Notice of the filing of a signed complaint along with a copy of said complaint shall be promptly forwarded to the subject officer(s) and to the Department. A screening panel will review the complaint and render a decision on the complaint within fifteen (15) days of the complaint's first review by the panel. The screening panel may, by law, do one of three things, as set forth in section -4- 3.12(6) below. The complainant, subject officer(s) and Department will be notified of the screening panel's decision and any subsequent hearings that may be held. 3.7 Jurisdiction Consistent with NRS 289.380, the Review Board shall have jurisdiction to receive and review all citizen complaints or requests for review of an internal i1nvestigation concerning peace officers employed by the Metropolitan Police Department. The Board shall not have jurisdiction regarding conduct of any civilian employees of the Department. " Civilian employees" include clerical or other support staff personnel, secretaries, clerks, custodians, receptionists and maintenance personnel. The term civilian employees does not include any commissioned law enforcement officials of the Department, whether uniformed or non - uniformed. 3.8 Transaction of Business The official address of the Review Board shall be: 310 South Third Street, Suite 319 Las Vegas, NV 89155 or such other location as designated by the Board or Council. The Review Board shall establish regular meeting places and times, which shall be made known to all members. Meetings may be held at other times and places, as needed, in accordance with law. The offices of the Review Board are open during regular weekday business hours. The office phone number is: (702) 455 -6322. 3.9 Review Board Proceedinas In all proceedings not provided for by these rules, or by the enabling ordinances of Clark County Code Chapter 2.62 or the Las Vegas Municipal Code, Chapter 2.64, Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, shall govern the Review Board. 3.10 Special Meetings of the Review Board Upon petition of six (6) members of the Review Board, special meetings may be held at the call of the Executive Director or his /her designee in the absence of the Executive Director. Review Board members shall be given at least twenty - four hours (24) hours notice prior to any special meeting. The notice and agenda for any special meeting will be posted and distributed in accordance with N.R.S chapter 241, Nevada Open Meeting Law. Upon petition of six (6) members of the Review Board, special meetings may be held at the call of the Executive Director or his /her designee in the absence of the Executive Director. Review Board members shall be given at least twenty - four hours (24) hours notice prior to any special meeting. The notice and agenda for any special meeting will be posted and distributed in accordance with N.R.S chapter 241, Nevada Open Meeting Law. 3.11 Review Board Staff The Executive Director shall supervise the administrative, clerical or any other personnel as necessary to discharge the functions of the Review Board. The Executive Director shall promulgate internal office procedures and prepare necessary standardized forms for the intake of complaints and conduct of the investigations by the panels. The daily operations of the Review Board shall be managed by the Executive Director, who shall oversee the regular functioning of the staff assigned to help carry out the duties of the Review Board. The Review Board may, in its discretion, from time to time delegate to the Executive Director certain of the procedural and administrative functions or duties assigned to the Review Board by these Policies and Procedures. The Board shall not, however, delegate to the Executive Director any functions, duties or responsibilities which are required by the Statute or Ordinances to be performed by the Review Board. 3.12 Screening Panel The Executive Director shall randomly select the members of the panel and shall notify the members of the time and place for said meeting at least twenty- four (24) hours in advance thereof. Panel meetings shall be held at least once a month and shall be conducted as follows: (1) At the first meeting of a Screening Panel, a Chair Person shall be selected by other members of the panel to preside over the proceedings for the term of said panel. A vice -chair person may also be selected to act in the chair's absence. The Chair Person shall preside over the incident review and insure that rules are adhered to and each Board member has an opportunity to participate. He /she is also responsible for resolving any procedural conflicts arising during the review process, moderating the deliberation to ensure that each member is allowed to express himself; determining the disposition of the complaint filed by a vote of the board documented on the screening panel's disposition report and /or minutes; and providing notification of the board's actions to the Executive Director. (2) An agenda will be provided to panel members prior to the meeting. (3) A quorum of a majority of panel members must be present (4) All citizen complaints against officers shall be submitted to the Director who shall thereafter assign a file number to the complaint and submit all such complaints to the panel. (5) The panel shall review all complaints and decide whether the Review Board has jurisdiction over the matters in the complaint and, if so, whether the complaint has sufficient merit to justify further consideration by the department or the Review Board. "Sufficient merit' refers to whether the Review Board has jurisdiction to consider the complaint and whether the factual assertions in the complaint establish reasonable cause to believe misconduct may have occurred. Absent jurisdiction and reasonable cause, the complaint shall be dismissed. (6) After review, the panel may, by majority vote: (a) determine not to take further action and summarily dismiss the complaint for insufficient merit or refer the matter for mediation when deemed appropriate; (b) refer the complaint to the Department for their internal investigation, or (c) refer the complaint to the Hearing panel of the Review Board to review the internal investigation of the Department (7) This review and determination shall be completed within fifteen (15) days of the complaint being first considered by the panel. This time period shall be tolled, as provided by law. (8) The panel may only consider the complaint and any attachments thereto, the internal investigation records and such information as may be voluntarily provided by the Department, complainant or officer. The panel may not issue subpoenas or require other information be provided in the review. 3.13 Hearing Panel Upon referring a complaint for review of an internal investigation to the hearing panel, the hearing panel shall be conducted as follows: (1) A hearing panel will be formed, as provided by law. A quorum of a majority of panel members must be present for a meeting to occur. (2) At the first panel meeting, the members shall elect by majority vote a Chair and Vice -Chair of the panel, who shall preside over the proceedings and exercise the powers provided by law. (3) An agenda will be provided to the panel members before the hearing - 7 - (4) Notice of the date, time, and location of the meeting, the names of panel members and a brief summary of the alleged misconduct or other item before the panel shall be given in advance of the hearing to the subject officer(s), complainant and Department. (5) Hearings shall be conducted in the following manner unless the chair orders otherwise: a. The chair or director will introduce all parties, identifying the complainant, subject officer(s) and their representative(s). The chair or director will explain the proceeding is a civil hearing where the board is an advisory board to the sheriff and the LVMPD FAC empowered to review complaints against officers, review internal investigations, and make recommendations to the sheriff and inform the public of their recommendations, to the extent allowed by law. b. The chair will administer an oath to the first witness or to all the witnesses present. c. The panel shall conduct the hearing respecting an officer's rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Witnesses will be entitled to all the rights and privileges guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States and the State of Nevada, including the right not to be compelled to incriminate oneself. An officer whose conduct is under review shall have the right to have legal counsel and /or another representative of their choosing present at all times during their testimony. Additionally, any other witness shall have the same right to representation during their testimony. The representative shall not be a witness or a person subject to the same investigation. d. The chair may, at their discretion permit the department, complainant, and a subject officer whose conduct is under review or the subject officer's counsel or representative to be present during questioning of any witness. However, the protocol Internal Affairs follows does not permit a witness or their counsel or representative to be present during the testimony of any other witness. Therefore, the chair may sequester all party and /or non -party witnesses prior to the taking of testimony. e. The chair shall determine the order of testimony and the chair, other panel members or counsel for the Review Board, may pose questions. It shall be within the discretion of the chair to permit questioning by witnesses or their representatives at the conclusion of questions posed to a witness. IA protocol does not allow the questioning of witnesses by the attorney or representative for any other purpose than to clarify a question posed. f. The chair may in their discretion, permit the department, an officer whose conduct is under review or their counsel or representative with -x- the opportunity to present testimony or other evidence to the panel. However, since this is a review of an internal investigation of an officer, the officer shall at a minimum have the opportunity to be heard by the panel. g. The standard of proof in the evidentiary hearing shall be by clear and convincing evidence. No finding with respect to an allegation of a complaint shall be sustained unless it is proven by clear and convincing evidence presented at the hearing or otherwise contained in the investigative record. h. When either the complainant or subject officer(s) fail to appear, the panel may receive statements from those persons present and relying on the evidence received, continue with the investigative hearing. For good cause shown, the Chair may continue a hearing due to the unavailability of a complainant, officer, or witness. i. The Director may be present to advise the panel as to any matters, except deliberations and voting. The Chair may designate the Director to rule on objections made or other legal issues as they may arise, after consultation with and consent by the chair. The rules of evidence applicable in court proceedings shall not apply and all evidence shall be considered as provided by Chapter 2.62 of the Clark County Code, Chapter 2.64 of the Las Vegas Municipal Code and Chapter 289 Nevada Revised Statutes. j. It shall be the duty of each hearing panel member to conduct a fair and impartial hearing, to assure that the facts are fully elicited, and to adjudicate all issues and avoid undue delay. A hearing panel member shall be disqualified from sitting on that hearing panel if he /she has a demonstrated personal bias or prejudice, or the appearance thereof, in the outcome of the Complaint. This does not include holding or manifesting any political or social attitude or belief, which does not preclude objective consideration of a case on its merits. k. Each party in need of an interpreter shall make their own arrangements to have an interpreter present. The Chair shall have discretionary authority to provisionally qualify and utilize interpreters if a party is unable to procure the services of an interpreter on their own. I. Unless otherwise ordered by the Chair, the entire investigative hearing on a given complaint shall be conducted on one occasion. However, if the hearing panel determines that additional evidence is necessary to reach its findings, it will continue the investigative hearing to a future date unless the panel and the parties agree to allow the hearing panel to receive such material in writing without reconvening. m. The proceedings of the hearing panel shall be closed to the public and at the conclusion of the evidentiary proceedings the panel members shall privately deliberate and vote upon the action to be taken. The panel may consider the adverse inference of an admission of criminal activity against an officer at each point where he or she takes the 5t" -9- rather than answer the question since this is a civil /administrative proceeding and not a criminal hearing. (Pursuant to Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 a 1976 Supreme Ct. case.) n. The panel shall not consider any information that has not been received as part of the investigative hearing. The hearing panel may reconvene in the presence of all parties to ask further questions, and each party shall have the opportunity to respond to such questions. At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the panel shall issue its written findings and recommendations to the department, the subject officer(s) and complainant. These recommendations should be prepared within ten days of the conclusion of all evidence. o. The panel may recommend increasing or decreasing the recommended level of discipline, the imposition of discipline where none was recommended, the exoneration of the officer and any policy, procedures or training recommendations to the Department for future implementation and use by the Department. The hearing panel's determinations shall be decided by majority vote and the panel's written findings and recommendations shall not include any confidential information, as provided by law. 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3.14 Confidentiality As provided by law, all records, proceedings and other matters of the Review Board and panels are strictly confidential and the findings and recommendations of a panel or panel member shall not contain information declared confidential by law. Information regarding the following shall not be deemed confidential and may be included in the findings of a hearing panel. ❑ The nature of the allegations of the complaint, without specificity to the record of proceedings or actual testimony. ❑ The name and P# of the officer(s) involved, whether exonerated or found to have engaged in the misconduct alleged ❑ The name of the complainant(s) making the allegation(s) ❑ The date, time and location of incident ❑ The I.A.B. number, if any has been provided ❑ Any other information that the Board would necessarily include as part of their findings and recommendations that would convey and /or clarify the findings and recommendations of the panel or panel member, without breaching the Board's duty of confidentiality. Any violation of confidentiality may result in criminal prosecution and /or removal from the Review Board, as provided by law. However, the Review Board shall have authority to notify the complainant in writing of the disposition of their complaint. Further, the Review Board is authorized to notify in writing the E® Deleted: (6) ¶ (9) ¶ officer(s) named in the complaint of the allegations stated therein and the disposition of said complaint. 3.15 Department Imposition of DisciDline The Review Board, by this policy, hereby requests that the Department, in the interests of justice and to affect the purposes of the law creating this Review Board, stay any imposition of punishment until the Review Board's recommendations are received. The Review Board, realizing the importance of timely disciplinary measures, will promptly provide their recommendations to the Department, in accordance with law. The Review Board in effectuating this policy requests that the Department provide the Board with a record of action taken by the Department, as a result of the Board's findings and recommendations, within thirty days from receipt thereof. 3.16 Withdrawal of Complaints A complainant may withdraw a complaint orally or in writing at any time. A properly filed withdrawal terminates all proceedings on a complaint, unless, the Panel handling the complaint determines it appropriate to continue the investigation and handling of the complaint in the interests of justice. 3.17 Scope of Investigation Hearing panels may investigate all matters alleged in the complaint, or stemming from the allegations of the complaint, which involve an officer's actions, department policy or procedure, supervision or training. Investigations shall be deferred, as provided by law, pending internal Department investigations or criminal proceedings involving the officer's alleged misconduct or pending a coroner's inquest. Investigations may continue during the period of any related civil actions, within the panel's discretion and subject to court order. 3.18 File Accessibilitv Access to Review Board files and records shall be limited to Review Board members, the Executive Director and Review Board staff. All files and documents shall be maintained by the Executive Director in the offices of the Executive Director and shall be made available for review by panel members prior to the scheduled hearings. It is recommended that panel members take the time to review the investigative file before the formal hearing on the incident. No person shall remove any records from the files or make any copies thereof, absent approval of the Executive Director. 3.19 Final Findings and Recommendations ENE As provided by law, the written findings and recommendations of the hearing panel are public records and shall be available to the public during normal business hours at the Review Board's offices. A copy shall be mailed to the complainant, Department and subject officer(s). The Review Board's findings shall be classified and recorded on a disposition report as follows: ❑ Sustained: The investigation and /or evidence proved that the officer(s) did commit the alleged acts of misconduct. ❑ Not sustained: The investigation and /or evidence failed to prove or disprove that the alleged act(s) occurred ❑ Exonerated: The investigation and /or evidence proved that the alleged acts occurred but was /were justified, legal and /or properly within Department policy. ❑ Unfounded: The investigation and /or evidence proved that the officer(s) did not commit the alleged acts of misconduct. ❑ Policy Failure: The investigation and /or evidence proved that the alleged acts occurred but were justified by the Department policy or procedures; however, the Citizen Review Board recommends that the policy or procedure be changed. ❑ Supervision Failure: The investigation and /or evidence proved that the alleged acts occurred and were the result of inadequate supervision. ❑ Training Failure: The investigation and /or evidence proved that the alleged acts occurred and were the result of inadequate training. ❑ Complainant Not Cooperative: No Contact can be made with complainant for a proper investigation to take place, or complainant withdraws complaint. (Note: In some limited circumstances, even when the complainant is not cooperative and not interviewed, Internal Affairs may determine that there is sufficient evidence to reach a disposition. After completing the review, the Panel, by signature on the complaint form, shall state in writing as follows: ❑ Agree with Internal Affairs findings /no comment ❑ Agree with Internal Affairs findings /with comment ❑ Disagree with Internal Affairs findings /with comment ❑ Any recommendation for discipline or training 3.20 Mediation The Board's screening panel may refer a complaint for mediation as an alternative form of dispute resolution in certain cases. Both the complainant and subject officer(s) must agree to mediation to be conducted by the Neighborhood Justice Center or other appropriate facilitator chosen by the Board. Participation in mediation will result in the complaint being dismissed by the Board. Mediation MW shall not be available to an officer who has participated in mediation for a serious misconduct allegation or a similar misconduct allegation within the previous twelve months. Serious misconduct violations include any incident involving excessive use of force or resulting in any personal injury. The mediation process shall terminate when either party announces its unwillingness to continue mediation or when the parties resolve the disputed issues. The Mediation Program Protocols, attached hereto, is hereby adopted and incorporated by reference. 3.21 Return of Records Except as otherwise provided herein, the complaint and all other records of proceedings shall be confidentially maintained by the Review Board and Review Board staff. All records and any copies thereof provided by the Department to the Review Board shall be returned to the Department upon the conclusion of the investigation of the complaint, as provided by law. Internal memorandum of the Review Board, the Executive Director or Review Board staff shall be confidentially maintained as work product by the Review Board. " Internal memorandum " refers to research, legal and investigative materials prepared in anticipation of the investigation of a complaint. Informal notes of Review Board members, staff or the Executive Director may be removed from the official records and file and destroyed at anytime. " Informal notes " refers to any written matters not prepared in anticipation of an investigation by the Review Board, e.g., a member's handwritten notes of testimony, a staff member's " things to do " notes or any notes which merely reflect a person's thoughts or personal matters. 3.22 Judicial Interpretation If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase in this Policy and Procedures manual is held to be invalid or ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this Policy and Procedures Manual. 3.23 General rules pertaining to members The general rules pertaining to members of the Review Board, attached hereto, is hereby adopted and incorporated by reference. 3.24 Operating Agreement The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the Citizen Review Board have entered into an Operating Agreement, which is attached hereto and is hereby adopted and incorporated by reference. 3.25 Amendments to Policv and Procedure EM Any amendments to these policies and procedures must be by majority vote of the Review Board. WHEREAS, there being a majority vote of the Review Board, and the members having voted to approve these provisions, the foregoing Policy and Procedures is hereby adopted as amended by the Review Board this 4t" day of March, 2008. Approved as to form and Content: And, ea S. Beck bran Andrea S. Beckman Executive Director, Citizen Review Board GENERAL RULES PERTAINING TO MEMBERS OF THE REVIEW BOARD Notification of any change in address and phone number must be provided to the Office of the Executive Director within two weeks of said change. 2. Notification of any grounds for disqualification of a member must be promptly made to the Office of the Executive Director. Such grounds include, but are not limited to, change of residence outside of the City of Las Vegas and unincorporated Clark County; employment by yourself or a sibling, spouse, parent or child with LVMPD, felony conviction, elected official, being a party in litigation against LVMPD, Clark County or the City of Las Vegas Detention Facility. 3. Notification of grounds for disqualification of a member from sitting on a particular panel due to inability to be fair and impartial must be promptly made to the Office of the Executive Director. 4. Notification of unwillingness or inability to remain on the Review Board as a member must be promptly made to the Office of the Executive Director. 5. If a member is selected to sit on a hearing or screening panel, they must notify the Office of the Executive Director at least twenty -four (24) hours prior to a scheduled hearing if they are unable to attend. 6. All members, pursuant to statute, must maintain the integrity and confidentiality of all information obtained in their capacity as a board member, except for information that is public record. MEE 7. All members are required to complete the mandatory orientation and training and must sign a written verification to this effect. Training must be accomplished by attendance at live lectures or review of videotape lectures. Additionally, all members must attend all subsequent training sessions as they arise. 8. Members are to schedule a police ride -along through the Office of the Executive Director, which are mandatory. Additionally, members are encouraged to schedule a sit -along at the Internal Affairs Bureau of LVMPD. 9. Members are responsible for reviewing the pertinent statute and ordinances regarding the Citizen Review Board. (these will be provided in your training materials) 10. Pursuant to ordinance, eligible review board members who decline three successive appointments to serve on a panel for reason other than personal bias or conflict of interest, or who fail to attend three successive meetings of a panel to which they have been appointed, shall automatically be removed from the review board, unless a member of the FAC who originally appointed the member finds good cause for said failure to attend or serve. Em 400 East Stewart Aven�- Los Vegas, Nevada 89101 -29F (702) 795 -31' OPERATING AGREEMENT September 5, 2000 This document will serve as an Operating Agreement between the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Citizen Review Board. The jurisdiction of the Citizen Review Board will be those cases where a citizen initially contacts the Citizen Review Board or in which a citizen does not agree with an Internal Affairs Bureau finding and appeals that finding from the Internal Affairs Bureau to the Citizen Review Board, Internal Affairs Bureau will have to revise a letter that is routinely sent, after adjudication of a case, to the complainant. The revised letter will include an explanation of how to appeal a finding to the Citizen Review Board. Citizen Review Board complaints will only be taken from alleged victims of Police misconduct; or in a case of minors, their parents /legal guardians, or direct witnesses of police misconduct. The Citizen Review Board will notify the Office of the Sheriff, by either telephone or fax, of their findings a minimum of two working days prior to notifying the media. The findings and recommendations of the Review Board shall be in writing and shall be made available to the public in a timely manner. However, the officer involved shall be notified of the findings before they are made public record. All requests, by the Citizen Review Board, for records of internal investigations done by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department shall be faxed to the Captain of the Internal Affairs Bureau or designee. All such records, including personnel records, shall be transmitted to the Executive Director of the Citizen Review Board by personal delivery. Personnel files will be redacted to remove personal information about the officer, to include; home address and telephone numbers, family information, social security number, and medical information. -t - Page Two Pursuant to City and County Ordinances, the Department shall make available to a hearing panel all personnel records or other material necessary for the panel to conduct a review. Absent compelling circumstances, said records shall be considered and reviewed by a panel in the following circumstances. a. After a finding of misconduct has been found by the Board, for the purposes of recommending appropriate sanctions; b. After a finding of misconduct by the Department, where a case has been submitted to the Board for review of findings and sanctions to be imposed; C. Where the officer has testified and placed in evidence his /her prior personnel . record; d. Where the officer has a prior pattern of sitnilar misconduct so that the probative value would outweigh any possible prejudicial value. Such conduct must be of a similar nature and would be relevant to show a pattern of harassment, discrimination, bias, prejudice or motive or intent toward a person, group, race, sect, creed, etc. The Executive Director shall review personnel records prior to any hearing, to determine content and relevancy; e. Where a case is being considered for mediation as a possible resolution, to ascertain the appropriateness of mediation and to verify the officer does not have a prior similar act of misconduct where mediation was previously afforded. These files, once under the Citizen Review Board custody, will be kept under lock and key. No copies will be made nor any disseminations made outside the Citizen Review Board office. 