HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-08-2010 Police Citizens Review BoardAGENDA
POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD
June 8, 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
ITEM NO. 9
AMENDED
• Minutes of the meeting on 05/11/10
• ICPD Department Memo #10 -15 (March -April 2010 Use of Force Review)
• ICPD Use of Force Report— March 2010
• ICPD Use of Force Report —April 2010
ITEM NO. 4
NEW BUSINESS
ITEM NO. 5
OLD BUSINESS
Update Forms
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
• 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
• October 12, 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:
June 2, 2010
TO:
PCRB Members
FROM:
Kellie Tuttle
Packet for meeting on June 8, 2010
RE:
Board
Enclosed please find the following documents for your review and comment at the next board meeting:
Agenda for 06/08/10
Minutes of the meeting on 05/11/10
ICPD Department Memo #10 -15 (March -April 2010 Use of Force Review)
ICPD Use of Force Report — March 2010
ICPD Use of Force Report — April 2010
Complaint Deadlines
PCRB Office Contacts — May 2010
Extension request to City Council regarding PCRB Complaint #10 -01
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
CALL TO ORDER:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
DRAFT
POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES — May 11, 2010
Chair Donald King called the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M.
Janie Braverman, Royceann Porter (5:34p), Joseph Treloar
Vershawn Young
Staff Catherine Pugh and Kellie Tuttle
Captain Richard Wyss and Officer David Schwindt of the ICPD
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
None.
INTRODUCTION OF NEW MEMBER
King announced that Peter Jochimsen was appointed by the City Council at the May 10th
meeting and that his term would begin July 1.
CONSENT
CALENDAR Motion by Braverman and seconded by Treloar to adopt the 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
Motion carried, 3/0, Porter and Young absent.
King wanted to clarify that in General Order 99 -05 (Use of Force), section V (Procedures
— Less Lethal Force), item D that if a person is actively combative, medical treatment
would not be offered. Wyss stated that if it was for a chemical irritant only, treatment is
not offered unless the person is non - combative.
In the same section under item C(3) Treloar wanted to know why nylon leg restraints
were used instead of metal ones. Wyss explained that the metal ones were not
available to them and that the nylon is easier to use.
NEW BUSINESS Discussion of Conflict of Interest — Pugh went over abstaining if you have a conflict of
interest. If a Member has a conflict of interest, they may abstain from the vote but they
must give the reason for the conflict. Pugh also noted that the Board does not have a
mechanism to force a Member to vote if they do not have a valid reason to abstain.
Pugh explained what City Council has in place for such cases. Any changes the Board
would want to make would be a by -law change and would have to get City Council
approval.
Update Complaint Forms — The Board discussed making the complaint forms and
information available more user friendly so that the Board gets all the information they
need when the complaint is filed. Braverman suggested explaining personal knowledge
PCRB
May 11, 2010
Page 2
somewhere on the form and offer assistance on filling out the form. King and Treloar will
work on making some changes and bring them back to the Board at its next meeting.
OLD BUSINESS Comprehensive Review of PCRB Ordinance, By -Laws, SOP's — Pugh revised the
mediation letters that go to the Chief, Officer, and complainant so that the message is
clearer that all parties must agree before mediation can take place. Treloar did some
research on other review Boards. The information will be e- mailed to Members for
discussion at the next meeting and available on the City website.
Motion to accept ICPD General Order 01 -01 (Racial Profiling) — Braverman suggested
carrying this over until July until the final decisions are made to any suggested changes
on the ordinance, by -law, or SOP.
PUBLIC
DISCUSSION None.
BOARD
INFORMATION None.
STAFF
INFORMATION None.
EXECUTIVE
SESSION Motion by Treloar and seconded by Porter 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, Young absent.
Open session adjourned at 6:07 P.M.
REGULAR
SESSION Returned to open session at 6:16 P.M.
Motion by Braverman, seconded by Treloar to request 30 -day extension for PCRB
Complaint #10 -01, due to timelines and scheduling.
Motion carried, 4/0, Young absent.
PCRB
May 11, 2010
Page 3
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change)
• 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
King will have to check his schedule in August to see if there's a conflict. The Board will
be one member short in June. With Young preparing to move he will not be available for
the meeting.
ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Treloar, seconded by Braverman.
Motion carried, 4/0, Young absent. Meeting adjourned at 6:21 P.M.
7�O�C
a
y
CD
d
eb
as
d o�
0
O
r
I ^.I
1
1
H
N
c
0
►C Y
ow
rA
N
J
a
y
CD
d
eb
as
d o�
0
O
r
I ^.I
1
1
H
N
c
0
DEPARTMENT MEMO #10 -15
TO: Chief Hargadine
FROM: Captain R. D. Wyss
RE: March- April 2010 Use of Force Review
DATE: May 27, 2010
20(01UN -! Aj�', g. Co
OIT`( i"LLE
IOWA O!TY
Y,
The "Use of Force Review Committee" met on May 27th, 2010. It was composed of Captain
Wyss, Sgt. Hurd and Sgt. D. Brotherton.
For the review of submitted reports in March, 37 Officers were involved in 12 separate incidents
requiring use of force involving 22 individuals. In April, 14 Officers were involved in 10
separate incidents requiring use of force involving 10 individuals.