8. In the case of a review of an internal investigation by the Board, where an officer is subject to discipline, the Department shall stay imposition of sentence for a period of fifteen days from the date the Executive Director receives said Department findings. The Board shall notify the Department within said fifteen day time period of their findings and indicate their agreement or disagreement with the Department proposed determination, or request additional time to have the matter heard by a hearing panel. In the event circumstances arise which would make it impossible for the Review Board to meet this time frame, written notification shall be faxed to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department requesting an extension of the stay of imposition of sentence setting forth the basis therein. In the event that the screening panel determines that an evidentiary hearing is necessary to determine the appropriateness of sanctions recommended by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, the Review Board shall request an extension of said stay on sentence pending their hearing. The Board shall state in est an e their reasons requesting the Department to stay imposition of sanctions for a period exceeding the fifteen days. -2- Page Three The District Attorney's office is in the process of conducting research to develop an opinion concerning the Garrity Warning being utilized for officers testimonies during Citizen Review Board hearings. If the legal opinion allows for such, the Garrity Warning will be offered to officers prior to their testimonies. 10- The Citizen Review Board will provide the Department with copies of their policies, Procedures and forms they will utilize. Approved as to form and content: Executive Director Andrea Beckman Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Date Citizen Review Board F � r County Manager Dale Askew County of Clark Date \- y City ger Virginia Valentine City o Vegas Date Sheriff Jerry Kelle4 L V,ga Mtr 'P ois el P ice Department Date -3- 400 Stewart AV@ L., LOS VcOO5, NeVOGG 69101 -296= (702) 79x31 ADDENDUM TO OPERATING AGREEMENT cement will serve as an Addendum 10 the Operating Agreement entered into on ier d, 2000 hetween the Las Vegas Nlctropolitan Police Depamnent (LVMPD) and Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Citizen Review Board (CRB). )tern #'R of the Operating Agreement dated 09 /05/00 is rescinded All citizen complaints filed with 1_VMPD shall be investigated within thirty days and the citizen shall promptly be advised of the disposition of said case. However. where a complaint will require additional time for investigation, the complainant shall be notified in -writing by the LVMPD Internal Affairs Bureau of such delay - The Internal Affairs Bureau of LVMPD shall provide additional written notification to the complainant oft heir right to file a request for review with the CRB. This written notification shall be made to complainant at the lime they are provided with the findings and disposition of said investigation. However, in no event shall the notification be provided to complainant more than eleven months after the date of the incident resulting in the filing of the complaint. Said notification shall clearly state the complainant's right to request a review and the one year time period for filing a complaint with CRB. Although it is the policy of CRB t o notify the Department and LVMPD officers in writing whenever a complaint has been filed, notification shall not be necessary when a complaint clearIv falls outside ofthejurisdiction ofCRB and would not require a response by the Department or the Officer. Jn cases of mutual concern. the LVMPD Internal Aflairs Bureau will forward copies of investigative files to the CRB Executive Director upon completion of the investigation. CRB .requests for information as to the Department's recommended level of discipline shall be made in writing to the LV N4PD Director of Labor Relations. The Office of-the Sheriff shall not ifv the CRB of the Department's decisions to approve or disapprove the Board's recommendations by submitting written findings to the Office ofthe Executive Director a nvnimum oftwo working days Prior to notifying the media_ -4- �4 Partrzers with idle (IT)imu niq 1� 7. The LVMPD and the CR_]3 mutually agree not to comment on the other party's findings until such time as the other party has released their findinps. 8. Any reference to stated time periods in the CRB police rr>anual shall refer to calendar days. unless specifically stated otherwise. 9. The Executive Director of the Citizen Review Board .hall provide the Internal AlTairs commanding officer with the names of aw, person(s) Akho review any confidential or privileged files repardinp Metro officers. I xecutive Director Andrea Beckman Datc6— Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Citizen Review Board r C County Manager Thom Reill Date County of Clark ca 11 -6 City Manag r — Date City of I_,as eggs Sheriff Jerry K�lleir Date Las Vegas Met,opolit n Police Department Page Two - 5 - Citizen Review Board (CRB) — Mediation Program Protocols 1.The CRB Director shall review the initial complaint and a preliminary assessment should be rnade as to suitability for mediation. In those cases that appear to be appropriate for mediation, the CRB Director shall ask the complainant whether they would be interested in mediating the complaint. The CRB Director shall explain the mediation program to the complainant (including the fact that there can be no appeal from a mediation) and indicate in the CRB file whether the complainant is amenable to the process. Cases involving an allegation of excessive use -of -force (except in extraordinary circumstances) or an allegation of criminal conduct against an officer would not be considered for mediation. 2. If the CRB Director concludes that a case may be appropriate for mediation, she /he shall immediately confer with the Deputy Chief of the Professional Standards Division in order to determine whether the Bureau agrees with mediation as a possible resolution. No case may be assigned for mediation without the approval of the Deputy Chief of the Professional Standards Division or his/her designee. 3. Upon approval by the CRB Director and the Deputy Chief of the Professional Standards Division for mediation, the CRB file shall be provided to the screening panel who may either accept or reject the recommendations of the Executive director and Deputy Chief of the Professional Standards Division regarding mediation. If the panel finds mediation to be an appropriate option, they shall refer the case back to the Deputy Chief of the Professional Standards Division indicating their findings. 4. Quality Assurance Bureau policy 09 -03 (QAB PO -09 -03 attached hereto) which outlines the process utilized by the department for employee mediation shall then govern the procedural notification of mediation to officer. The CRB Notice of Mediation shall be provided to the officer and shall advise the officer(s) that participation in the mediation program is purely voluntary and that upon completion of the mediation, the complaint will be categorized as '`CRB Referred - Mediation." 5. The involved officer's commander shall ensure that the involved officer(s) are provided with the notice from Internal Affairs as soon as possible. The officer's signed Notice of Mediation shall be mailed to the Office of the Executive Director for the CRB within two weeks from the initial referral by the screening panel. Said notice shall be placed in the file under the appropriate case number corresponding to the complaint filed and maintained by the Executive Director in accordance with CRB policies and procedures. -6- 6. The Clark County Neighborhood Justice Center will explain the mediation process to the complainant and subject officer(s) upon their initial contact with the parties. If any of the involved officer(s) decline to participate in mediation, the complaint shall be referred back to the CRB screening panel and processed for possible referral to Internal Affairs in accordance with normal CRB policies and procedures. 7. If the involved officer(s) agrees to mediation, the Clark County Neighborhood Justice Center's Coordinator will refer the case to a case manager who shall determine the officer(s)' availability for mediation to be conducted within the next 30 days. The case manager shall then contact the complainant in order to verify his or her willingness to participate in the program. The case manager shall explain to the complainant that upon the conclusion of the mediation, there will be no Internal Affairs investigation and no appeal to the CRB. If the complainant declines to participate in the program, the complaint shall be processed for possible referral to Internal Affairs, in accordance with normal CRB policies and procedures. If the complainant agrees to participate in the program, the case manager shall determine the complainant's availability for mediation to be conducted within the next 30 days. 8. The Clark County Neighborhood Justice Center case manager shall communicate to all the involved parties (by the best means available) the time, date and location of the mediation. The case manager shall forward any mediation literature to all the participants to assist them in preparation for the mediation. At the beginning of the mediation session, the mediators will provide the participants a "consent to mediate" form, which shall include a confidentiality agreement for their signatures. 9. The Clark County Neighborhood Justice Center Coordinator shall be responsible for ensuring the mediation is scheduled and conducted within 30 days of the assignment of the involved mediator(s). 10. Mediations will be conducted in neutral settings by mediators who are not acquainted with the participants. No mediation shall take place in a Police Bureau facility without the express consent of the complainant. 11. If a complainant fails to appear for a scheduled mediation session, without good cause, the involved officer(s) will be provided with the choice of either rescheduling the mediation or having the case dismissed by the CRB. If any of the involved officer(s) fail to appear for a previously scheduled mediation without good cause, the CRB Director will notify the officer's commander, through channels, so that the appropriate action can be taken. The complaint may then be processed for possible referral to Internal Affairs, as per normal CRB policies and procedures. -7- 12. Upon the completion of the mediation and the receipt of a report from the Coordinator indicating that the mediation has taken place, the CRB Director shall categorize the complaint as °CRB Referral- Mediation" and the case shall be closed. No entry relating to the mediation shall be placed in an involved officers Internal Affairs file. The Coordinator shall provide a report within seven days of the completion of the mediation. 13. No appeal of a completed mediation shall be permitted before the Citizen Review Board. The mediator(s) shall encourage participants to participate in good faith, lay ground rules for acceptable, respectful conduct, and to terminate any mediation where one or both of the parties refuse to adhere to those rules. 14. Mediation shall be confidential and the contents of a mediation session are not subject to disclosure. The parties are not compelled to reach any conclusions or agreements and good faith participation shall be sufficient for successful mediation and dismissal of a complaint. -8- EMPLOYEE MEDIATION PROGRAM PROCESS Mediation Department policy, 5/101.25, outlines the process for the Employee Mediation Program. "fhe following guidelines will be adhered to when a recommendation for mediation is received from the Citizen Review Board (CRB). Citizen Review Board Executive Director I . Determines that the complainant is willing to participate in the mediation process. 2. Confers with the Deputy Chief of the Professional Standards Division and determines if the case is appropriate for mediation. 3. Provides the CRB file to the Screening Panel who may either accept or reject the recommendation for mediation. If the Screening Panel determines that mediation is the appropriate form of resolution, the case will be formally referred to the Deputy Chief of the Professional Standards Division, along with the complainant's contact information. Professional Standards Division Deputy Chief 4. Forwards the CRB case and complainant's contact information to the Quality Assurance Bureau Captain. 5. Returns the form, "Notice to Officer Regarding the Possibility of Mediation to Resolve this Complaint ", with the officer's original signature, to the CRB Executive Director. The CRB Executive Director must receive the officer's original signature on the form within14 calendar days from the date of the CRB referral. 6. If mediation takes place, upon receipt of the written results of the mediation, success or failure, from the Neighborhood Justice Center, immediately forwards the written results to the CRB Executive Director. -9- Quality Assurance Bureau `* Procedural Order To: ALL IAS PERSONNEL 11 -04 -03 QAB PO -09 -03 Subject: Employee Mediation Program Additional Information: Accreditation Standards: 26.1.4 Manual Reference: QAB Manual Approval Signature: CAPTAIN MARC JOSEPH Quality Assurance Bureau EMPLOYEE MEDIATION PROGRAM PROCESS Mediation Department policy, 5/101.25, outlines the process for the Employee Mediation Program. "fhe following guidelines will be adhered to when a recommendation for mediation is received from the Citizen Review Board (CRB). Citizen Review Board Executive Director I . Determines that the complainant is willing to participate in the mediation process. 2. Confers with the Deputy Chief of the Professional Standards Division and determines if the case is appropriate for mediation. 3. Provides the CRB file to the Screening Panel who may either accept or reject the recommendation for mediation. If the Screening Panel determines that mediation is the appropriate form of resolution, the case will be formally referred to the Deputy Chief of the Professional Standards Division, along with the complainant's contact information. Professional Standards Division Deputy Chief 4. Forwards the CRB case and complainant's contact information to the Quality Assurance Bureau Captain. 5. Returns the form, "Notice to Officer Regarding the Possibility of Mediation to Resolve this Complaint ", with the officer's original signature, to the CRB Executive Director. The CRB Executive Director must receive the officer's original signature on the form within14 calendar days from the date of the CRB referral. 6. If mediation takes place, upon receipt of the written results of the mediation, success or failure, from the Neighborhood Justice Center, immediately forwards the written results to the CRB Executive Director. -9- Quality Assurance Bureau Captain Assigns the case to the appropriate Internal Affairs Section Lieutenant. Provides the Professional Standards Division Deputy Chief the form, "Notice to Officer Regarding the Possibility of Mediation to Resolve this Complaint ", with the officer's original signature. Internal Affairs Section Lieutenant 9. Within 24 hours of receiving the referral, contacts the Bureau Commander of the officer and notifies them of the CRB referral to mediate. 10. Faxes the officer's Bureau Commander and their respective union the CRB Cover Letter, "Notice to Officer Regarding the Possibility of Mediation to Resolve this Complaint", and "Citizen Review Board Screening Panel Findings." The "Notice to Officer Regarding the Possibility of Mediation to Resolve this Complaint" form must be signed by the Officer in the appropriate section stating he /she agrees to mediation or does not agree to mediation 11. Receives the signed form back from the Bureau Commander within 7 calendar days and immediately provides the original form to the QAB Captain. The IAS Lieutenant will be responsible for status checking and facilitating the return of the signed form within the allotted time frame. The Bureau Commander must be directed to fax the signed form to the IAS Lieutenant and immediately place the original in a 1000 miler directed to the IAS Lieutenant. 12. If the Officer agrees to mediation, contacts the Clark County Neighborhood Justice Center within 24 hours with the complainant's /officer's information which will coordinate /facilitate the mediation process. 13. Receives notice of the success /failure of the mediation process and forwards the written response immediately to the QAB Captain. to- SAN DIEGO • Who is on the Board? The Board is comprised of twenty -three (23) members who represent a diverse cross - section of San Diego's Citizens. Board members are appointed by the Mayor to serve one year for a maximum of eight years. The Mayor also appoints a high rank- ing civilian employee as Executive Director to the Board. Up to twenty -three (23) members can be ap- pointed each year as prospective members. These prospective members attend Board meetings and receive training but cannot vote on cases. They may be appointed to the voting Board as vacancies occur. If you are interested in applying for Board appoint- ment, please contact the Citizens' Review Board. • When does the Board meet? The Board meets in closed session every 2nd and 4th Tuesday to review cases. These discussions involve confidential per- sonnel issues and are closed to the public. The Board meets in open /public session on the 4th Tuesday of each month at 6:30 p.m. The public is welcome to attend these meet- ings and to share their views about the com- plaint process. However, the Board does not discuss specific complaints in these open/ public sessions. • Can a person get into trouble for filing a complaint? Not if you have been truthful. We would not, and could not, take action against a person who has acted in good faith. • Other Remedies Filing a citizen complaint for internal review is a City of San Diego administrative remedy. To file a claim for damages with the City, call Risk Manage- ment, Liabilities /Claims information at (619) 236- 6670. You may also report abuse by law enforce- ment officer to the following offices: Grand Jury (County) (619) 515 -8707 District Attorney (County) (619) 531 -4040 Attorney General (State) (619) 645 -2001 U.S. Attorney General (Federal) (619) 557 -5610 • Commendations If you would like to commend the Department or a specific officer you may make commendations: • In person at any Police Department facility • By Telephone: (619) 531 -2000 • North City: (858) 484 -3154 • By Mail: San Diego Police Department 1401 Broadway, MS 700 San Diego, CA 92101 • By E -Mail : SDPDWebmaster @pd.sandiego.gov Citizens' Review Board on Police Practices City Administration Building 202 "C" Street, MS 9A San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 236 -6296 www. sandiego .gov /citizensreviewboard rA This information is avaiIahle in aItornativo form atS upc CfintAci riri PFQeyc -JAA Pciroar CIVERSITY Bringing Us All Together The City of San Diego THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO Citizens Review • . to on Police Practices This brochure has been prepared to inform you of the policies and procedures of the City of San Diego Citizens' Review Board on Police Practices. It is intended to give you a better- understanding of your rights and to assist you in working with the Board • What is the Citizens' Review Board on Police Practices? The Board reviews and evaluates serious complaints brought by the public against the Police Department of the City of San Diego; reviews all officer - involved shootings and in- custody deaths; and reviews and evaluates the administration of discipline a rising from sustained complaints. Subsequent to the review and evaluation process the Board may choose to make policy and procedure recom- mendations to the Mayor and Chief of Police. • What is the purpose of the Board? The purpose of the Board is to empower an independent citizens group to assure the public that complaints against San Diego Police Officers are investigated thoroughly, completely and fairly; and to recommend and advocate for policies which promote fair and humane policing and insure the safety of both citizens and police officers. • Who may file a complaint? Any person dissatisfied with police services or has witnessed or been a victim of police mis- conduct may file a complaint. The complaint process is intended as an avenue for citizens to file legitimate complaints. It is not the intent of the City of San Diego that the com- plaint process be used to lodge false or harass- ing complaints against officers who are engaged in legitimate actions while on duty. How, where, and when may a complaint be filed? In person, by phone, by mail or by email. E -mail Address: citizensreviewboard@sandiego.gov • Where and When 1. At any Police Department facility or by calling Police Communications at (619) 531 -2000, 24hours per day or (858) 531 -2000, 24 hours per day 2. At the Citizens' Review Board on Police Practices located at: City Administrative Building 202 "C" Street, MS 9A San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 236 -6296 Complaints may be filed at the Citizens' Review Board office during normal business hours (Monday- Friday from 9: 00 a.m.- 4:00 p.m.). 3. Websites: www.sandiego.gov /police www.sandiego.gov /citizensreviewboard • What happens to the complaint after it is filed with the Citizens' Review Board? 1. Complaints are forwarded to the San Diego Police Department where it is reviewed by the Commanding Officer of Internal Affairs. The complainant will then be mailed a form letter with a copy of the citizen's complaint form for review and approval. Once approval is received, the complaint is categorized and assigned for investigation 2. Category I Complaints (force, arrest, discrimi- nation, criminal conduct and slurs) are inves- tigated by Internal Affairs. 3. The assigned investigator will contact the complainant to schedule a formal interview. An uninvolved support person may accom- pany the complainant to the interview. The investigate for will then gather as much infor- mation as possible through Police Depart- ment records, Interviews of civilian witnesses, police officers involved and any other sources available. Before a final determination is made by the investigator, the case is thor- oughly reviewed by the investigators' supervi- sor and the Internal Affairs Unit. 4. At the completion of the Internal Affairs inves- tigation, Category Complaints are assigned to a three person panel of the Review Board for a thorough review and evaluation of the facts of the case. Finally, the full Citizens' Review Board receives the case for discussion and makes a recommendation to the Mayor and Chief of Police regarding the alleged miscon- duct. 5. The complainant is then notified, by separate letters, of the Internal Affairs and Review Board findings. The Police Department strives to complete most cases in 90 to 120 days and the Review Board strives to com- plete its process within an additional 45 -60 days. Frequently Asked Questions from Citizens about CRB What is the Citizens' Review Board and what are its functions? The Citizens' Review on Police Practices (CRB) reviews and evaluates serious complaints brought by the public against the San Diego Police Department (SDPD), which include allegations involving: force, arrest, criminal conduct, discrimination and slurs. The CRB also reviews andevaluates officer - involved shootings and all in- custody deaths. The purpose of the Citizens' Review Board on Police Practices is to assure that all complaints against police officers are investigated thoroughly, completely and fairly. In the course of case review, the CRB may choose to make policy and procedure recommendations to the Chief of Police and the Mayor. The Board's primary objective is to recommend and advocate policies which promote fair, humane policing and insure the safety of both citizens and police officers. Where can I learn more about the CRB? The public is informed about the CRB's work through the Board's annual reports, as well as informational presentations conducted several times each year. Groups or individuals may request information or formal presentations by contacting the Executive Director at (619) 236 -6296, and may also attend the Board's monthly public session on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Information is also made available to the public through the CRB website: www.sandiego.gov /citizensreviewboard and can be accessed through the SDPD website as well. How and where can I file a complaint against a City of San Diego Police Officer? Citizen commendations or complaints may be made through the CRB: at the CRB web site, www.sandiego.gov /citizensreviewboard; by letter, by phone, or in person at the CRB office, 202 "C" Street, MS 9A (9th floor), (619) 236 -6296; or through the SDPD- www.sandiego.gov/police-, at any SDPD facility, or by calling Police Communications at (619) 531 -2000. Will my complaint be taken seriously? All complaints against City of San Diego Police Officers are taken seriously and investigated thoroughly. How will my complaint be investigated? Category I Complaints (force, arrest, criminal conduct, discrimination and slurs) are investigated by SDPD Internal Affairs (IA). The complainant will be contacted by an IA investigator to schedule a formal interview. The investigator will gather additional information through SDPD records, interviews of civilian witnesses, police officers and any other available sources. Once the investigation is completed, it is reviewed by the IA Lieutenant. The investigation is then assigned to a three - person review team of the CRB for a thorough review and evaluation of the facts and evidence. In the final phase of review, the full CRB receives the case for discussion and recommendations to the SDPD. The complainant is notified, by separate letters, of IA and CRB findings. The investigation and review may take up to six months in order to ensure a complete and fair process Doesn't the CRB just go along with whatever the police officer says? Absolutely not. CRB teams have unfettered access to IA resources and receive the entire Internal Affairs investigation of the complaint, including taped interviews of all relevant civilian witnesses and police officers, SDPD Communications recordings, photos, diagrams and all other evidence surrounding the complaint. The teams can spend on an average of 8 -10 hours to review and prepare a case for presentation to the full CRB. A more complicated case or an officer - involved shooting can sometimes take 20 + hours to review. CRB members may request additional information from IA and may also request that investigations be re- opened and findings changed if their review of the case differs from the findings of IA. The CRB team's report is presented to the entire Board to determine whether the CRB agrees or disagrees with IA's findings. How will I learn about the results of my complaint? Can I see the investigation for myself? The complainant is notified, by separate letters, of IA and CRB findings. Because SDPD personnel records are considered confidential (Peace Officer Procedural Bill of Rights and Sections 832.5 and 832.7 of the California Penal Code), complainants are prohibited from reading the actual report and CRB Members are unable to discuss any details of specific cases. How long will it take for my complaint to be reviewed? The CRB begins its review once Internal Affairs has completed its investigation. Internal Affairs strives to complete its investigations in 90 to 120 days. This standard is met in the majority of cases. However, complex investigations may take longer. The CRB takes every complaint seriously and wants to ensure the process maintains objectivity and integrity. The Board strives to complete this entire process within 30 to 60 days of the case assignment. What will happen to the officer? Depending on the findings of the IA investigation and the CRB review, appropriate discipline is administered to officer(s) involved in a sustained complaint. Discipline could include: training recommendations, verbal counseling, written admonishment, suspension or termination. What if I am not satisfied with the results of the investigation and CRB review? We sincerely hope that will not occur. However, if it does, the complainant may contact the following persons /departments: Mayor ....................... City Attorney's Office.... City Councilperson....... District Attorney's Office FBI........................... Grand Jury (County) ..... State Attorney General. U.S. Attorney General... .(619) 236 -6330 .(619) 236 -6220 .(619) 236 -6440 (619) 531 -4040 (858) 565 -1255 .(619) 515 -8707 (619) 645 -2001 .(619) 557 -5610 Who runs the CRB? To whom does the Board report? The Citizens' Review Board on Police Practices is comprised of twenty -three (23) Board Members who are appointed by the Mayor. The Mayor also appoints a high- ranking civilian employee as Executive Director to the Board. When and where does the CRB meet? The CRB meets every 2nd and 4th Tuesday of each month to review cases. Since these sessions involve confidential personnel information, they are closed to the public. The Board meets in open /public session every 4th Tuesday at 6:30 p.m. at the Point Loma Library, 3701 Voltaire Street, San Diego, CA 92107. Can I attend a CRB meeting to hear about my complaint? While the public is welcome to attend open /public meetings and share their views on the complaint process, the Board cannot and does not discuss specific complaints in open session. Can the CRB really make recommendations to the SDPD about their policies and training, or is the Board just a 'rubber stamp' for the Police Department? The CRB can and does make recommendations to SDPD on a regular basis, including changes to policy and procedure. The Board also has had a significant impact in expanding and enhancing SDPD officer training. How are CRB Members selected? The Citizens' Review Board on Police Practices is composed entirely of volunteers. All members must be at least 18 years of age and reside in the city of San Diego. Applicants are screened and interviewed by a selection committee made up of Board Members and community leaders who make recommendations to the Mayor who makes all appointments to the CRB. After final selection and prior to submission to the Mayor, all applicants undergo a background check. CRB Members are a representative cross - section of the San Diego community and must possess solid research, speaking and listening skills. Board Members average 20+ hours of volunteer time each month. Do CRB Members receive any special training? CRB Members participate in the following training opportunities: • Classes covering all aspects of law enforcement; • "Ride- alongs" with patrol officers, Sergeants and Field Lieutenants • Formal training programs provided by the Board's Training Committee, the Executive Director and /or Internal Affairs; • National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) conferences; • Board Committees; • Academy Classes; • Regional Officer Training Classes; • Crisis Response Team Trainings; • Other training directed toward becoming knowledgeable with the procedures and practices of the San Diego Police Department or to increase Board Members' skills in reviewing, evaluating, and presenting citizen complaints. CRB members are required to participate in 40 hours of training per calendar quarter. How can I become a member of the CRB? Anyone interested in Board Membership should submit a letter of interest and current resume to the Executive Director at 202 "C" Street, 9th Floor, MS 9A, San Diego, CA 92101. For more information, call (619) 236 -6296. Can I make my own recommendations to SDPD through the CRB? Any citizen can attend the open /public session held on the 4th Tuesday of each month from 6:30 to 8 PM at the Point Loma library, 3701 Voltaire Street, San Diego, CA 92107. If you wish to speak at an open session, you may contact CRB's Executive Director at (619) 236 -6296 or fill out a speaker's form prior to the beginning of the meeting in order to be placed on the agenda for public comment. The Rights /Responsibilities of Citizens and Police SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT EMERGENCY DIAL 911 / NON - EMERGENCY DIAL (619) 531 -2000 This information is available in alternative formats upon request. Q. A friend of mine was stopped. I tried to explain to the officer that they had the wrong person, but I was told to leave or I would be arrested. What should I have done? A. The best thing for you to do in order to help your friend is to become a good witness to the event. Don't become involved in a debate with the officer. This could be considered unlawful interference. Q. Does the officer have to give me his badge number? A. The San Diego Police Department requires its officers to provide his /her name and employee 1. D. number when requested. Q. If I get a traffic ticket, do I have to sign it? A. Your signature is required on the citation in order to be released. Failure to sign means the officer cannot release you and will take you to jail. Signing the citation in no way admits any guilt. Q. How many officers are necessary to arrest one person? A. When the situation appears potentially dangerous, units may be asked to back up the first officer arriving on the scene. Experience has shown that an offender is less inclined to resist apprehension and arrest when faced with several officers. This reduces the risk of physical injury to officers and citizens. Q. If a police officer has to use his /her gun, why not just shoot the suspect in the arm or leg? A. When a police officer is forced to use his /her firearm, it is a life threatening situation that requires the officer to stop the threat immediately. Additionally, in a tense situation, shooting at the moving arms or legs of an individual is extremely difficult. Q. When is a police officer required to advise me of my rights? A. When the officer places an individual in custody and intends to question him /her as a suspect in a criminal case, the officer, before starting an interview, must give "Miranda" rights. Q. If an officer stops and detains me, do I have the right to walk away? A. The officer cannot legally detain you unless he /she has reason to believe you may be involved in a crime. Ask the officer if you are under arrest. If the answer is "no" then ask if you are free to go. If the answer is "no" again, you now know that this is an official detention. Q. Can an officer reach into someone's pockets without a search warrant? A. The officer can only go into their pockets after placing a suspect under arrest, or with their permission or when a weapon is felt during a "pat down." Q. Does an officer need a warrant to enter my home? A. In most situations a warrant to enter the home is needed, however, an officer can enter a home without a warrant to check on the health or welfare of someone, or with consent of the occupant, or during the active pursuit of a suspect. Q. Can an officer order me to get out of my car during a traffic stop? A. Yes. The law does allow the officer for his /her own safety to order someone to stay in or exit their vehicle during a traffic stop. Q. Am I required to carry identification with me? A. No. Carrying identification (except when driving) is not mandatory in the U.S. However, in some cases, it may become necessary that the police verify your identity. Q. How do I file a complaint against an officer? A. Complaints against police officers can be made several ways: either by phone, in person at the police station, in writing, or through the Citizens' Review Board. Q. What will happen to the officers if I file a complaint? A. The complaint will be investigated. If their actions were improper, they will be disciplined. However, by law (832.7 P.C.) we are prohibited from telling you what disciplinary action was taken. Q. What if I am not satisfied with the results of the investigation? A. We sincerely hope that does not happen. If it does, you may contact any of the following Offices or Departments: Mayor's Office ................ ............................... (619) 236 -6363 District Attorney's Office ............................... (619) 531 -4040 City Attorney's Office ..... ............................... (619) 236 -6220 San Diego County Grand Jury ...................... (619) 515 -8707 Councilperson ................ ............................... (619) 236 -6440 Federal Bureau of Investigations .................. (858) 565 -1255 State Attorney General .. ............................... (619) 645 -2001 Q. On the other hand, what if I wish to compliment an officer? A. If you have experienced good service from a member of the Police Department, we want to hear about it. Please write down all the details including dates, times and circumstances MOM City of San Diego Citizens' Review Board on Police Practices ���SAN On= Complaint Form OFFICE USE ONLY Received: To IA: INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING COMPLAINT FORM: Please describe the incident that led to this complaint, telling what happened from beginning to end. Be as clear and specific as you can be. What aspect(s) of the incident was improper (your specific complaint). How could it be resolved to your satisfaction? COMPLAINANT NAME HOME PHONE ( ) ADDRESS BUS. PHONE ( ) CITY STATE ZIP DOB INCIDENT LOCATION: SDPD PERSONNEL INVOLVED NAME NAME NAME NAME WITNESS (ES): NAME ADDRESS DATE TIME BADGE # ID # DIVISION BADGE # ID # DIVISION BADGE # ID # DIVISION BADGE # ID # DIVISION HOME PHONE NAME HOME PHONE ADDRESS NAME HOME PHONE ADDRESS INCIDENT DESCRIPTION /COMPLAINT: BUS. PHONE DOB BUS. PHONE DOB BUS. PHONE DOB Send complaint to: Executive Director, Citizens' Review Board on Police Practices, 202 C Street, MS 9A San Diego, California 92101. For more information, please call (619) 236 -6296. Fax: (619) 236 -7344 (USE BACK OF FORM IF MORE SPACE IS NEEDED) CM -1586 (Rev. 10/2007) This information is available in alternative formats upon request. PITTSBURGH CITY OF PITTSBURGH CITIZEN POLICE REVIEW BOARD RULES AND OPERATING PROCEDURES Adopted April 7, 1998 Amended September 28, 1999 661.00 TITLE These rules shall be known as the Rules and Operating Procedures (the 'Rules ") for the City of Pittsburgh Citizen Police Review Board (the 'Review Board "). 661.01 DEFINITIONS For purposes of these Rules, the following terms shall have the meanings set forth below, except as may be otherwise expressly provided: "Aggrieved Person" means any person who claims in an Informal Complaint or Citizen Complaint to have suffered harm, humiliation, injury, indignity or other damage as a result of the actions of a City of Pittsburgh Police Officer in the performance of his or her official duties, or in the exercise of peace officer authority. "Chair" means the Chairperson of the Pittsburgh Citizen Police Review Board, or any other Member (as herein defined) acting in place of the Chairperson when the Chairperson is unable to preside. "Chief of Police" means the Chief of the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police. "Citizen Complaint" means a complaint, signed under penalty of perjury, received from any person alleging any Misconduct with respect to a City of Pittsburgh Police Officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties or in the exercise of peace officer authority. "City" means the City of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. "Complainant" means any individual who files an Informal Complaint or Citizen Complaint (as herein defined). "Consent Decree" means the Consent Decree between the United States and the City of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh Bureau of Police and Department of Public Safety, No. 97 -0354 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 26, 1997). "Executive Director" means the executive director of the City of Pittsburgh Citizen Police -1- Review Board. "Informal Complaint" means an unsigned complaint received from any person alleging improper or illegal conduct with respect to an officer of the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police acting in the performance of his or her official duties or in the exercise of peace officer authority. "Mayor" means the Mayor of the City of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. "Member" means a member of the City of Pittsburgh Citizen Police Review Board. "Misconduct" means any alleged improper or illegal act, omission or decision by an Officer (as herein defined) directly affecting the person or property of a natural person by reason of (1) A violation of any general, standing or special order or guideline of the Police Bureau or the Department of Public Safety; (2) A violation of any federal law, state law or the Pittsburgh Code; or (3) Any act otherwise evidencing improper or unbecoming conduct. "Officer" means a sworn member of the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police. "OMI" means the Office of Municipal Investigation or a successor unit of the executive branch of the City of Pittsburgh charged with investigating Misconduct. "Ordinance" means Article 6, Citizen Police Review Board, Chapter 661.00 et. seq., as recorded in Ordinance Book Volume 78, page 189 on August 15, 1997, approved by City Council and signed by Mayor Tom Murphy, as amended. 'Panel' means any three - member subcommittee of the Review Board selected by the Chair and authorized to conduct business of the Review Board. Two Members shall constitute a Quorum (as herein defined). "Police" means the City of Pittsburgh Bureau of Police or a sworn officer thereof. "Presiding Member" means the member of any Panel appointed by the Chair to preside at the business of that Panel. "Quorum" means greater than fifty percent of the Members of the Review Board or Members of any Panel able to participate in a particular matter. "Review Board" means the Pittsburgh Citizen Police Review Board as nominated and appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance. -2- "Subject Officer" means a sworn officer of the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police against whom a citizen has filed an Informal Complaint or Citizen Complaint alleging Misconduct or about whom an investigation is undertaken based upon the vote of a Quorum of the Review Board without the filing of an Informal Complaint or Citizen Complaint. 661.02 PURPOSE The purpose of these Rules is to set forth operating procedures for the City of Pittsburgh Citizen Police Review Board. Because it is paramount to the maintenance of public safety and public confidence in law enforcement that allegations of police misconduct be thoroughly investigated and evaluated by an independent board which shall reflect to the greatest extent possible the City's diversity, this Review Board is created under Title Six of the Pittsburgh Code pursuant to Sections 228 -230 of the City of Pittsburgh Home Rule Charter. (a) Because it is important that Subject Officers be evaluated by a credible, independent investigative board, the Review Board shall strive to prevent future incidents of Misconduct and abuses of civil rights and to promote public confidence in law enforcement through the Review Board's capacity to investigate, hold public hearings and evaluate allegations of Misconduct. (b) To achieve this purpose, the Review Board shall receive, review, investigate and report on Citizen Complaints in accordance with these Rules. These Rules are intended to provide fair, impartial, independent and prompt investigation of Citizen Complaints in a manner which protects the public and Officers and enhances the relationship between the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police and the public it serves. 661.03 SCOPE The legislation creating the Review Board, and these Rules, are not intended to violate any individual's right against self - incrimination, particularly an Officer's or Complainant's, nor is the legislation or these Rules intended to violate any other rights of individuals protected under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and its constitution and the laws of the United States of America and the Constitution. The legislation and these Rules shall be interpreted consistently with such principles. (a) Nothing herein shall be interpreted to undermine the disciplinary authority of the Chief of Police in the exercise of his or her duties or to alter the executive authority of the Mayor or the legislative authority of City Council. (b) These Rules are not intended to diminish the executive authority and obligation of the City to thoroughly investigate all Citizen Complaints. (c) These Rules shall be adopted following notice and an opportunity for public continent. -3- Thereafter, they may be amended by the Review Board with at least 30 days' public notice and the provision of opportunity for comment at the meeting at which the Rules are to be amended. (d) If any provision of these Rules (or any portion of any provision) or the application of any Rule (or any portion thereof) to any person or circumstance shall be held invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability shall not affect any other Rule (or the remaining portion thereof) or the application of such Rule to any other persons or circumstances. (e) In these Rules, unless the context otherwise clearly requires, references to the plural include the singular, the singular the plural, and the part the whole. Words shall be construed as masculine, feminine or neuter gender, according to the context and, unless indicated otherwise, use of the masculine shall include the feminine gender also. 662.00 AUTHORITY AND POWER The Review Board shall receive and in the exercise of its discretion, may consider, investigate and make a detenmination regarding Citizen Complaints. These Rules provide for the impartial, independent and prompt investigation and disposition of Citizen Complaints in a manner which protects the public and the Subject Officer. 662.01 REVIEW BOARD CREATED The Review Board has been established pursuant to Article Two, Section 228 of the Pittsburgh Home Rule Charter and the Ordinance. 662.02 UNBIASED REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS The Review Board shall consider all Citizen Complaints in a fair and impartial manner. A Member who has a personal bias, prejudice, or the appearance thereof, in the resolution of any Citizen Complaint, shall not participate in consideration of the Citizen Complaint. Personal interest in the outcome of any Citizen Complaint does not include holding or manifesting any political or social attitude or belief, so long as such belief or attitude does not preclude objective consideration of a Citizen Complaint on its merits. (a) Examples of personal bias include, but are not limited to: (1) Familial relationship or friendship with parties material to the inquiry; (2) Witnessing events material to the inquiry from a non - neutral perspective; 4 (3) Being a party to the inquiry; (4) Financial interest in the outcome of the inquiry; and (5) Holding a bias against a particular parry that is sufficient to impair the Member's impartiality. (b) Challenge. The Complainant, the Subject Officer, any Member or the Executive Director may file a challenge for cause against a Member. The challenge must be filed with the Executive Director in writing within 10 working days of the point at which the individual filing the challenge becomes aware of potential bias or prejudice of the Member. The challenge must describe in detail the basis for the conflict of interest or bias. (c) Procedure. When a challenge is filed, the Executive Director shall contact the challenged Member as soon as possible. If the Member agrees that the challenge is for good cause, or otherwise agrees, the Member shall remove himself or herself from the particular matter. If the challenged Member does not agree that the challenge is for good cause, the Chair shall poll the other Members, and if a Quorum agrees that the challenge is for good cause, the Chair shall notify the challenged Member and remove the Member from that matter. If a challenge to a Member is rejected under the above procedure and the Member serves, the written challenge and the Member's written response, as well as official minutes of the meeting at which the matter was considered, shall be incorporated in the investigative file as part of the record of the Citizen Complaint. (d) Should any Member be removed or remove himself or herself from consideration of a Citizen Complaint due to a challenge, or good cause, the Citizen Complaint shall proceed before a Quorum of the Review Board. 662.03 BUDGET AND STAFF The expenses of the Review Board shall be paid with the funds appropriated to it by the City Council and the Mayor of the City of Pittsburgh. (a) The Review Board shall hire employees including, but not limited to, an Executive Director, clerical staff and investigators and may delegate to its staff such power, duties and authority as necessary to carry out these Rules and the purposes of the legislation. 662.04 REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS The Review Board shall be constituted in accordance with Section 662.04 of the Ordinance. Review Board vacancies shall be filled in accordance with the provisions of Section 662.04 of the Ordinance. Service as a Member and compensation therefor shall be in accordance with Section 662.04 of the Ordinance. -5- (a) The Review Board shall elect a Chair and a Vice Chair. Elections for said offices shall be held upon adoption of these Rules and then every two years thereafter, commencing in November of 1999. Either the Chair or the Vice Chair or any designated Member may administer oaths to all those giving testimony, execute documents on behalf of the Review Board and compel attendance of witnesses and the production of documents by signature on subpoenas. (b) These Rules shall become effective March 10, 1998, or as soon thereafter as adopted by the Review Board, following publication and opportunity for public comment at the March, 1998, Review Board meeting. (c) Copies of these Rules shall be available to the public at no expense. (d) The Executive Director shall establish practices whereby all Complainants, Police, witnesses and other individuals are informed of the contents of these Rules. (e) The Review Board shall determine what training is necessary consistent with the provisions of the Ordinance for the Members and /or its staff, and the Review Board shall provide such training to the Review Board and its staff. Such training shall be open to the public only at such time and in such manner as the Review Board shall deem appropriate. (f) No Member shall be liable to any person for damages or equitable relief by reason of any action taken or recommendation made by the Member or the Review Board, if the action taken was within the scope of the function of the Review Board, and if the Review Board Member acted in the reasonable belief that such Member's action was warranted by the facts known to such Member. 662.05 DUTIES, LIMITATIONS AND OPERATIONS OF THE REVIEW BOARD In the interest of improving the relationship between the Police and the public, the Review Board shall provide advice and recommendations to the Mayor and the Chief of Police for the purpose of improving the ability of the Police to carry out their duties. The Review Board shall also provide advice and recommendations as requested by the Mayor and /or the Chief of Police on policies, training and actions of the Police. (a) Upon motion receiving the vote of a Quorum: (1) The Review Board may initiate investigations of incidents of police misconduct for which no Citizen Complaint has been filed; or (2) The Review Board may initiate studies, investigations, hold public hearings and make recommendations on policy matters, including improvement of the relationship between the Police and the community, Police training, hiring and discipline. -6- (b) An individual who has personal knowledge of alleged Misconduct on the part of any Officer may file an Informal Complaint with the Review Board by submitting information to the Review Board by telephone, in writing, by facsimile or in person at one or more locations to be determined and publicized by the Review Board. (1) An Infonnal Complaint will not be deemed a Citizen Complaint until it has been reduced to writing and signed under penalty of perjury by the Complainant. Until an Informal Complaint is reduced to writing and signed under penalty of perjury by the Complainant, the matter shall be treated as an Informal Complaint and held in a "pending" file until a formal Citizen Complaint is made. (2) At the time an Informal Complaint is received, Review Board staff shall inform the Complainant of the steps necessary to file a Citizen Complaint to initiate the preliminary inquiry and investigation procedures hereinafter described. (3) The Review Board may establish such procedures as it deems appropriate to provide for OMI participation in the intake described above, but OMI's role shall be secondary to that of the Review Board and its staff. (4) Subject to applicable law, the Review Board staff shall obtain all pertinent information regarding the subject of the Citizen Complaint from OMI and the Review Board shall make available to OMI all evidence obtained during the course of its investigation. (5) Any evidence received from or provided to OMI shall be kept strictly confidential and shall not be deemed a public record, nor shall it be available to the public pursuant to The Right to Know Act, 65 P. S. §66.1 (Supp. 1997). (6) The Review Board shall, to the extent possible, minimize any duplication of effort between the Review Board and any other existing agencies, City offices or City departments which have jurisdiction over the same matter, but the Review Board may carry on investigatory and other proceedings on a matter being examined simultaneously by OMI. (c) The Review Board shall meet monthly to receive, review and evaluate Citizen Complaints. The time and place of such meetings shall be publicly announced no less than 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Such monthly meetings will follow a routine agenda which includes the following components: (1) Call to order and roll call; (2) Acceptance of agenda; -7- (3) Approval of previous meeting's minutes; (4) Approval of administrative matters; (5) Report of Executive Director; (6) Deliberation of individual Citizen Complaints; (7) Public hearings on individual Citizen Complaints on such other matters as a Quorum of the Review Board shall deem appropriate; and (8) Opportunity for public comment subject to the discretion of the Review Board, provided that opportunity for public comment shall be provided at no less than two meetings per year. In addition to its regular monthly meetings, special meetings may be called by the Chair by giving at least 24 hours' notice of the time and place of the meeting to the Members and the general public. The Review Board may proceed to executive session, pursuant to applicable law, at the discretion of the Chair. All persons wishing to be heard in any matter before the Review Board must first be recognized by the Chair. (d) No finding with respect to a Citizen Complaint shall be sustained unless it is proven by a preponderance of the evidence in accord with the procedure set forth in these Rules. "Preponderance of the evidence" means evidence that has more convincing force than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it. (1) No Review Board finding or recommendation shall be based solely upon an Informal Complaint nor shall prior unsubstantiated, unfounded or withdrawn Citizen Complaints be the sole basis for any Review Board finding or recommendation. (e) At any time following the receipt of a Citizen Complaint, the Complainant and the Subject Officer may choose to resolve the Citizen Complaint through mediation. (1) The Review Board shall establish a mediation program pursuant to which such mediation shall proceed. (2) The Review Board shall inform all Complainants and the Police of the option of mediation as an alternative to the more formal Review Board processes. (3) Mediation pursuant to these Rules is an informal process held before a neutral third parry, attended by the Complainant and the Subject Officer for the purpose of fully, thoroughly and franldy discussing the alleged Misconduct and attempting to arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution of the Citizen -8- Complaint. (4) If the Complainant and the Subject Officer agree to resolve the Citizen Complaint through mediation, the Executive Director shall schedule a mediation session at the earliest time convenient for all parties. Written notice of the time, date and location of the first mediation session shall be provided to each participant. (5) The Complainant, the Subject Officer and the mediator shall be present at each mediation session. If the Complainant is a minor, a parent or legal guardian must be present. If the Complainant is an incapacitated adult, a legal guardian must be present. Arrangements will be made to have an interpreter present at the request of either parry. No other person may be present. No record of the proceeding will be made. (6) Procedures and guidelines for mediation will be established at the beginning of the mediation process upon agreement of all participants. (7) The mediation session(s) will continue as long as the mediator and the parties feel progress is being made on the resolution of the issues raised by the Complainant. The process shall terminate when either parry announces his or her unwillingness to continue mediation or when the parties sign an agreement setting forth the resolution of the disputed issue(s). (8) Unless extended for good cause by the Review Board, initial mediation shall last no more than 30 working days from the date the Review Board receives notice of all parties' willingness to participate in mediation. To encourage the parties to elect to mediate the Citizen Complaint, the time limits for processing a Citizen Complaint otherwise set forth within these Rules will be tolled during mediation. (9) The Review Board, or its designated agent, shall monitor the mediation process and the implementation of a mediation agreement. If one parry fails to abide by any agreement, the Citizen Complaint shall be returned to the Review Board for further action in accordance with these Rules. (10) No record shall be made of the mediation process and no information discussed therein may be used in subsequent proceedings. (11) Should the Citizen Complaint be successfully mediated, a copy of the mediation agreement will be placed in the Review Board file, but shall be circulated no further. The contents of such agreement shall not be disclosed by the Review Board to the Police or the Mayor, nor shall it be subject to public discovery. If the Chief of Police has prior knowledge of the Citizen Complaint, -9- the Review Board will notify the Chief of Police that the matter has been resolved. (f) Upon receipt of an Infonnal Complaint, by whatever means received, the Review Board shall notify the Complainant in writing within 10 working days of receiving any such Informal Complaint, as to what actions the Review Board may take or the Complainant must take. (1) If the Review Board determines that no further action will be taken on the hlformal Complaint, the reasons for such a decision shall be provided to the Complainant and a copy of these Rules and regulations shall be provided to the Complainant. (2) If the Review Board determines that the Informal Complaint may be appropriate for preliminary inquiry, the Complainant shall be provided with a copy of these Rules and the Review Board shall explain that he or she must sign a Citizen Complaint under penalty of perjury. The procedures for filing a Citizen Complaint shall be explained to the Complainant and any necessary assistance shall be provided. (3) If additional information is necessary to enable the Review Board to make a decision on its options, as well as the options of the Complainant, the Review Board shall provide to the Complainant the information required, as well as the opportunity to provide such additional information to the Review Board. Upon receipt of such infonnation, the Review Board shall notify the Complainant within 10 working days either of its decision to take no action, or of the process to proceed to the filing of a Citizen Complaint. (g) Should the Review Board or its staff learn at any time that the District Attorney, the State Attorney General's office or the Department of Justice has initiated criminal proceedings against a Subject Officer, the Review Board shall defer any preliminary inquiry and /or investigation until such criminal proceedings have been withdrawn or concluded. For purposes of this paragraph, "criminal proceedings" shall include fonnal criminal charges, information, indictments, the issuance of a Grand Jury subpoena, hearings, inquests or other investigative procedures initiated by any sworn law enforcement officers acting in conjunction with or at the behest of the District Attorney, the State Attorney General's office, the Department of Justice and /or the coroner. (h) Upon the filing of a Citizen Complaint signed under penalty of perjury, the Review Board may choose to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the allegations contained in the Citizen Complaint. The Citizen Complaints selected for preliminary inquiry shall only be those where the Review Board, in its discretion, believes the ultimate result will improve the relationship between the Police and the community. (1) All information, records and proceedings with respect to Informal Complaints or Citizen Complaints shall be deemed confidential unless otherwise indicated. -10- (2) If the Review Board undertakes a preliminary inquiry, such inquiry shall be completed within 10 working days of its initiation and, in no event, more than 30 calendar days after the meeting of the Review Board at which the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry was made or the next regularly- scheduled Review Board meeting, whichever is later. (3) If the Review Board determines that the preliminary inquiry failed to establish reason to believe that Misconduct occurred, the Review Board will terminate its inquiry and so notify the Complainant, the Subject Officer and the Chief of Police. (4) If the Review Board determines that the preliminary inquiry has established reason to believe that Misconduct may have occurred, it shall attempt to resolve the Citizen Complaint through mediation discussed in paragraph (e) of this section, if the Complainant and Subject Officer voluntarily choose to participate. (i) Mediation shall include mediation sessions with the Subject Officer and the Complainant at times and places agreed upon by the parties. (ii) When mediation sessions result in resolution of the dispute, the mediator shall inform the Review Board and the Review Board shall inform the Chief of Police in writing within 15 working days, respectively. (iii) In conducting the mediation, the mediator may suggest avenues towards resolution, but may not impose an outcome on the parties. (iv) Mediation sessions shall be closed to the public. Matters discussed shall be confidential, unless both parties agree otherwise as part of a written mediation settlement. (v) Statements made and records disclosed during mediation may not be disclosed or introduced into evidence during any judicial proceeding. (5) Citizen Complaint forms will conclude with the following words: "I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge, and under penalty of perjury, the statements made herein are true." (6) A signed Citizen Complaint may be amended until 30 calendar days after its initial filing. (7) Circumstances under which a Complainant may amend his or her Citizen -11- Complaint include, but are not limited to, new evidence having been obtained, such as an additional witness coming forward or the recollection of pertinent information. (8) Any amendment must be in written form and signed under penalty of perjury. (9) A Complainant may withdraw from the Citizen Complaint process at any point in the proceedings by submitting to the Review Board a written, dated and signed notice of the Complainant's intention to withdraw. The signed withdrawal statement must include an affirmation that the Complainant has not been coerced or intimidated into withdrawing the Citizen Complaint. (10) The reasons for dismissal of a Citizen Complaint may include, but are not limited to the following: (i) No dispute as to material facts exist and no reasonable person could sustain a Citizen Complaint based upon such facts; (ii) Even if all the Complainant's alleged statements were true, no act of misconduct exists; or (iii) The alleged facts lack credibility such that no reasonable person could sustain the Citizen Complaint based upon such facts; (iv) The failure of the Complainant to cooperate. (11) The Review Board shall monitor and receive reports no less than semi - annually regarding the number of withdrawn Informal Complaints and Citizen Complaints, the number of Informal Complaints and Citizen Complaints in which the Complainant was uncooperative and the number of Informal Complaints in which the Complainant chose not to file a Citizen Complaint. In addition, the report shall provide information, consistent with these Rules, as to the current and /or final status of the Complaint filed with the Review Board. The Review Board shall review those reports and take any appropriate steps to ensure that, consistent with these Rules and applicable law, the processes of the Review Board are fully open to the public and encourage citizen involvement. The report itself shall be available to the public. (12) The Complainant must provide, at a minimum, the following information within a Citizen Complaint: (i) The Complainant's name, address, telephone number and date of birth; (ii) Alternate means of contacting the Complainant; -12- (iii) A written statement setting forth the allegations, including date, time and location of the alleged Misconduct, and any other pertinent details, including the names of witnesses; (iv) Identification of Subject Officer (badge and /or name and /or description). (i) If the Review Board determines that the preliminary inquiry has established a basis for belief that Misconduct occurred, and either the Complainant or the Subject Officer refuses to participate in mediation, or if no resolution can be reached through reasonable mediation efforts, the Review Board shall conduct a full investigation into the Citizen Complaint in preparation for a public hearing. (1) The Review Board shall keep all information, records and proceedings relating to the investigation confidential. All witness statements obtained during the investigation shall be signed and tape recorded where feasible. Once initiated, the full investigation shall be completed within 30 working days of its initiation, unless extended by the Review Board, upon good cause, for an additional 30 working days upon written notice to the parties. (2) At its next regularly scheduled meeting following completion of the investigation, the Review Board shall determine whether the full investigation supports the results of the preliminary inquiry. If the Review Board believes that the full investigation has failed to establish that Misconduct occurred, the Review Board will close its investigation and so notify the Complainant, the Subject Officer and the Chief of Police. (3) If the Review Board determines, upon completion of its full investigation, there continues to be reason to believe that Misconduct occurred, it shall set the matter for hearing no sooner than its next regularly scheduled public meeting. The parties and the public shall receive at least 10 working days' written notice of the date, time and place of the hearing. 0) The Police shall, in accordance with the Ordinance and except as expressly prohibited by any other law, or as permitted by the Ordinance, respond promptly to all reasonable requests for information, for participation in evidentiary hearings, and for access to data and records for the purposes of enabling the Review Board to carry out its responsibilities. Such failure by the Police to comply with such requests for information, participation or access shall be deemed an act of misconduct. In the event of the failure by any City employee to comply with such requests for information, participation or access, the Review Board may request of the Mayor that such employee be disciplined. (1) Prior to interviewing any Officer, the interviewer shall read the following -13- statement to the Officer: You are being questioned as part of an official investigation of the City of Pittsburgh Citizen Police Review Board. You will be asked questions specifically directed and narrowly related to the perfonnance of your duties. You are entitled to all rights and privileges guaranteed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Constitution of this state and the Constitution of the United States. You have the right not to be compelled to incriminate yourself, and the right to have your own retained legal counsel present at each and every stage of this investigation. Counsel will not be provided to you by the Review Board. If you refuse to testify or to answer questions relating to the performance of your official duties, your refusal will be reported to the Chief of Police and you may be subject to Police Bureau charges, which could result in your dismissal from the Police Bureau. Neither your statements, nor any information or evidence which is gained by reason of your statements to the Review Board can be used against you in any subsequent judicial proceeding. However, these statements may be used against you in a prosecution for perjury or subsequent Police Bureau proceedings, or in further proceedings by the Review Board. (2) No statements or testimony provided by Officers, either under oath or otherwise, shall be provided to any law enforcement agency, without the written consent of the Subject Officer providing the statement. Should any Officer refuse to cooperate with the Review Board, unless excused by applicable provisions of the Ordinance or other law, the matter will be referred to the Chief of Police for further disciplinary proceedings. Such refusal may be considered an act of Misconduct subject to further examination by the Review Board in accordance with these Rules. If any person or entity subpoenaed by the Review Board refuses to testify or cooperate without legal basis, the Review Board may apply to the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas for an order enforcing the subpoena. (k) The Review Board and its staff shall educate the public about the Review Board and its duties, and written copies of these Rules shall be available to the public at no cost. The Review Board and its staff shall develop and administer an ongoing program for the education of the public regarding the Ordinance and these Rules. The Review Board shall notify the public of such education programs. (1) The Review Board may delegate to its staff any and all responsibilities necessary to carry out the Ordinance and /or these Rules_ -14 (1) The Review Board shall not delegate the following responsibilities to any person or entity other than a Panel, unless these Rules are amended to permit such delegation following public notice and comment: (i) The decision whether to conduct a full investigation; (ii) The decision whether to conduct a public hearing; (iii) The decision whether to make a recommendation to the Mayor and the Chief of Police regarding individual incidents of Misconduct. Nothing in these Rules shall limit the ability of the Review Board to delegate any of its responsibilities or powers to a Panel. (2) The Review Board shall direct and supervise the operations of its staff with regard to receiving, investigating and disposing of all Citizen Complaints in order to utilize the best available investigatory practices. (3) Complainants shall receive written notice of the following: (i) What action, if any, will be taken on an Informal Complaint; (ii) What action has been taken on a Citizen Complaint; (iii) The reason an investigation with respect to any matter initiated by the Complainant will no longer be pursued; (iv) What action, if any, has been taken by the Chief of Police with respect to a recommendation made by the Review Board. (m) The Review Board shall have full power to issue subpoenas to individuals or entities for the production of records, documents and /or testimony. (1) Nothing herein is intended to limit the rights of individuals set forth elsewhere in these Rules or the Ordinance. (2) Prior to issuance of a subpoena, the Review Board will provide the individual or entity to whom the subpoena is to be directed the opportunity to voluntarily provide the information or produce the personnel requested. Any documents or testimony produced pursuant to subpoena shall be kept confidential. Pursuant to the Ordinance, the Review Board may request and /or subpoena all relevant documents, which it agrees to keep confidential including, but not limited to, the following: -15- (i) OMI files, department management files, ethics and accountability files, and the files of any other internal investigative agency charged with investigating Misconduct; (ii) Police paperwork produced by the Police Bureau for the purpose of investigating suspects or to aid in their prosecution; (iii) Personnel files of Officers, including annual performance evaluations and records documenting training and mandatory counseling; (iv) Police directives; (v) All summaries, statistical compilations and other internal reports on training, shootings, injuries, complaints of abuse and any other issues related to the mission of the Review Board; (vi) Relevant information or data contained in the automated early warning system described in the Consent Decree; (vii) Written reports required to be filed by Officers pursuant to the Consent Decree concerning the use of force, warrantless searches, body cavity searches, strip searches, warrantless seizures of property (excluding towing of vehicles) and traffic stops; (viii) Written reports, records and data maintained by the independent auditor appointed pursuant to the Consent Decree; and (ix) Status reports filed by the City with the independent auditor and the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania pursuant to the Consent Decree. (n) Any party participating in the Review Board process is entitled to legal representation at his or her own expense. (1) The Review Board is authorized to hire a Review Board Solicitor. (2) The Review Board may use its funds to hire attorneys to assist the Executive Director or the Review Board Solicitor in special matters, as the Review Board deems appropriate. (3) The Review Board is authorized to hire independent counsel, as it deems appropriate, to represent either the Executive Director or the Review Board itself. -16- (4) If the Review Board finds that any Informal Complaint or Citizen Complaint was brought in bad faith and that the Subject Officer did not engage in Misconduct, the Review Board shall assess against the Complainant any attorney's fees and costs expended on behalf of the Subject Officer. For the purposes of this section, "bad faith" means acting fraudulently, dishonestly or in a corrupt manner in initiating and /or pursuing an Informal Complaint or Citizen Complaint. (o) Upon motion receiving an affirmative vote of a Quorum, the Review Board may initiate investigations of Misconduct for which no Informal Complaint or Citizen Complaint has been filed, or initiate studies and/or investigations, hold public hearings and/or make recommendations on policy matters, including improvement of the relationship between the Police and the community and Police training, hiring and discipline. (p) If at any time, the Review Board determines that a Complainant has made a false accusation against any Officer in a signed Citizen Complaint, the Review Board shall forward a complete copy of the Complaint, together with the written directive, to the District Attorney of Allegheny County, and request an investigation of the Complainant for violation of applicable criminal statutes relating to sworn statements. (q) An Informal Complaint must be filed with the Review Board within six months of the time of the alleged Misconduct. If no Informal Complaint is filed, a Citizen Complaint must be filed within six months of the time of the alleged misconduct. As to an Aggrieved Person, the six -month period shall run from the date the Aggrieved Person knew or should have known of the alleged Misconduct. 662.06 HEARINGS The Review Board may hold public hearings on general police practices or individual complaints of Misconduct. Unless otherwise set forth herein, no recommendation of discipline may be made to the Mayor or Chief of Police unless a public hearing has been held on the matter. (a) To aid its fact - gathering function, the Review Board shall have the power to conduct public hearings. Except as otherwise provided herein, no citizen or entity may compel the Review Board to hold a public hearing. (b) The Review Board shall have full power to issue subpoenas to individuals or entities for the production of records, documents and/or testimony. (c) All public hearings shall be both tape- recorded and subject to stenographic transcription. Copies of stenographic transcription of public hearings shall be available to the public at a reasonable cost. -17- (d) All testimony given before the Review Board shall be given under oath. (e) Only such evidence shall be taken at a public hearing as the Review Board determines shall assist it in reaching a finding regarding the Citizen Complaint, or the matter before it. (1) Unless determined otherwise, the Review Board Solicitor shall act as the hearing officer at such public hearing. (2) Any parties are entitled to be represented at the public hearing, but only the Members, the Executive Director, and /or his or her attorney, and a representative of each Subject Officer is entitled to ask questions or otherwise participate. (3) Any party requesting an interpreter shall provide at least 14 working days' written notice of this request to the Review Board. Whether an interpreter is necessary shall be a matter solely within the discretion of the Review Board. (4) The fact that the Review Board holds a public hearing shall not make records otherwise confidential under the Rules or the Ordinance, available for review by the public. Only those matters specifically so designated by the Review Board shall be deemed "public records." All other records shall remain strictly confidential. (5) Prior to the public hearing, the Review Board shall, by written notice, direct the Subject Officer and his or her counsel to appear, along with the Executive Director, and special counsel if retained, at a specified time, date and location for a pre- hearing conference to be held with a designated panel of the Review Board and the Review Board Solicitor. (6) A pre- hearing conference held under this section shall be held at such time as the hearing panel chairperson may specify, and in no case less than 15 calendar days prior to the public hearing and with at least 10 calendar days' advance notice to the public and the parties of the pre- hearing conference date. (7) This pre - hearing conference is not for presentation of evidence, but for the exchange of relevant information. The pre- hearing conference shall be conducted by the hearing panel chairperson for the following purposes: (i) Simplifying, clarifying and specifying the issues; (ii) Obtaining stipulations, any agreed -upon admissions of fact, the contents and authenticity of all documents to avoid unnecessary proof, and any known, subsequent requests for subpoena and information; -18- (iii) Identifying all witnesses known to the parties who the parties believe to be necessary for testimony at the hearing; (iv) Sharing of pertinent information and review of the investigative file; (v) Determining other steps necessary to expedite the presentation of evidence; (vi) Setting the time, date and location of any other hearings necessary to further refine the matter for public hearing; and (vii) Discussing other matters as may aid in the orderly disposition of the proceeding. (viii) The pre - hearing conference shall be open to the public in the same manner and to the same extent as a public hearing. (8) Any such pre- hearing conference shall be recorded, and any decisions made therein shall control the subsequent course of proceedings unless such decisions are modified for good cause by the Review Board. (9) If settlement is reached at this pre- hearing conference, the hearing panel chairperson shall draft a written settlement agreement and have it signed by both parties. This agreement shall then be entered into the file. The implementation of this settlement will be monitored by the Review Board. In order for settlement to be reached, the Executive Director shall have previously received from the Complainant a signed authorization to attempt a settlement. Such settlement requires agreement of the Complainant. (10) The requirement of all parties to cooperate, as set forth in the Ordinance and these Rules, shall continue through the pre- hearing conference and shall continue in effect for the public hearing. (11) Whenever two or more separate Citizen Complaints have arisen from the same incident or event, the Chair may in his or her discretion, and on his or her own initiative, or in response to a request by any of the parties, move to consolidate the cases into one public hearing. (12) The public hearing need not be conducted according to technical Rules relating to evidence and witnesses. Any relevant evidence shall be admitted if it is the sort of evidence on which responsible persons are accustomed to relying in the conduct of serious affairs, regardless of the existence of any common law or statutory rule which might make improper the admission of such evidence over -19- objection in civil actions. Hearsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing or explaining other evidence. Evidence shall be taken in accordance with the following provisions: (i) Subject to the discretion of the Review Board, each parry shall have these rights: to call and examine witnesses deemed relevant and noncumulative by the Review Board; to introduce exhibits; to cross - examine opposing witnesses on any matter relevant to the issues covered in direct examination and deemed useful by the Review Board; to impeach any witness regarding the subject matter of his or her testimony, regardless which party first called the witness to testify; and to rebut evidence against the parry. If the Complainant or Subject Officer does not testify, either may be called on behalf of the Executive Director or the Subject Officer and examined as if under cross - examination, but only to the extent deemed helpful by the Review Board. (ii) Oral testimony shall be taken only under oath or affirmation; (iii) Upon the request of either parry or of a Member, witnesses may be excluded from the hearing until they are called to testify; (iv) Irrelevant and unduly repetitious evidence shall be excluded; and (v) The Rules of Privilege shall be effective to the extent that they are otherwise required by U.S. Constitution, the Pennsylvania constitution or a state or federal statute to be recognized at hearings before the Review Board. (13) Hearings shall be conducted in the following manner unless the Chair or hearing officer orders otherwise: (i) The Review Board Solicitor will act as the hearing officer subject to being overruled by a Quorum of the Review Board. (ii) The Executive Director, or an attorney provided by the Review Board for the Executive Director, shall present evidence on behalf of the Complainant. (iii) The Subject Officer and any witness, Aggrieved Party or Complainant, shall have the right to have a representative present at all times during any proceeding, but only the representative of the Subject Officer shall be permitted to make statements to the Review Board or question witnesses. -20- (iv) The Subject Officer, or his or her representative, may then present evidence as deemed relevant and non - cumulative by the Board. (14) At the discretion of the hearing officer, opening statements may be made on behalf of the Executive Director and the Subject Officer. (15) Members are entitled to rely on the investigative file in reaching their ultimate determination, so long as the file has previously been made available to the Subject Officer and the Subject Officer has been afforded the opportunity to present additional evidence as deemed helpful or useful by the Review Board. (16) At the conclusion of any witness' testimony, either the Executive Director or the Subject Officer may request that the Review Board cover additional areas of inquiry. The hearing officer and the Review Board shall determine whether any further questions shall be asked. (17) Unless otherwise ordered by the Review Board, the entire investigative hearing on a given Citizen Complaint should be conducted on one single occasion. However, if the Review Board determines that additional evidence is necessary to reach its findings, it will continue the investigative hearing to a future date, unless the parties agree to allow the hearing panel to receive such material in writing without reconvening. Unless specifically found by the Review Board to be confidential for reasons consistent with these Rules, such written submission shall be available to the public in the same manner and to the same extent as oral testimony received at the public hearing. (18) After the evidentiary portion of the hearing is completed, the Review Board shall deliberate either in public or in executive session as the Review Board shall deem appropriate at that time. In any event, the decision of the Review Board shall be announced in public. (19) The Review Board shall consider only information received as part of the public hearing or contained within the investigative file, provided the Subject Officer has been given prior access to the investigative file. Such public deliberation shall not otherwise make discoverable records which are deemed confidential by these Rules or by the Ordinance. (20) Failure of the Subject Officer and /or his or her representative or the Executive Director to appear at the evidentiary hearing without good cause may be considered by the Review Board in weighing the evidence before it. Failure of the Complainant to appear at the evidentiary hearing, without good cause, shall require the Review Board to decide either -21- (i) to proceed with the evidentiary hearing and consider the failure to appear in weighing the evidence before it, or (ii) to dismiss the Citizen Complaint. (21) Granting of a continuance will be allowed only upon good cause shown and with the approval of a Quorum of the Review Board. Requests for continuance must be filed no less than 10 calendar days prior to the scheduled hearing. (f) A Subject Officer may stipulate to the facts contained within the investigative file and waive a public hearing. In such case, the Review Board may consider the investigative file and reach a final decision regarding recommendations as if a public hearing was held. The decision of the Review Board shall be publicly announced no later than its next regularly- scheduled meeting, or 10 days after reaching its final decision, whichever is later. 662.07 FINDING OF NECESSITY The Police, by the Ordinance and these Rules, shall, except as expressly prohibited by any other law, respond promptly to any and all reasonable requests for information, for participation at evidentiary hearings and for access to data and records for the purposes of enabling the Review Board to carry out its responsibilities. (a) The following rules shall govern the findings of the Review Board with respect to its requests for information: (1) The failure by any official or employee of the Police to comply with such request for information, participation or access shall be deemed an act of misconduct. In the event of the failure by any City employee to comply with such request for information, participation or access, the Review Board may request to the Mayor that such employee be disciplined. (2) Upon finding by the Review Board that documents or personnel requested have not been forthcoming, or that necessity requires production of witnesses and /or documents, the Review Board may issue subpoenas for such witnesses or documents as it may deem appropriate. (3) No document or infonmation obtained through formal or informal process, by or through any Member or its staff shall be released to the public, unless such document is deemed by the Review Board to be a public record under the Pennsylvania Right to Know Act, 65 P.S. -22- §66.1, et seq. (4) Any documents deemed by the Review Board to be public records shall be available to the public for review at reasonable times and in such reasonable manner as the Review Board or its staff shall determine. (5) The cost of making any Review Board records available for review by the public - at the times and places established by the Review Board or its staff for public review - shall be borne by the Review Board. Costs to copy any such documents for receipt by the public shall be borne by the requestor. 662.08 FORM OF ADVICE AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Review Board shall have the power to recommend that the Mayor and the Chief of Police take certain actions. (a) Following the hearing, the Review Board shall make one of the following decisions: (1) Subject Officer exonerated, for one of two reasons: (i) The facts alleged in the Citizen Complaint are true, but do not constitute Misconduct by the Subject Officer; or (ii) The facts alleged in the Citizen Complaint are not true, (2) Insufficient evidence exists to sustain the Citizen Complaint; or (3) Citizen Complaint sustained. (b) When a Citizen Complaint is sustained, the Review Board shall make such recommendations as it deems appropriate to the Mayor and the Chief of Police within 30 working days: (1) The Review Board may recommend general reforms or specific actions directed at individual Officers. (2) The Mayor and the Chief of Police shall retain full and ultimate authority to set disciplinary policies and take other lawful actions they deem appropriate relative to the Police Bureau. (3) Nothing herein shall be construed to limit the rights of the Mayor or the Police with respect to disciplinary action including, but not limited to, the right to notice and a hearing, which may be established by any other Ordinance of the -23- City. (4) The Review Board, upon request, may make available to the Chief of Police and the Mayor or their designated representatives, such information as is necessary for the Mayor and /or Chief of Police to reach a decision on the recommendations of the Review Board. -24 (5) The recommendations shall be publicly announced unless the Board specifically finds a compelling reason to impose confidentiality consistent with law. All other records and information in the possession of the Review Board shall remain confidential except as provided elsewhere in these Rules. ( §662.08 as amended September 28, 1999) 662.09 RESPONSE TO REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS Within 30 working days of the submission of a recommendation for action by the Review Board to the Mayor and the Chief of Police, the Mayor and /or Chief of Police shall respond, in writing, stating which recommendations are accepted, rejected, or will be implemented with modifications. (a) If the Review Board's recommendations are rejected or modified, the Mayor and /or the Chief of Police shall include a written explanation for the decision. (b) Upon receipt of the response from the Mayor and /or the Chief of Police, the Review Board shall make a copy of such response available to the Complainant. (c) Following receipt of the response of the Mayor and /or the Chief of Police, the Review Board shall, unless it specifically finds a compelling reason consistent with law to impose confidentiality, make public the response of the Mayor and /or the Chief of Police to its recommendations. No other records pertaining to the matter shall be made available to the public unless, and then only to the extent, authorized by the Review Board in conformity with these Rules, the Ordinance and applicable law. If its recommendations or the response are not publicly announced, the Review Board shall publicly announce its reasons for keeping its reconunendations or the response confidential. ( §662.09 as amended September 28, 1999) -25- AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (ACLU) Fighting Police Abuse: A Community Action Manual r-*2�ACLU, Drug Law Reform Immigrants' Rights Prisoners' Rights Racial Justice Page 1 of 33 Fighting Police Abuse: A Community Action Manual December 1, 1997 CONTENTS PREFACE i. SOME OPERATING ASSUMPTIONS 2. GETTING STARTED — IDENTIFY THE PROBLEM 3. GATHER THE FACTS Forget the Official Data What You Really Need to Know, And Why Where To Get The Information, And How 4. CONTROLLING THE POLICE — COMMUNITY GOALS A Civilian Review Board Control of Police Shootings Reduce Police Brutality End Police Spying Oversight of Police Policy Improved Training Equal Employment Opportunity Certification and Licensing of Police Officers Accreditation of Your Police Department 5. ORGANIZING STRATEGIES Build Coalitions Monitor the Police Use Open Records Laws Educate the Public Use the Political Process to Win Reforms Lobby For State Legislation A FINAL WORD http: / /www.aclu.org /print /racial - justice _prisoners- rights_ drug -law- reform_ immigrants- rights /fighting- pol... 5/11/2010 Fighting Police Abuse: A Community Action Manual Page 2 of 33 RESOURCES Bibliography Organizations ACLU Affiliates CREDITS & ACKNOWLEDGMENTS PREFACE In the early hours of March 3, 1991, a police chase in Los Angeles ended in an incident that would become synonymous with police brutality: the beating of a young man named Rodney King by members of the Los Angeles Police Department. An amateur video, televised nationwide, showed King lying on the ground while three officers kicked him and struck him repeatedly with their nightsticks. No one who viewed that beating will ever forget its viciousness. The Rodney King incident projected the brutal reality of police abuse into living rooms across the nation, and for a while, the problem was front page news. Political leaders condemned police use of excessive force and appointed special commissions to investigate incidents of brutality. The media covered the issue extensively, calling particular attention to the fact that police abuse was not evenly distributed throughout American society, but disproportionately victimized people of color. But six years later, police abuse is still very much an American problem, as the following examples from three recent months demonstrate: • In December 1996, two men in two weeks died in handcuffs at the hands of the Palm Beach County sheriffs deputies in Florida. Lyndon Stark, 48, died of asphyxia in a cloud of pepper spray while handcuffed behind the back in a prone position. Several days earlier, Kevin Pruiksma, 27, died after being restrained by a sheriff s deputy. • In January 1997, Kurt DeSilva, 34, was shot and killed by a Pawtucket, Rhode Island police officer after a low -speed car chase. DeSilva, who was unarmed, was suspected of driving a stolen car. • In February 1997, James Wilson, 37, an unarmed motorist, was kicked and punched by three Hartford, Connecticut police officers after a brief chase which ended in front of a Bloomfield, Connecticut police station. The beating was so severe that a group of Bloomfield police intervened to stop it. "They saw activity that appeared inappropriate," the Bloomfield Police Chief stated. "He didn't resist officers... He was struck." The fact that police abuse remains a significant problem does not mean there has been no progress. In communities all across the United States people have organized to bring about change, and some of the most successful strategies are described in this manual, now in its 3rd printing. This manual was not inspired by, nor is it intended to generate, animosity toward the police, or to promote the perception that all police officers are prone to abuse. They are not. Rather, it arose out of our realization that, ultimately, it will take a strong and sustained effort by community groups to bring about real and lasting reform. And it is to those efforts that this manual is dedicated. Ira Glasser Executive Director American Civil Liberties Union http: / /www.aclu.org /print /racial - justice _prisoners- rights_drug -law- reform_ immigrants- rights /fighting- pol... 5/11/2010 Fighting Police Abuse: A Community Action Manual August 1997 1. SOME OPERATING ASSUMPTIONS THE BAD NEWS is... police abuse is a serious problem. It has a long history, and it seems to defy all attempts at eradication. Page 3 of 33 The problem is national: no police department in the country is known to be completely free of misconduct. Yet it must be fought locally: the nation's 19,000 law enforcement agencies are essentially independent. While some federal statutes specify criminal penalties for willful violations of civil rights and conspiracies to violate civil rights, the United States Department of Justice has been insufficiently aggressive in prosecuting cases of police abuse. There are shortcomings, too, in federal law itself, which does not permit "pattern and practice" lawsuits. The battle against police abuse must, therefore, be fought primarily on the local level. THE GOOD NEWS is... the situation is not hopeless. Policing has seen much progress. Some reforms do work, and some types of abuse have been reduced. Today, among both police officials and rank and file officers, it is widely recognized that police brutality hinders good law enforcement. To fight police abuse effectively, you must have realistic expectations. You must not expect too much of any one remedy because no single remedy will cure the problem. A "mix" of reforms is required. And even after citizen action has won reforms, your community must keep the pressure on through monitoring and oversight to ensure that the reforms are actually implemented. Nonetheless, even one person, or a small group of persistent people, can make a big difference. Sometimes outmoded and abusive police practices prevail largely because no one has ever questioned them. In such cases, the simple act of spotlighting a problem can have a powerful effect that leads to reform. Just by raising questions, one person or a few people — who need not be experts — can open up some corner of the all- too - secretive and insular world of policing to public scrutiny. Depending on what is revealed, their inquiries can snowball into a full blown examination by the media, the public and politicians. 2. GETTING STARTED - IDENTIFY THE PROBLEM You've got to address specific problems. The first step, then, is to identify exactly what the police problems are in your city. What's wrong with your police department is not necessarily the same as what's wrong in that of another city. Police departments differ in size, quality of management, local traditions and the severity of their problems. Some departments are gravely corrupt; others are relatively "clean" but have poor relations with community residents. Also, a city's political environment, which affects both how the police operate and the possibilites for achieving reform, is different in every city. For example, it is often easier to reform police procedures in cities that have a tradition of "good government," or in cities where racial minorities are well organized politically. The range of police problems includes — i) Excessive use of deadly force. 2) Excessive use of physical force. http: / /www.aclu.org/ print / racial - justice _prisoners- rights_drug -law- reform immigrants- rights /fighting- pol... 5/11/2010 Fighting Police Abuse: A Community Action Manual Page 4 of 33 3) Discriminatory patterns of arrest. 4) Patterns of harassment of the homeless, youth, racial minorities and gays, including aggressive and discriminatory use of the "stop- and - frisk" and overly harsh enforcement of petty offenses. 5) Chronic verbal abuse of citizens, including racist, sexist and homophobic slurs. 6) Discriminatory non - enforcement of the law, such as the failure to respond quickly to calls in low - income areas and half- hearted investigations of domestic violence, rape or hate crimes. 7) Spying on political activists. 8) Employment discrimination — in hiring, promotion and assignments, and internal harassment of minority, women and gay or lesbian police personnel. 9) The "code of silence" and retaliation against officers who report abuse and /or support reforms. io) Overreaction to gang problems, which is driven by the assumption that those who associate with known gang members must be involved in criminal activity, even in the absence of concrete evidence that this is the case. This includes illegal mass stops and arrests, and demanding photo IDs from young men based on their race and dress instead of on their criminal conduct. ii) The "war on drugs," with its overbroad searches and other tactics that endanger innocent bystanders. This "war" wastes scarce resources on unproductive "buy and bust" operations to the neglect of more promising community -based approaches. 12) Lack of accountability, such as the failure to discipline or prosecute abusive officers, and the failure to deter abuse by denying promotions and /or particular assignments because of prior abusive behavior. 13) Crowd control tactics that infringe on free expression rights and lead to unnecessary use of physical force. HOW MUCH BRUTALITY? How common is police brutality? Unfortunately, measuring this problem in a scientific fashion has always been very difficult. In the first systematic study, The Police and the Public (1971), Albert Reiss found the overall rate of unwarranted force to be low — only about one percent of all encounters with citizens; even less than that by another calculation. But Reiss hastened to point out that individual incidents accumulate over time, and since poor men are the most frequent victims of police abuse, they experience both real and perceived harassment by the police. In 1982, the federal government funded a "Police Services Study," in which 12,022 randomly selected citizens were interviewed in three metropolitan areas. The study found that 13.6 percent of those surveyed had cause to complain about police service in the previous year (this included verbal abuse and discourtesy, as well as physical force). Yet, only 30 percent of the people filed formal complaints. In other words, most instances of police abuse go unreported. http: / /www.aclu.org /print /racial - justice _prisoners- rights_ drug -law- reform_ immigrants- rights /fighting- pol... 5/11/2010 Fighting Police Abuse: A Community Action Manual Page 5 of 33 Community activists, take note: Your local police department or local news media may produce official figures showing a low rate of alleged abuse, but those figures do not reflect unreported incidents. Moreover, a low overall rate masks the higher rate of abuse suffered by poor men — poor men of color in particular. 3. GATHER THE FACTS Obtaining the most relevant information on the activities of your police department can be a tough task. That's the first thing to bear in mind about the "homework" community residents have to do in order to build a strong case for reform. In answer to critics, police chiefs often cite various official data to support their claim that they are really doing a great job. "Look at the crime rate," they say. "It's lower than in other cities." Or: "My department's arrest rate is much higher than elsewhere." The catch is that these data, though readily available to citizens, are deeply flawed, while the most important information is not always easy to get. Forget the "crime rate." The "crime rate" figures cited by government officials are based on the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) system, which has several serious flaws. To name only a few: First, the UCR only measures reported crime. Second, since the system is not independently audited there are no meaningful controls over how police departments use their crime data. Police officers can and do "unfound" crimes, meaning they decide that no crime occurred. They also "downgrade" crimes — for example, by officially classifying a rape as an assault. Third, reports can get "lost," either deliberately or inadvertently. There are many other technical problems that make the UCR a dubious measure of the extent of crime problems. The National Crime Survey (NCS), published by another part of the U.S. Justice Department, provides a far more accurate estimate of the national crime rate and of long -term trends in crime. But it is a national -level estimate and does not provide data on individual cities. So the NCS isn't much help on the local level. Forget the "clearance rate." A police department's official data on its "clearance rate," which refers to the percentage of crimes solved, do not accurately reflect that department's performance. The fact that one department "clears" 40 percent of all robberies, compared with 25 percent by another department, doesn't necessarily mean it is more effective. There are too many ways to manipulate the data, either by claiming a larger number of crimes "cleared" (inflating the numerator), or by artificially lowering the number of reported crimes (lowering the denominator). Forget the arrest rate. Police officers have broad discretion in making and recording arrests. The Police Foundation in Washington, D.C., which conducts research on policing issues, has found great variations among police departments in their recording of arrests. In many departments, police officers take people into custody, hold them at the station, question and then release them without filling out an arrest report. For all practical purposes, these people were arrested, but their arrests don't show up in the official data. Other departments record such arrests. Thus, the department that reports a lower number of arrests may actually be taking more people into custody than the department that reports more arrests. Forget the citizen complaint rate. Official data on the complaints filed by citizens regarding police conduct are important but present a number of problems. Many departments do not release any information on this subject. Some publish a smattering of information on complaints and the http: / /www.aclu.org /print /racial justice _prisoners- rights _drug - law - reform immigrants- rights /fighting- pol... 5/11/2010 Fighting Police Abuse: A Community Action Manual Page 6 of 33 percentage of complaints sustained by the department. In more and more cities, a civilian review agency publishes this data. Data on citizen complaints are difficult to interpret. Some examples — In 199o, it was widely reported that San Francisco, with less than 2,000 police officers, had more citizen complaints than Los Angeles, which has more than 8,000 officers. What that may mean, however, is that Los Angeles residents are afraid to file reports or don't believe it would do any good. San Francisco has a relatively independent civilian review process, which may encourage the filing of more complaints. Also in 199o, New York City reported a decline from previous years in the number of citizen complaints filed. But many analysts believe that simply reflected New Yorkers' widespread disillusionment with their civilian review board. Citizen complaints filed in Omaha, Nebraska doubled after the mayor allowed people to file their complaints at City Hall, as well as at the police department. Another problem is that in some police departments with internal affairs systems, officers often try to dissuade people from filing formal complaints that will later become part of an officer's file. And the number of complaints counted is also affected by whether or not the internal affairs system accepts anonymous complaints and complaints by phone or mail, or requires in- person, sworn statements. Thus, the official "complaint rate" (complaints per 1,000 citizens), rather than being a reliable measure of police performance, more than likely reflects the administrative customs of a particular police department. WHAT YOU REALLY NEED TO KNOW, AND WHY A. Police shootings. You need to know about police firearm discharges, which refer to the number of times a police weapon has been fired. This information is more complete than statistics on the number of persons shot and wounded or killed. (However, information on the race of persons shot and wounded or killed is important.) Particularly important is data on repeat shooters, which can tell you whether some officers fire their weapons at a suspiciously high rate. POLICE SHOOTINGS — A CLOSER LOOK • Do some officers shoot more often than others? • Do white officers shoot more often that black officers? • Do young officers shoot more often than veteran officers? The most detailed analysis of police shootings was produced by James Fyfe, a former police officer who is now a criminologist and expert on police practices. He concluded that the single most important factor determining patterns of shooting is place of assignment. Fyfe's findings showed that: Black and white officers assigned to similar precincts fired their weapons at essentially the same rate; since new officers are assigned to less desirable, high crime precincts based on the seniority system, younger officers shoot more often than older officers; and since a disproportionate number of black officers are http : / /www.aclu.org /printlracial- justice _prisoners- rights_ drug -law- reform_ immigrants- rights /fighting- pol... 5/11/2010 Fighting Police Abuse: A Community Action Manual young due to recent affirmative action programs, black officers shoot more often than white officers — but as a function of assignment, not race. Fyfe found significant differences in shooting patterns between police departments. The overall shooting rate in some departments was significantly higher than in others, a disparity that he attributed to differences in department policy. SOURCE: James J. Fyfe, "Who Shoots? - - A Look At Officer, Race And Police Shooting." Journal of Police Science And Administration; Volume 9, December 1981; pp. 367 -382. Page 7 of 33 With this information, you can evaluate the use of deadly force in your department. You can also evaluate the long -term trends in shootings. Are shootings increasing or decreasing? Has there been a recent upsurge? How does the department compare with other departments — are officers shooting at a significantly higher rate in your department than elsewhere? B. Use of physical force. You need to know how frequently police officers in your city use physical force in the day -to -day course of their encounters with citizens. Do officers try to refrain from using such force against citizens, or do they quickly and casually resort to force? In its report on the Los Angeles Police Department in the aftermath of the March 1991 beating of Rodney King, the Christopher Commission confirmed a long held suspicion: A small number of officers were involved in an extraordinarily high percentage of use -of -force incidents. Ten percent of the officers accounted for 33.2 percent of all use -of -force incidents. The Commission was able to identify 44 such officers who were not disciplined despite the fact that they were the subjects of numerous citizen complaints. In 1981, the U.S. Civil Rights Commission found a similar pattern in Houston and recommended, as a remedy, that police departments establish "early warning systems" to identify officers with high rates of citizen complaints. Patterns in the use of physical force reveal a lot about the "culture" of a particular police department. Clearly, a department whose officers repeatedly engage in physically coercive conduct needs reform. Police officials often deny that their personnel are prone to using force inappropriately, so if your community believes it has a problem in this area citizens must be able to support their claims with existing data, or data they have gathered themselves. C. Official policies. You need to know what your local police department's formal, written policies are on how officers are supposed to behave in particular situations. How does the department treat domestic violence complaints? What is the policy on how officers are supposed to deal with homeless people? Does the department use canine patrols and, if so, under what circumstances? In examining official policies, you need to evaluate them in comparison to recommended standards. D. Lawsuits. You need to know how many lawsuits citizens have filed against your local police department. You'll want to know what the charges were, the number of officers involved, whether certain officers are named repeatedly in suits, what was the outcome and, in the case of successful suits, how much the city paid in damages. The number of lawsuits filed against a police department can be very revealing. For example, according to the Christopher Commission the taxpayers of Los Angeles spent $67.5 million between 1991 and 1995 to resolve lawsuits brought by victims of police abuse. In 1990 alone, New York City paid victims http: / /www.aclu.org /print /racial - justice _prisoners- rights_drug -law- reform_ immigrants- rights /fighting- pol... 5/11/2010 Fighting Police Abuse: A Community Action Manual Page 8 of 33 of police misconduct a record high of more than $13 million. This kind of information can be used to mobilize middle -class taxpayers and "good- government" activists, who can then be brought into a community coalition against police abuse. RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN POLICE SHOOTINGS These data indicate a clear pattern of racial discrimination. The disparity between whites and blacks shot and killed is extreme in the category of persons "unarmed and not assaultive." POLICE SHOOTINGS IN MEMPHIS 1969- 1974 Person Shot and Killed Number Shot and Killed White Black Armed and Assaultive 5 7 Unarmed and 2 6 Assaultive Unarmed and Not 1 13 Assaultive These are classic "fleeing felon" situations in which, prior to 1985, Memphis Police Department policy and the common law of many states permitted officers to use deadly force. In 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional for a police officer to shoot a suspected felon in flight who does not pose an immediate danger to the officer or public. The case — Tennessee v. Garner— involved Edward Garner, a 15 year -old black youth who, though unarmed, was shot and killed while trying to flee the scene of a suspected burglary. SOURCE: James J. Fyfe, "Blind Justice: Police Shootings in Memphis," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 73 (1982, No. 2); PP. 707 -722. E. Minority employment. You'll need to know how many African Americans, Latinos, Asians, other minorities and women are employed by your police department and their distribution throughout the department's ranks. This information is useful in assessing, again, the "culture" of your local police department — is it internally diverse, fair and equitable? It also suggests how much value the department places on the "human relations" aspects of its work, and how responsive it is to community concerns. WHERE TO GET INFORMATION, AND HOW Police business is generally shrouded in secrecy, which conceals outdated policies and departmental inertia, encourages cover -ups and, of course, breeds public suspicion. But remember: Police http: / /www.aclu.org /print /racial justice _prisoners- rights_ drug -law- reform_ immigrants- rights /fighting- pol... 5/11/2010 Fighting Police Abuse: A Community Action Manual Page 9 of 33 departments are an arm of government, and the government's business is your business. Police policies, procedures, memoranda, records, reports, tape recordings, etc. should not be withheld from public view unless their release would threaten ongoing investigations, endanger officers or others, or invade someone's personal privacy. Demanding information about police practices is an important part of the struggle to establish police accountability. Indeed, a campaign focused solely on getting information from the police can serve as a vehicle for organizing a community to tackle police abuse. Regarding all of the following categories, one of the tactics your community could employ is to interest a local investigative journalist in seeking information from the police for a series of articles. Once in hand, the information your community has collected or helped to expose is a tool for holding the police accountable for their actions. ON DRUGS, GANGS AND POLICE OFFICER SAFETY Police work remains dangerous, and many police officers contend that they need greater freedom to use deadly force today because of the increase in heavily armed drug gangs. But in fact, police work is much less dangerous than it used to be. The number of officers killed in the line of duty is half of what it was nearly 20 years ago. According to the FBI, the number of officers killed dropped from 134 in 1973 to 67 in 199o. That reduced death rate is even more dramatic considering the increase in the number of police officers on duty in the field. Police officers are rarely the victims of "drive -by" gang shootings. Innocent by- standers and rival gang members have been the victims. The police don't need more firepower. A. Police Shootings. Virtually every big city police department has this information on hand, since officers are required to file a report after every firearms discharge. However, departments don't usually release the information voluntarily. Strong civilian review boards in a few cities now publish the information. As for repeat shooters, this information exists in police reports, but police departments vigorously resist identifying repeat shooters. There are several ways to proceed — • As an organizing strategy, demand that the police department publish this data, identify repeat shooters and take appropriate remedial action (counseling, retraining, formal discipline, transfer, etc.) • Alternatively, since it isn't essential that officers be identified by name, demand that they be identified simply by a code number, which can focus public attention on the problem of excessive shooters. • Visit your local civilian review agency, if one exists. These agencies often have the authority to collect and release a range of information about local police conduct. B. Physical Force. There are three potential sources of data on police use of physical force — - Data developed by community residents.Community residents can make a significant contribution to documenting physical force abuses and, in the process, organize. They can bear http: / /www.aclu.org /print /racial justice _prisoners - rights drug -law- reform_ immigrants- rights /fighting- pol... 5/11/2010 Fighting Police Abuse: A Community Action Manual Page 10 of 33 witness to, and record, abuse incidents, take information from others who have witnessed incidents, refute police department arguments that there is no problem and help document the inadequacies of the police department's official complaint review process. Police Watch in Los Angeles compiles such data. Police Watch can be contacted at 611 South Catalina, Suite 409, Los Angeles, CA 90005; (213) 387-3325• Check with your local ACLU to see if an organization in your community does the same. Formal complaints filed by citizens. Most police departments do not make this information public. Some publish summary data in their annual report, so consult that document. In a number of cities, civilian review agencies publish it, so check with that agency in your city. The annual reports of the New York City Citizen Complaint Review Board (CCRB) and San Francisco's Office of Citizen Complaints (OCC) provide fairly detailed summaries. • Internal police reports. An increasing number of police departments require officers to fill out reports after any use of physical force. This is a larger set of data than the citizen complaints would provide, since many citizens don't file complaints even when they have cause to do so. Ask to see physical force reports. C. Official Policies. Your police department has a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) manual (it may have another title) that contains the official policies of the department. The SOP manual is a public document and should be readily available. Some departments place current copies in local libraries. Others treat it as an internal document not available to the public — a practice which is unacceptable. Demand to see the manual, if your department withholds it. As a last resort, you may be able to file suit under your state's open records law to obtain the SOP manual. D. Lawsuits. Lawsuits brought against police departments are matters of public record. Records of suits brought in state courts reside at your local state courthouse; of suits brought in federal district court, at the nearest federal courthouse. The Lexis computer database is a source of published opinions in civilian suits brought against the police. However, collecting information from any of these sources is a very laborious task. It's better to contact your local ACLU affiliate and /or other relevant public interest groups, which may have done most of the work for you. In the back of this manual, find the name and address of your local ACLU and other organizations. E. Minority Employment. Official data on this issue are generally available from your local police department. If the police stonewall, you can get the information from the city's personnel division. The point is to evaluate the police department's minority employment record relative to local conditions. Using current data, compare the percentage of a particular group of people in the local population with that group's representation on the police force. If, for example, Latinos are 30 percent of the population but only 15 percent of the sworn officers, then your police department is only half way toward achieving an ideal level of diversity. 4. CONTROLLING THE POLICE - COMMUNITY GOALS GOAL #1 — A CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD Civilian review of police activity was first proposed in the 195os because of widespread dissatisfaction with the internal disciplinary procedures of police departments. Many citizens didn't believe that police officials took their complaints seriously. They suspected officials of investigating allegations of abuse superficially at best, and of covering up misconduct. The theory underlying the concept of civilian review is that civilian investigations of citizen complaints are more independent because they are conducted by people who are not sworn officers. http: / /www.aclu.org /print /racial justice _prisoners- rights_ drug -law- reform_ immigrants- rights /fighting- pol... 5/11/2010 Fighting Police Abuse: A Community Action Manual Page 11 of 33 At first, civilian review was a dream few thought would ever be fulfilled. But slow, steady progress has been made, indicating that it's an idea whose time has come. By the end of 1997, more than 75 percent of the nation's largest cities (more than 8o cities across the country) had civilian review systems. Civilian review advocates in every city have had to overcome substantial resistance from local police departments. One veteran of the struggle for civilian review has chronicled the stages of police opposition as follows — • The "over our dead bodies" stage, during which the police proclaim that they will never accept any type of civilian oversight under any circumstances; • The "magical conversion" stage, when it becomes politically inevitable that civilian review will be adopted. At this point, former police opponents suddenly become civilian review experts and propose the weakest possible models; • The "post - partum resistance" stage, when the newly established civilian review board must fight police opposition to its budget, authority, access to information, etc. Strong community advocacy is necessary to overcome resistance, even after civilian review is established. WHAT IS CIVILIAN REVIEW? Civilian review systems create a lot a confusion because they vary tremendously. Some are more "civilian" than others. Some are not boards but municipal agencies headed by an executive director (who has been appointed by, and is accountable to, the mayor). The three basic types of civilian review systems are — • Type I. Persons who are not sworn officers conduct the initial fact - finding. They submit an investigative report to a non - officer or board of non - officers, who then make a recommendation for action to the police chief. This process is the most independent and most "civilian." • Type II. Sworn officers conduct the initial fact - finding. They submit an investigative report to a non - officer or board of non - officers for a recommendation. • Type III. Sworn officers conduct the initial fact - finding and make a recommendation to the police chief. If the aggrieved citizen is not satisfied with the chief s action on the complaint, he or she may appeal to a board that includes non - officers. Obviously, this process is the least independent. Although the above are the most common, other types of civilian review systems also exist. WHY IS CIVILIAN REVIEW IMPORTANT? • Civilian review establishes the principle of police accountability. Strong evidence exists to show that a complaint review system encourages citizens to act on their grievances. Even a weak civilian review process is far better than none at all. • A civilian review agency can be an important source of information about police misconduct. A civilian agency is more likely to compile and publish data on patterns of misconduct, especially on officers with chronic problems, than is a police internal affairs agency. http: / /www. aclu.org/ print / racial - justice _prisoners- rights_drug -law- reform_ immigrants- rights /fighting- pol... 5/11/2010 Fighting Police Abuse: A Community Action Manual Page 12 of 33 Civilian review can alert police administrators to the steps they must take to curb abuse in their departments. Many well- intentioned police officials have failed to act decisively against police brutality because internal investigations didn't provide them with the facts. TEN PRINCIPLES FOR AN EFFECTIVE CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD 1. Independence. The power to conduct hearings, subpoena witnesses and report findings and recommendations to the public. 2. Investigatory Power. The authority to independently investigate incidents and issue findings on complaints. 3. Mandatory Police Cooperation. Complete access to police witnesses and documents through legal mandate or subpoena power. 4. Adequate Funding. Should not be a lower budget priority than police internal affairs systems. 5. Hearings. Essential for solving credibility questions and enhancing public confidence in process. 6. Reflect Community Diversity. Board and staff should be broadly representative of the community it serves. 7. Policy Recommendations. Civilian oversight can spot problem policies and provide a forum for developing reforms. 8. Statistical Analysis. Public statistical reports can detail trends in allegations, and early warning systems can identify officers who are subjects of unusually numerous complaints. g. Separate Offices. Should be housed away from police headquarters to maintain independence and credibility with public. lo. Disciplinary Role. Board findings should be considered in determining appropriate disciplinary action. • The existence of a civilian review agency, a reform in itself, can help ensure that other needed reforms are implemented. A police department can formulate model policies aimed at deterring and punishing misconduct, but those policies will be meaningless unless a system is in place to guarantee that the policies are aggressively enforced. Civilian review works, if only because it's at least a vast improvement over the police policing themselves. Nearly all existing civilian review systems — reduce public reluctance to file complaints • reduce procedural barriers to filing complaints • enhance the likelihood that statistical reporting on complaints will be more complete http: / /www. aclu.org/ print / racial - justice _prisoners- rights_drug- law - reform_ immigrants- rights /fighting- pol... 5/11/2010 Fighting Police Abuse: A Community Action Manual Page 13 of 33 • enhance the likelihood of an independent review of abuse allegations • foster confidence in complainants that they will get their "day in court" through the hearing process • increase scrutiny of police policies that lead to citizen complaints • increase opportunities for other reform efforts. A campaign to establish a civilian review agency, or to strengthen an already existing agency, is an excellent vehicle for community organizing. In Indianapolis, for example, a civilian review campaign brought about not only the establishment of a civilian review agency, but an effective coalition between the Indiana ACLU, the local branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and other community groups that could take future action on other issues. Your community's campaign should seek a strong, fully- independent and accessible civilian review system. But even with a weak system, you can press for changes to make it more independent and effective. GOAL #2 — CONTROL OF POLICE SHOOTINGS Considerable progress has been made in the area of police misconduct in the use of deadly force. Although the rate of deadly force abuse is still intolerably high, national data reveal reductions in the number of persons shot and killed by the police since the mid -1970s — as much as 35- to 40 percent in our 50 largest cities. This has been accompanied by a significant reduction in the racial disparities among persons shot and killed: since the 1970s, from about six people of color to one white person, down to three people of color to one white. This progress serves as a model for controlling other forms of police behavior. And was achieved though hard work and perseverance. In the mid- 1970s, police departments began developing restrictive internal policies on the use of deadly force. They adopted the "defense of life" standard: the use of deadly force only when the life of an officer or some other person is in danger. In 1985, the Supreme Court finally upheld this standard in the case of Tennessee v. Garner (see table). However, the majority of policies adopted by police departments go beyond the Court's Garner decision, prohibiting warning shots, shots to wound and other reckless actions. Most important, these policies require officers to file written reports after each firearm discharge, and require that those reports be reviewed by higher - ranking officers. To meet goal #2, your community must — Ensure that the police department has a highly restrictive deadly force policy (see sample policy). Most big city departments do. But the national trend data on shootings suggest that medium -sized and small departments have not caught up with the big cities, so much remains to be done there. Much remains to be done as well in county sheriff and state police agencies, which have not been subject to the same scrutiny as big city police departments. • Ensure enforcement of the deadly force policy through community monitoring. To be accountable, the police department and /or the local civilian review agency should publish summary data on shooting incidents. Citizens should also be able to find out whether the department disciplines officers who violate its policy, and whether certain officers are repeatedly involved in questionable incidents. http: / /www.aclu.org/ print / racial - justice _prisoners- rights_drug -law- reform_ immigrants- rights /fighting- pol... 5/11/2010 Fighting Police Abuse: A Community Action Manual THE HOUSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT'S DEADLY FORCE POLICY (1987) POLICY — The Houston Police Department places its highest value on the life and safety of its officers and the public. The department's policies, rules and procedures are designed to ensure that this value guides police officers' use of firearms. RULES — The policy stated above is the basis of the following set of rules that have been designed to guide officers in all cases involving the use of firearms – RULE i — Police officers shall not discharge their firearms except to protect themselves or another person from imminent death or serious bodily injury. RULE 2 — Police officers shall discharge their firearms only when doing so will not endanger innocent persons. RULE 3 — Police officers shall not discharge their firearms to threaten or subdue persons whose actions are destructive to property or injurious to themselves but which do not represent an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or others. RULE 4 — Police officers shall not discharge their firearms to subdue an escaping suspect who presents no imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. RULE 5 — Police officers shall not discharge their weapons at a moving vehicle unless it is absolutely necessary to do so to protect against an imminent threat to the life of the officer or others. RULE 6 — Police officers when confronting an oncoming vehicle shall attempt to move out of the path, if possible, rather than discharge their firearms at the oncoming vehicle. RULE 7 — Police officers shall not intentionally place themselves in the path of an oncoming vehicle and attempt to disable the vehicle by discharging their firearms. RULE 8 — Police officers shall not discharge their firearms at a fleeing vehicle or its driver. RULE 9 — Police officers shall not fire warning shots. RULE io — Police officers shall not draw or display their firearms unless there is a threat or probable cause to believe there is a threat to life, or for inspection. Page 14 of 33 http: / /www.aclu.org /print /racial - justice _prisoners- rights_drug -law- reform_ immigrants- rights /fighting- pol... 5/11/2010 Fighting Police Abuse: A Community Action Manual The citizens of Houston have vested in their police officers the power to carry and use firearms in the exercise of their service to society. This power is based on trust and, therefore, must be balanced by a system of accountability. The serious consequences of the use of firearms by police officers necessitate the specification of limits for officers' discretion; there is often no appeal from an officer's decision to use a firearm. Therefore, it is imperative that every effort be made to ensure that such use is not only legally warranted but also rational and humane. The basic responsibility of police officers to protect life also requires that they exhaust all other reasonable means for apprehension and control before resorting to the use of firearms. Police officers are equipped with firearms as a means of last resort to protect themselves and others from the immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury. Even though all officers must be prepared to use their firearms when necessary, the utmost restraint must be exercised in their use. Consequently, no officer will be disciplined for discharging a firearm in self- defense or in defense of another when faced with a situation that immediately threatens life or serious bodily injury. Just as important, no officer will be disciplined for not discharging a firearm if that discharge might threaten the life or safety of an innocent person, or if the discharge is not clearly warranted by the policy and rules of the department. Above all, this department values the safety of its employees and the public. Likewise it believes that police officers should use firearms with a high degree of restraint. Officers' use of firearms, therefore, shall never be considered routine and is permissible only in defense of life and then only after all alternative means have been exhausted. GOAL #3 — REDUCE POLICE BRUTALITY Page 15 of 33 Your community's principal aim here should be to get the police department to adopt and enforce a written policy governing the use of physical force. This policy should have two parts — • It should explicitly restrict physical force to the narrowest possible range of specific situations. For example, a policy on the use of batons should forbid police officers from striking citizens in "non - target areas, such as the head and spine, where permanent injuries can result. Mace should be used defensively, not offensively. The use of electronic stun guns should be strictly controlled and http : / /www.aclu.org /printlracial justice _prisoners- rights_ drug -law- reform_ immigrants- rights /fighting- pol... 5/11/2010 Fighting Police Abuse: A Community Action Manual Page 16 of 33 reviewed, since they have great potential for abuse because they don't leave scars or bruises. • The policy should require that a police officer file a written report after any use of physical force, and that report should be automatically reviewed by high ranking officers. Your community's second objective should be to get the police department to establish an early warning system to identify officers who are involved in an inordinate number of inappropriate physical force incidents. The incidents should then be investigated and, if verified, the officers involved should be charged, disciplined, transferred, retrained or offered counseling, depending on the severity of their misconduct. The Christopher Commission's report on the Rodney King beating ascertained that L.A. police leadership typically looked the other way when officers were involved in questionable incidents, a tolerance of brutality that helped create an atmosphere conducive to police abuses. GOAL #4 — END POLICE SPYING Police spying or intelligence gathering on legal but politically unpopular activities is a problem. And it's particularly difficult to deal with because spying, by definition, is a covert activity, unknown to either the victim or other witnesses. During the 1970s, the ACLU and other organizations brought lawsuits against unconstitutional police surveillance in several cities around the country, including New York City, Chicago, Memphis and Los Angeles. The result was increased controls on police spying. In 1976, Seattle residents discovered local police were spying on organizations of black construction workers, local Republican Party operatives, Native Americans, advocates for low- income housing and other activists whose conduct was perfectly lawful. In response to the revelations, the ACLU, along with the American Friends Service Committee and the National Lawyers Guild, formed the Coalition on Government Spying. After several years of hard work and lobbying, the coalition succeeded in bringing about passage of a comprehensive municipal law — the first of its kind in the country — that governs all police investigations and restricts the collection of political, religious and sexual information. Called the Seattle Police Intelligence Ordinance, this law is a model for responsible police intelligence operations — • "Restricted" information (i.e., about religious, political or sexual activity) can be collected only if a person is reasonably suspected of having committed a crime, and the information must be relevant to that crime. • An independent civilian "auditor," appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the city council, must review all police authorizations to collect restricted information and have access to all other police files. The auditor must notify the police officers who are the subjects of the unlawful investigations if violations are found. • Any individual subjected to unlawful surveillance can bring a civil action in court to stop the surveillance, and to collect damages from the city. GOAL #5 — OVERSIGHT OF POLICE POLICY Police policies should be subject to public review and debate instead of being viewed as the sole province of police insiders. Open policy- making not only allows police officials to benefit http: / /www.aclu.org /print /racial justice _prisoners- rights_ drug -law- reform_ immigrants- rights /fighting- pol... 5/11/2010 Fighting Police Abuse: A Community Action Manual Page 17 of 33 from community input, but it also provides an opportunity for police officials to explain to the public why certain tactics or procedures may be necessary. This kind of communication can help anticipate problems and avert crises before they occur. The Police Review Commission (a civilian review body) of Berkeley, California, holds regular, bi- monthly meetings that are open to the public where representatives of community organizations can voice criticisms, make proposals and introduce resolutions to review or reform specific police policies. The Police Practices Project of the ACLU of Northern California successfully pressured the San Francisco Police Department to adopt enlightened policies regarding the treatment of the homeless; the use of pain -holds and batons; the deployment of plainclothes officers at protests and demonstrations; intelligence gathering; the selection of field training officers, and AIDS /HIV education for police officers. The Project has also prevented the adoption of an anti - loitering rule, a policy that would have made demonstrators financially liable for police costs, and other bad policies. In Tucson, Arizona, a Citizens' Police Advisory Committee was incorporated into the city's municipal code in July 1990. Composed of both civilian and police representatives, it has the authority to initiate investigations of controversial incidents or questionable policies, and other oversight functions. CITIZEN - POLICE ADVISORY COMMITTEE TUCSON, ARIZONA (CREATED BY THE TUCSON CODE, SEC. 1 OA -86) FUNCTIONS — i — Consult with the governing body from time to time as may be required by the Mayor and [City] Council. 2 — Assist the police in achieving a greater understanding of the nature and causes of complex community problems in the area of human relations, with special emphasis on the advancement and improvement of relations between police and community minority groups. 3 — Study, examine and recommend methods, approaches and techniques to encourage and develop an active citizen - police partnership in the prevention of crime. 4 — Promote cooperative citizen - police programs and approaches to the solutions of community crime problems, emphasizing the principal that the administration of justice is a responsibility which requires total community involvement. 5 — Recommend procedures, programs and /or legislation to enhance cooperation among citizens of the community and police. 6 — Strive to strengthen and ensure throughout the community the application of the principle of equal protection under the law for all persons. 7 — Consult and cooperate with federal, state, city and other public agencies, commissions and committees on matters within the committee's charge. http : / /www.aclu.org /printlracial justice _prisoners- rights_ drug -law- reform_ immigrants- rights /fighting- pol... 5/11/2010 Fighting Police Abuse: A Community Action Manual 8 — The committee may ask for and shall receive from the Police Department, a review of action taken by the Department in incidents which create community concern or controversy. 9 — The committee shall have the authority, should it so desire, to use a specific incident as a vehicle for the examination of police policies, procedures and priorities. io — At the discretion and express direction of the Mayor and Council, assume and undertake such other tasks or duties as will facilitate the accomplishment of these goals and objectives. GOAL #6 — IMPROVED TRAINING Page 18 of 33 Citizens' groups in some communities have historically demanded more education and training for police officers as part of their efforts to solve the problem of police abuse. But today, this seems a less crucial issue in many police departments because the educational levels of American police officers have risen dramatically in recent years. In 1970, only 3.7 percent of the nation's police officers had four or more years of college. By 1989 that figure had risen to 22.6 percent, and a whopping 65 percent had at least some college experience. The levels of education are highest among new recruits, who in many departments have about two years of college. The training of police personnel has also improved significantly in recent years. The average length of police academy programs has more than doubled, from about 300 to over 60o hours; in some cities, goo or even 120o hours are the rule. As the time devoted to training has increased, the academies have added a number of important subjects to their curricula: race relations, domestic violence, handling the mentally ill, and so on. Unquestionably, a rigorously trained, professional police force is a desirable goal that should be pursued depending on local conditions. If citizens in your community feel that this is an important issue — • You should aim for a first -rate police academy curriculum. The curriculum should be near the high end of the current scale — 80o hours or more. It should include a mix of classroom and supervised field training. • It should include training in violence reduction techniques. In addition to being given weapons and taught how to use them, police recruits should also learn special skills — especially communications skills — to help them defuse and avert situations that might lead to the necessary use of force. It should include community sensitivity training. Training recruits to handle issues of special significance in particular communities can lead to a reduction in community- police tensions. In the early 199os, the ACLU of Georgia, after a series of incidents occurred in Atlanta involving police harassment of gays, helped provide regular training at the local police academy to sensitize new recruits on gay and lesbian concerns. During the same period, the Police Practices Project of the ACLU of Northern California, working with other groups, organized a group of homeless people to create a video for use in sensitivity training at the San Francisco police academy. http: / /www.aclu.org/ print / racial - justice _prisoners- rights_drug -law- reform immigrants- rights /fighting- pol... 5/11/2010 Fighting Police Abuse: A Community Action Manual Page 19 of 33 In response to complaints that state police were harassing minority motorists and entrapping gay men during an undercover operation in the men's room of a highway service area, in the late 198os the ACLU of New Jersey joined the NAACP and the Lesbian and Gay Coalition in initiating a series of meetings with the new superintendent of the Division of State Police. The three groups now participate in a two -day seminar on "Cultural Diversity and Professionalism" introduced by the superintendent's office. Attendance is required by all employees of the Division. Unfortunately, even the most enlightened training programs can be undermined by veteran officers, who traditionally tell recruits out in the field to "forget all that crap they taught you in the academy." In San Francisco some years ago, men selected as field training officers (FTOs) were found to have some of the worst complaint and litigation records in the department. The evaluation scores they gave recruits revealed their systematic attempts to weed out minority and women officers. They labeled women recruits "bad drivers," gave Asians low scores in radio communication and unfairly criticized African Americans for their report- writing. The Northern California ACLU's Police Practices Project joined other community groups in successfully pressuring the police department to adopt stricter selection criteria for FTOs to ensure greater racial and gender integration, fairer evaluations of recruits and higher quality training. GOAL #7 — EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY Historically, police departments, like other government agencies, have engaged in employment discrimination. People of color have been grossly underrepresented, and women were not even accepted as full- fledged officers until the 1970s. Some progress has been made in the last 20 years or so. Police departments in several cities now have significant numbers of officers who are people of color. A few departments even approach the theoretically ideal level of maintaining forces that reflect the racial composition of the communities they serve. Most departments now recruit and assign women on an equal basis with men. Improvements in police employment practices have come about largely as the result of litigation under existing civil rights laws. However, the courts may not be hospitable to employment discrimination claims in the future. Therefore, community groups and civil rights organizations should prepare to fight in the political arena for the integration of police departments. In the short term, the recruitment of more women and minority officers may not result in less police abuse. Several social science studies suggest that minority and white officers do not differ greatly in their use of physical or deadly force, or in their arrest practices. (Female officers, on the other hand, are involved in citizen complaints at about half the rate of male officers, according to the New York City CCRB.) Still, in the long term, an integrated police force is a very important goal for these reasons — Integration will break down the isolation of police departments, as they reflect more and more the composition of the communities they serve. A representative police force will probably be less likely to behave like an alien, occupying army. The visible presence of officers of color in high - ranking command positions engenders public confidence in the ability of police department personnel to identify, on human terms, with community residents. • Integration demonstrates a commitment to the principles of equal opportunity and equal protection of the law. This is a crucial message for the primary enforcement arm of "the law" to send. http: / /www.aclu.org /print /racial justice _prisoners- rights_ drug -law- reform_ immigrants- rights /fighting- pol... 5/11/2010 Fighting Police Abuse: A Community Action Manual Page 20 of 33 Integration might, over time, reduce overtly racist /sexist activities such as brutality, harassment, and other discriminatory tactics. GOAL #8 — CERTIFICATION AND LICENSING OF POLICE OFFICERS Every state now has procedures for certifying or licensing police officers. These require all sworn officers to have some minimum level of training. This was one of the advances of the late 196os and early 1970s. An important new development is the advent of procedures for decertifying officers. Traditionally, a police officer could be fired from one department but then hired by another. As a result, persons guilty of gross misconduct could continue to work as police officers. Decertification bars a dismissed officer from further police employment in that state (though not necessarily in some other state). Between 1976 and 1983, the Florida Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission decertified 132 police officers. Standardized procedures for state -level certification /decertification are a worthy goal to pursue. Be aware, however, that the state commission must have sufficient power and resources to investigate misconduct complaints, and must vigorously exercise its authority. And even if it has such power, certification /decertification is only one part of the comprehensive approach that's needed to achieve meaningful police discipline. GOAL #9 — ACCREDITATION OF YOUR POLICE DEPARTMENT One result of the increasing number of lawsuits brought against police departments by victims of abuse over the past 20 years came from within the police profession. It was a movement for an accreditation process, similar to that in education and other fields, whereby the police would establish and enforce their own professional standards. In 1979, the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies ( COALEA) was established as a joint undertaking of several major professional associations. COALEA published its first set of Standards for Law Enforcement Agencies in 1985 and issues new standards periodically. In deciding whether your community should press for accreditation of its local police department, keep in mind these basic points — • Accreditation is a voluntary process. A police department suffers no penalty for not being accredited. (In contrast, lack of accreditation in higher education carries penalties that include an institution's ineligibility for student financial aid programs and non - recognition of its awarded credits or degrees.) • Current accreditation standards represent minimum, rather than optimum, goals. They are very good in some respects but do not go far enough in covering the critical uses of law enforcement powers. • Accreditation might make a difference in the case of a truly backward, unprofessional and poorly managed police department in that it could help stimulate much needed and long overdue changes.On the other hand, a police department can easily comply with all of the current standards and still tolerate rampant brutality, spying and other abuses. http: / /www.aclu. org/ print / racial - justice _prisoners- rights_drug- law- reform_immigrants- rights /fighting- pol... 5/11/2010 Fighting Police Abuse: A Community Action Manual Page 21 of 33 Citizens in your particular community must decide whether, taking all of the above into account, accreditation would serve as an effective mobilization tool. 5. ORGANIZING STRATEGIES Once your community has identified its police problems and decided what solutions to pursue, an organizing strategy for securing the desired reform must be developed. In the 196os and '70s, the most successful method of attacking police abuse was the lawsuit. During the tenure of Chief Justice Earl Warren, landmark Supreme Court decisions that imposed nationally uniform limits on police behavior were handed down in the cases of Mapp v. Ohio, Escobedo v. Illinois and Miranda v. Arizona. Respectively, those decisions extended Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures to the states, established the Sixth Amendment right to a lawyer during police interrogations and required the police to inform persons taken into custody of their Fifth Amendment right against self- incrimination. Today, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist demonstrates repeated hostility to individual rights. Many lower federal courts, the majority of whose presiding judges were appointed by Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush, follow this trend. More and more, therefore, the task of opposing police abuse falls not to lawyers, but to the citizens in the communities. The following profiles of successful organizing strategies can guide your community's attempts to effectively challenge police abuse. STRATEGY #1 — BUILD COALITIONS PROFILE: The Indianapolis Law Enforcement and Community Relations Coalition The year is 1984. Galvanized by a series of brutal and unjustified police killings that have sparked tensions between the police department and the African American community, 19 civil rights, religious, professional and civic organizations form the Indianapolis Law Enforcement/ Community Relations Coalition. Coalition members include the Urban League, Baptist Ministerial Alliance, Community Centers of Indianapolis, Hispano- American Center, Indiana Council of Churches, Jewish Community Relations Council, Mental Health Association, NAACP and the United Methodist Church. The coalition, co- chaired by the Executive Director of the Urban League and a designee of the Indiana Civil Liberties Union, was instrumental in the establishment of a civilian review board in 1989, despite considerable political opposition. Since that time, it has worked to strengthen the authority of that body, which still lacks jurisdiction over police shooting fatalities. A recent series of highly publicized episodes of police misconduct, culminating in an incident in August, 1996, which newspapers dubbed "the police brawl" lent new urgency to the Coalition's efforts. Representatives of the Coalition were tapped by the Greater Indianapolis Process Committee to serve on a Working Group of citizens charged with reviewing the Civilian Review Process and recommending changes in jurisdiction and composition. A co -chair of the Coalition served as co -chair of the Working Group. The broad -based Coalition is credited by many for drawing attention to management problems within the Indianapolis Police Department in addition to the tensions between officers and minority communities. The Coalition's research provided the basis for the deliberations of the Working Group; http: / /www.aclu.org /printlracial- justice _prisoners- rights _drug - law - reform immigrants- rights /fighting- pol... 5/11/2010 Fighting Police Abuse: A Community Action Manual Page 22 of 33 even more important, once the Working Group has delivered its recommendations, monitoring the resulting process will be the responsibility of the Coalition. Key to the Coalition's success has been its broadbased composition and its commitment to participatory decision - making. STRATEGY #2 — MONITOR THE POLICE PROFILE: Copwatch, Berkeley, California Copwatch is a community organization whose stated purpose is "to reduce police harassment and brutality," and "to uphold Berkeley's tradition of tolerance and diversity." Its main activities are monitoring police conduct through personal observation, recording and publicizing incidents of abuse and harassment, and working with Berkeley's civilian review board — the Police Review Commission. Copwatch sends teams of volunteers into the community on three -hour shifts. Each team is equipped with a flashlight, tape recorder, camera, "incident" forms (see sample form) and Copwatch Handbooks that describe the organization's non - violent tactics, relevant laws, court decisions, police policies and what citizens should do in an emergency. At the end of a shift, the volunteers return their completed forms to the COPWATCH office. If they have witnessed an harassment incident, they call one of the organization's cooperating lawyers, who follows up on the incident. Copwatch holds weekly meetings, and its activists attend public meetings of the Police Review Commission. It publishes a quarterly newsletter, Copwatch Report, which features a "Cop Blotter" column that describes examples of police misconduct "gleaned from Copwatch incident reports." Although the group's impact has not been studied, Copwatch activists are convinced that their monitoring activities deter and, thus, reduce harassment and abuse. COPWATCH INCIDENT REPORT FORM Date Time Place Officers (names & numbers) Police Car License No. Arrestee /Victim's Name Other information Suspected charge Witnesses (names & phone numbers) Injuries? If yes, describe Photos or tapes? http: / /www.aclu. org /printlracial- justice _prisoners- rights_ drug- law - reform_ immigrants- rights /fighting- pol... 5/11/2010 Fighting Police Abuse: A Community Action Manual Does arrestee need a lawyer? Description of incident Name of Copwatcher STRATEGY #3 — USE OPEN RECORDS LAWS PROFILE: The Seattle Coalition on Government Spying Page 23 of 33 The year is 1976. During confirmation hearings for a new Seattle police chief, it comes to light that the city's police department maintains political intelligence files on citizens who are not suspected of any criminal activity. Some time later, a local newspaper prints the names of 150 individuals that were found in police files. A group of citizens, concerned about this clear violation of First Amendment and privacy rights, forms the Coalition on Government Spying. One of the coalition's first acts is to file suit under the Washington public disclosure law, seeking access to the police department's intelligence files. Under the law, the police can refuse to disclose the files only if "nondisclosure is essential to effective law enforcement." Since the files are purely political, the court orders full disclosure. The coalition's charges of abuse turn out to be well- founded. Not only do the files show that the police have engaged in unconstitutional surveillance of political activists, but they are full of inaccurate, misleading and damaging information. The lawsuit and its revelations receive a lot of media attention, which helps build strong public support for reform. The result: Seattle enacts the first and only municipal ordinance in the country that restricts police surveillance. OPEN RECORDS LAWS Each of the 50 states has a freedom of information act or an open records law. Virtually all such laws were enacted post - Watergate, in the mid- 1970s. Under these laws, community groups can request and obtain access to police reports, investigations, policies and tape recordings regarding a controversial incident, such as a beating, shooting, or false arrest. If the police refuse to disclose information to representatives of your community, that refusal in itself should become the focus of organizing and public attention. Ultimately, your community can sue to compel disclosure, unless the records you seek are specifically exempted. http: / /www.aclu.org/ print / racial - justice _prisoners- rights_drug -law- reform immigrants- rights /fighting- pol... 5/11/2010 Fighting Police Abuse: A Community Action Manual FLORIDA FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT General state policy on public records. It is the policy of this state that all state, county, and municipal records shall at all times be open for a personal inspection by any person. Definitions. 1. "Public records" means all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, tapes, photographs, films, sound recordings or other material, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business by any agency. 2. "Agency" shall mean any state, county, district, authority or municipal officer, department, division, board, bureau, commission or other separate unit of government. Inspection and examination of records; exemptions. 1. Every person who has custody of public records shall permit the records to be inspected and examined by any person desiring to do so, at reasonable times, under reasonable conditions. The custodian shall furnish copies or certified copies of the records upon payment of fees. 2. All public records which presently are provided by law to be confidential or which are prohibited from being inspected by the public, whether by general or special law, shall be exempt from the provisions of subsection 1. STRATEGY #4 — EDUCATE THE PUBLIC PROFILE: Police Practices Project, ACLU of Northern California Page 24 of 33 The Police Practices Project conducts, among other activities, education programs to teach citizens about their constitutional rights. One aspect of the police abuse problem, the project believes, is that the police tend to abuse certain people partly because they think these individuals don't know their rights, or don't know how to assert their rights. The project also believes that its programs have the added advantage of recruiting groups and individuals to work in police reform campaigns. The project, working with other groups, has sponsored training programs for homeless people, as well as for advocates and service providers for the homeless. The training included the distribution of copies of police policies, information on homeless people's legal rights, suggestions on how to observe and record police misconduct and presentations by members of the local civilian review agency. A videotape was made of one of the project's training sessions for use by other groups outside the Bay Area. The project also publishes wallet -size cards in English, Spanish and Chinese that inform citizens about what to do or say in encounters with the police. These cards have been widely distributed in the community. (One card - holder reported that he pulled out his card when confronted by a police officer, http: / /www.aclu.org /print /racial justice _prisoners- rights_ drug -law- reform_ immigrants- rights /fighting- pol... 5/11/2010 Fighting Police Abuse: A Community Action Manual Page 25 of 33 only to have the officer reach into his wallet and pull out his own copy of the same card!) The ACLU National Office has created a similar card, with a national scope. (You can download a copy to print out below.) The project believes that individual citizens and community groups become informed about police policies just by participating in the preparation of educational materials and training sessions. That participation also fosters awareness about particular areas of police practice that need reform. Most important, education empowers even the most disenfranchised people and helps deter the police from treating them abusively. DOWNLOAD WHAT TO DO IF YOU'RE STOPPED BY THE POLICE (ACLU Pocket Card on Police Encounters) STRATEGY #5: — USE THE POLITICAL PROCESS TO WIN REFORMS PROFILE: The New York Civil Liberties Union's Campaign for a "Real Civilian Review Board" The time is August 1988; the place, New York City. Manhattan's Lower East Side is rocked by one of the most serious outbreaks of police violence in years. Declaring a curfew, the police begin to eject homeless people and their supporters from Tompkins Square Park. Fifty -two people, most of them innocent bystanders, sustain serious injuries at the hands of the police in the ensuing violence. Much of the violence is recorded on video. Yet the officers who are guilty of misconduct go virtually unpunished; only one receives more than a 30-day suspension from the force. The city's Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) comes under heightened scrutiny. Although it was established in the early 195os and gradually strengthened over the years, the CCRB is still criticized for its lack of independence and secretive proceedings. Half of its 12 members are appointed by the mayor, the other half by the police commissioner. Most of the CCRB's investigators are police officers. In the wake of the Tompkins Square events, the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) spearheads "A Campaign for a Real Civilian Review Board" and organizes a coalition of civil rights organizations to back it up. The goal of the campaign is the establishment of a new, all - civilian CCRB that will be totally independent of the police department. During 1991, the campaign calls on the city's community boards to pass resolutions in support of "a real CCRB. (The community boards are elected bodies that have advisory jurisdiction over a variety of local matters, such as zoning and land use). Campaign spokespeople debate police department representatives before some 30 community boards throughout the city, and 19 boards pass resolutions calling for revisions of the present system (see box below). Each board that passes a resolution becomes a member of the campaign coalition. Coalition members set up tables at street fairs and other community events to collect signatures on petitions for "a real CCRB." More than 1,000 signatures are collected. The NYCLU, after garnering this broad support, develops legislation for submission to the City Council. The bill is endorsed by 14 Council members and is adopted. http: / /www. aclu.org /printlracial- justice _prisoners- rights_ drug- law - reform_ immigrants- rights /fighting- pol... 5/11/2010 Fighting Police Abuse: A Community Action Manual RESOLUTION ON THE CIVILIAN COMPLAINT REVIEW BOARD OF NEW YORK CITY Adopted by Community Board #9, Serving Hamilton Heights /Manhattanville & Morningside Heights New York City Whereas, many New Yorkers are concerned about the independence and effectiveness of the present Civilian Complaint Review Board; and Whereas, with the proposed hiring of 9,600 new police officers, unfortunately, there may be a wider possibility of alleged police abuse; and Whereas, if alleged police abuse has been charged, New Yorkers should have an effective government review agency that will render fair and full investigation and hearing of their allegations without pressure from the Police Department now, therefore, be it Resolved, that the new board should have investigators and board members that are civilians with no allegiances to the Police Department and should have the power to subpoena witnesses to insure cooperation from the police officers or other concerned individuals. It should hold regular public hearings and maintain procedural safeguards to protect the rights of civilians and police officers. It should have expanded jurisdiction that includes all police and peace officers employed by the City and quasi -city agencies; and in adopting this resolution we are following the lead of Community Boards #4, #11 and #12. STRATEGY #6 — LOBBY FOR STATE LEGISLATION PROFILE: The ACLU of California's Legislative Approach to Police Misconduct Page 26 of 33 The ACLU's affiliates in Southern California, Northern California and San Diego developed a model state law to address the problem of police abuse. Their proposed legislation includes the following — • Establishing an Office of the Special Police Prosecutor to prosecute cases of police abuse. Independent prosecutors are needed because conventional city and county prosecutors are reluctant to bring charges against the same police officers they rely on for evidence in other criminal cases; • Establishing state - mandated civilian police review boards for local police; • Breaking the "code of silence" by making it a crime for a police officer to fail to report criminal wrongdoing by another officer. This provision would also protect a reporting officer from retaliation; • Requiring statewide data collection on police abuse and misconduct; http: / /www.aclu. org /print /racial - justice _prisoners- rights_ drug -law- reform_ immigrants- rights /fighting- pol... 5/11/2010 Fighting Police Abuse: A Community Action Manual Page 27 of 33 • Restricting the use of force and "pain compliance" techniques; • Breaking down the wall of secrecy that shields complaints of police misconduct and most complaint investigative processes from public scrutiny and oversight. Although the proposal has not yet been adopted, ACLU lobbyists have waged a largely successful battle against a flood of dangerous bills introduced into the California Legislature by police lobbyists. In the process, the ACLU has learned that an informed presence in state legislatures is essential to counteracting well- funded and influential police lobbies that sometimes oppose or undercut reform efforts. TIPS ON DEALING WITH A POLICE MATTER (provided by the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties) Thank you for contacting the ACLU. Your information is very important to us in our effort to monitor police abuse in your community. If you have been a victim of police misconduct and wish to pursue the matter in any manner, you should first contact an attorney to advise you. Nothing that is written in these tips is intended to constitute legal advice, which can only come from an attorney experienced in this area of law. The San Diego County Bar Association's Lawyer Referral Service maintains a panel for referrals of attorneys in this area of law. The number of the referral service is 231- 8585• If you believe you have been the victim of police abuse or misconduct and would like to take action, some of the possible options are — 1. — Pursue your case formally through the municipal, superior, or federal court systems (normally an attorney is necessary). 2. — File a complaint with the law enforcement agency involved (addresses and phone numbers are in the phone book). Your complaint should be made in writing by sending a letter to the chief of police or the head of the law enforcement agency involved. Your complaint does not need to be submitted on police department forms — a letter will suffice. The letter should specify what your complaint involves (e.g., false arrest, excessive force, improper procedures, etc. ) A copy should be sent to the Internal Affairs Division of the law enforcement agency. Make sure to keep a copy for yourself. 3. — Report the incident to one of the two law enforcement civilian review boards in the San Diego area — one for the County of San Diego (typically for matters involving the San Diego Sheriffs Department or Probation Department — phone number 685 - 22oo) and the one for the City of San Diego (for matters involving the San Diego Police Department — phone number 236 -5933) 4. — Take the law enforcement officer(s) to small claims court to recover damages you have suffered. You may want to try one or more of these options to vindicate your rights. An attorney can help you decide among these options by http: / /www.aclu. org /printlracial- justice _prisoners- rights_drug -law- reform_ immigrants- rights /fighting- pol... 5/11/2010 Fighting Police Abuse: A Community Action Manual explaining what is involved with each, and we urge you to consult one before proceeding. If you decide to pursue your claim you must take action quickly because the law imposes severe time limits for nearly every option listed above. If you do not comply with those time limits you will lose your right to take any action. Once again, an attorney experienced in this area of law can advise you regarding the time limits and your rights with respect to them. A FINAL WORD Page 28 of 33 Keep your eye on the big picture. On the one hand, each individual reform is only one step on a long road to correcting the deeply entrenched problem of police misconduct; on the other hand, important and genuine reforms can be won. A well- organized, focused campaign against police abuse can draw broad community support. The key is to transform that support into realistic demands and develop strategies that turn those demands into concrete reforms. We hope the information and advice contained in this manual inspires and equips your community to effectively tackle the problem of police misconduct from the grass roots up. Reform of police practices is in the best interests of every American, including the men and women in blue. You have our best wishes for success. Keep in touch. RESOURCES Bibliography American Civil Liberties Union. On The Line: Police Brutality and its Remedies. New York. April 1991. The ACLU's response to the Rodney King beating. Case studies and recommendations for local and federal remedies. ACLU of Southern California. The Call for Change Goes Unanswered. March 1992. A year after Rodney King beating, this study, based on original research, reveals that there has been little improvement in the responsiveness of the LA Police Department to citizen complaints. ACLU of Southern California. Pepper Spray Update: More Fatalities, More Questions, June 1995• Original research establishes that pepper spray can be fatal, and ACLU makes recommendations to avoid further tragedies. ACLU of Washington. A Call for Accountability: Steps to Reform Investigations of Police Misconduct. August 1993• Critique of Seattle Police Department's handling of civilian complaints and recommendation that an independent civilian review board be established. ACLU of Washington. Coalition on Government Spying: Seattle's Surveillance Ordinance. March 1980. Describes events leading up to city's adoption of law that limits police surveillance of citizens. American Friends Service Committee. The Police Threat to Political Liberty. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1979. Comprehensive report on police spying, with separate chapters on Seattle, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Jackson, Mississippi. http: / /www.aclu.org /print /racial - justice _prisoners- rights_ drug -law- reform_ immigrants- rights /fighting- pol... 5/11/2010 Fighting Police Abuse: A Community Action Manual Page 29 of 33 Bouza, Anthony. The Police Mystique: An Insider's Look at Cops, Crime and the Criminal Justice System. New York. Plenum Press. 1990. The author, retired police chief of Minneapolis and long considered an innovative thinker, analyzes what's wrong with American policing. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Criminal Victimization in the United States, 1989. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C. 1991. National crime survey published annually by U.S. Department of Justice. Chevigny, Paul. Cops and Rebels: A Study Of Provocation. Pantheon. New York. 1972. Case study of police infiltration and disruption of the Black Panther Party in New York City. Chevigny, Paul. Police Brutality in the United States: A Policy Statement on the Need for Federal Oversight. Human Rights Watch. New York. 1991. Review of potential federal remedies for police misconduct. Published in response to the Rodney King incident. Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies. Standards for Law Enforcement Agencies. These official standards for police departments are the bare minimum. Revised regularly. Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. Senate. Freedom of Information: A Compilation of State Laws. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C. 1978. Comprehensive survey of state open records laws. Compendium of International Civilian Oversight Agencies. International Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement. Evanston, Illinois. 1990. Summaries and excerpts of materials on selected civilian review systems. Includes chart that compares systems. COPWATCH Report. 2022 Blake Street, Berkeley, CA 94704. Quarterly newsletter published by community- based, volunteer organization that monitors police activity. Couper, David C. How To Rate Your Local Police. Police Executive Research Forum, 1983. Brochure that examines the issues of leadership, policy and organizational characteristics of police agencies. Useful because it goes beyond such traditional methods of evaluating police departments as the crime rate, number of arrests, clearance rate, ratio of officers to citizens and response time. Donner, Frank. Protectors of Privilege: Red Squads and Police Repression in Urban America. University of California Press. Berkeley. 1990. Epic study of police role in suppressing grass roots social protest. Fyfe, James J. "Administrative Interventions on Police Shooting Discretion: An Empirical Examination." Journal of Criminal Justice #7 (Winter 1979)• PP. 309 -323• The first and still the most important study of the impact of restrictive shooting policies on police use of deadly force. Geller, William A. "Deadly Force: What We Know." Journal of Police Science and Administration; Volume 10 (1982); pp. 151 -177. An important, very informative work about the use of deadly force by police officers. Goldman, Roger and Puro, Steven. "Decertification of Police: An Alternative to Traditional Remedies for Police Misconduct." Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly #15 (Fall 1987). PP. 45-80• The authors, based in St. Louis, are the nation's leading experts on police decertification. Goldstein, Herman. Problem - Oriented Policing. McGraw -Hill. New York. 1990. The most important new concept in policing discussed by one of its creators. http: / /www.aclu.org /print /racial justice _prisoners- rights_ drug - law - reform immigrants- rights /fighting- pol... 5/11/2010 Fighting Police Abuse: A Community Action Manual Page 30 of 33 Matulia, Kenneth J. A Balance of Forces: Model Deadly Force Policy and Procedure. Second edition. International Association of Chiefs of Police. Gaithersburg, Maryland. 1985. Presents comparative data on use of deadly force. Minneapolis Police Civilian Review Working Committee. A Model for Civilian Review of Police Conduct in Minneapolis. Minneapolis, Minnesota. September 1989. Report to Mayor and City Council by special committee formed to propose specific structure for a new civilian review system. Analysis and evaluation of competing arguments regarding authority and role of civilian review. New York Civil Liberties Union. Police Abuse: The Need for Civilian Investigation and Oversight. New York. 1990. NYCLU's report and recommendations following the local Civilian Complaint Review Board's whitewash of a police riot that took place in Tompkins Square Park, in downtown New York City. Pate, Anthony and Edwin E. Hamilton. The Big Six: Policing America's Largest Cities. Police Foundation, 1991. Impressive report on the police departments of New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit and Houston. Uses statistical analysis to compare departments' performance in many areas — firearm discharges; citizen complaints; race, gender and other characteristics of personnel; expenditures per citizen; recruitment, selection and entry requirements; salaries and benefits. Reiss, Albert J. The Police and the Public. Yale University Press. New Haven, Connecticut. 1971. The most comprehensive sociological study of routine police work, based on direct observations. Report of the Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department. Los Angeles. July 1991. Official report of the civilian commission established to investigate the LAPD following the Rodney King beating in March 1991. Includes recommendations for L.A. police reforms. Royal Canadian Mounted Police Public Complaints Commission.Federal and Provincial Police Oversight Legislation: A Comparison of Statutory Provisions. Ottawa, Canada. 1991. Extensive comparison charts on legislation that provides for Canadian civilian review systems. Updated periodically. Sherman, Lawrence W. and Ellen G. Gohn. Citizens Killed By Big City Police, 197o-1984. Crime Control Institute. Washington, D.C. 1986. Presents comparative data on police use of deadly force. Sherman, Lawrence W. and Barry Glick. The Quality of Police Arrest Statistics. The Police Foundation. Washington, D.C. 1984. Comparison study of how different police departments record arrests, and the impact different practices have on arrest statistics. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Who Is Guarding the Guardians: A Report on Police Practices. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C. 1981. A comprehensive review of police misconduct with the most complete set of recommendations to be found anywhere. Based on Civil Rights Commission hearings on the Philadelphia and Houston police departments. Walker, Samuel. "The Effectiveness of Civilian Review: Observations on Recent Trends and New Issues Regarding the Civilian Review of the Police, "American Journal of Police, Vol. XI, No 41992• Many archival documents, as well as up- the - moment information pertaining to policing issues and other matters of criminal justice can be found through the ACLU online at <http: / /archive.aclu.org> on the internet, or on America Online at keyword: ACLU. http: / /www.aclu.org /print /racial justice _prisoners- rights_ drug -law- reform_ immigrants- rights /fighting- pol... 5/11/2010 Fighting Police Abuse: A Community Action Manual ORGANIZATIONS Page 31 of 33 American Friends Service Committee Immigration Law Enforcement Monitoring Project 3515 Allen Parkway Houston, TX 77019 Tel: (713) 524 -5428 Monitors abuses by Immigration and Naturalization Service, Border Patrol and other agencies. Model computerized tracking program for incidents of abuse. Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (COALEA) 4242-B Chain Bridge Road Fairfax, VA 22030 Tel: (703) 352 -4225 Private accrediting board for law enforcement agencies. Organized and supported by law enforcement agencies. Publishes a set of accreditation standards. Community United Against Violence (CUAV) 514 Castro Street San Francisco, CA 94114 Tel: (415) 864 -3112 Lesbian /gay rights advocacy organization. Extensive experience conducting law enforcement sensitivity training on lesbian /gay issues. COPWATCH 2022 Blake Street Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: (510) 548 -0425 Community -based volunteer organization which monitors police activity in an effort to preserve the rights of all citizens, including the homeless, to fair treatment under the law. International Association For Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (IACOLE) 1204 Wesley Avenue Evanston, IL 60202 Tel: (312) 353 -4391 Professional association of persons involved in civilian review of the police. Membership consists primarily of staff members of local civilian review agencies. Annual meeting. Newsletter. Periodically publishes a compendium of civilian review agencies. International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) 13 Firstfield Road P.O. Box bolo Gaithersburg, MD 20878 Primary professional association for chiefs of police. Traditionally dominated by chiefs from small town police departments. International Union of Police Associations (IUPA) 1016 Duke Street Alexandria, VA 22314 Tel: (703) 549 -7473 National federation of local police unions. Does not represent all local unions. http: / /www.aclu.org/ print / racial - justice _prisoners- rights_drug -law- reform_ immigrants- rights /fighting- pol... 5/11/2010 Fighting Police Abuse: A Community Action Manual Page 32 of 33 National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) 4805 Mt. Hope Drive Baltimore, MD 21215 Tel: (301) 358-8900 Civil rights organization with chapters across the country. Promotes civil rights through litigation, lobbying and community organizing. National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers 1110 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 1150 Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel. (202) 872 -8688 Develops public policy recommendations on matters pertaining to the criminal justice system and lobbies Congress. National Black Police Association (NBPA) 3251 Mt. Pleasant St. N.W. Washington, D.C. 20010 Tel: (202) 986 -2070 Association of Black police officers. Resource for community groups working on police abuse issues. Speakers. Brochure on how to handle encounters with police, entitled, "What To Do When Stopped by the Police." National Coalition for Police Accountability (NCPA) 59 E. Van Buren, Suite 2418 Chicago, IL 60603 Tel: (312) 663 -5392 New coalition of groups working on police abuse issues. Members include legal, advocacy, victims, minority police and religious organizations. Plans for annual conference, newsletter and other forms of networking. National Gay and Lesbian Task Force 173414th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20009 Tel: (202) 332-6483 Civil rights organization that promotes freedom and equality for lesbians and gay men. Its Anti - Violence Project publishes an annual report on "Anti- Gay /Lesbian Violence, Victimization & Defamation" and a pamphlet, "Dealing With Violence: A Guide for Gay and Lesbian People." National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE) 908 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20003 Tel: (202) 546 -8811 Non -profit organization of professional law enforcement officials dedicated to improving the quality of police services for all citizens. National Urban League 50o E. 62nd Street New York, NY 10021 Tel: (212) 310 -9000 Civil rights organization that focuses on the economic condition and empowerment of the African American community. Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) 2300 M Street, N.W. http: / /www.aclu.org /print /racial - justice _prisoners- rights_ drug -law- reform_ immigrants- rights /fighting- pol... 5/11/2010 Fighting Police Abuse: A Community Action Manual Page 33 of 33 Washington, D.C. 20037 Tel: (202) 466 -7820 Professional association of police chiefs from the big cities in the United States. Conducts research and management consulting. Issues position papers and policy statements on important issues in policing. Police Foundation 100122nd St., N.W., Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20037 Tel: (202) 833 -146o Non - profit consulting group, primarily engaged in research and demonstration projects on innovative police programs. Involved in some of the most important research projects in policing since the 1970s. Police Watch 611 S. Catalina, Suite 409 Los Angeles, CA 90005 Tel: (213) 387-3325 Model legal referral program for victims of police abuse base on incidents of abuse in Southern California. Some training for police abuse litigators. Data Published on American Civil Liberties Union (http- //www.aclu.org) Source URL: http: / /wwiv aclu orgZracial- justice prisoners - rights drug -lawn- reform immigrants - rights Ufighting- police- abuse - community -ac http: / /www.aclu.org /print /racial - justice _prisoners- rights_ drug- law - reform immigrants- rights /fighting- pol... 5/11/2010