No training or safety issues were identified. All issues or concerns were identified and addressed
at previous levels of review.
Of the 22 incidents over the two month period, 19 Officers had drawn sidearm or displayed
weapons and one of those was for the destruction of an animal. There were eight separate
incidents that required a display of weapon response.
OC was deployed on one occasion, and in six incidents a Taser was discharged. On two separate
occasions, a Taser was displayed which resulted in compliance without deployment. There was
one vehicular pursuit involving one Officer during this time period.
Of the 22 incidents reviewed, 4 suspects sustained superficial injuries. No Officer injuries were
documented during this reporting period.
All personnel continue doing a good job in their documentation and review of the reports. Please
contact me if you have any questions.
Copy: City Manager, PCRB, Watch Commanders, Review Committee
6,4,45,
60,57,
19
16
3 -16 113586
3 -23 1 14787
60 1 3 -24 1 14750
60,4 1 3 -26 1 15274
Felony Traffic
IOWA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT 1E
Stop
USE OF FORCE REPORT
March 2010 2 0 10 HAY 27 P 1 3
Ofc #
7,4,60
Date Inc # Incident
2010 -�
3 -03 11181 Domestic
Assault
Force Used c - Y f L'- �
Officers deployed tasers and chemical spray to
subdue an assaultive and suicidal subject to
make an arrest for a domestic assault.
known to go armed, who was attempting to flee
11914
Armed Subject
Officers used hands -on control techniques,
displayed a taser, sidearm, and patrol rifle to
take a subject armed with a knife into custody.
The subject had cut himself, violated a no
contact order, and hid in an attic to avoid
85,15,
93,51,
7,29
3-07
Activity
techniques to stop a subject who had assaulted
the officer during arrest for public intoxication.
officers.
Officers deployed a taser to arrest an assault and
12890
Search Warrant
SRT executed entry using standard SRT
operating procedures for a high risk search
SRT
3-13
warrant.
13033
Domestic
Assault
Officer used hands -on control techniques to
arrest a resistive subject for domestic assault.
40,57
3 -13
13186
Domestic Fight
Officers used hands -on control techniques to
arrest a resistive subject attempting to flee the
1,31
3 -14
scene of a domestic dispute.
6,4,45,
60,57,
19
16
3 -16 113586
3 -23 1 14787
60 1 3 -24 1 14750
60,4 1 3 -26 1 15274
Felony Traffic
Officers displayed sidearms curing a mgn non
Stop
felony traffic stop involving possible armed
subjects.
Domestic
Officer displayed a sidearm to stop a subject
Assault
known to go armed, who was attempting to flee
the scene after violating a no contact order and
assaulting a victim.
Suspicious
Officer used hands -on control and take -down
Activity
techniques to stop a subject who had assaulted
the officer during arrest for public intoxication.
Out w /Subject
Officers deployed a taser to arrest an assault and
combative subject for assault causing injury and
public intoxication.
51 3 -28 15535 Out w /Subject Officer used hands -on control anu LaKO -uV WH
techniques to arrest a subject for public
intoxication who had been involved in an
altercation.
44,45 1 3 -30
60,44, I 3 -30
24
15962 Burglary Officers used hands -on control anu Banc -u—,.
Investigation techniques to arrest a resistive and combative
subject attempting to flee the scene during a
burglary investigation.
16173 Domestic F�ht Officers deployed tasers on two subjects who
1,arl acca„ltari nff;r.Prc investigating a faht.
k
IOWA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT
USE OF FORCE REPORT 2010 M AY 27 Pig 3
April 2010 gg -
_
C 9 'Y � L;3'ai4
Ofc #
Date
Inc #
Incident
Force T 1~.
� 1 � Y, 1 �
2010-
24
4-01
16238
Criminal
Officer used hands -on control and take -down
Mischief
techniques to stop a subject who was running
from another officer who had stopped the
subject for criminal mischief.
21
4 -01
16585
Armed Subject
Officer displayed a sidearm to stop a subject
who had been seen by witnesses displaying a
gun.
52
4 -04
16848
Intoxicated
Officer used hands -on techniques to place a
Subject
resistive subject into the back of a s uad car.
18
T-15-18888
Animal
Officer deployed a .22 to terminate a sick
Complaint
raccoon.
40,4,
4-15
18897
Trespass
Officers displayed tasers and a sidearm to stop a
88
subject aggressively approaching with a baseball
bat.
16,9,
4 -22
20097
Assist Other
Officers used hands -on techniques and deployed
38
Agency
a taser on a resistive and combative suicidal
subject who had fought with hospital staff and
was attempting to flee.
24
4 -23
20295
Violation of a
Officer used hands -on techniques to place a
No Contact
resistive subject into the back of a squad car.
Order
39
4-23
20241
Mental
Officer used hands -on control and take -down
Impairment
techniques to control a subject who had kicked
officers and attempted to flee a court committal.
35
4 -23
20197
Fight
Officers deployed a taser to subdue a subject
actively assaulting another person and ignored
orders to stop.
18
4 -30
21660
Assist Other
Officer joined a vehicle pursuit initiated by an
A enc
outside
June 8, 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: 05/10/10
PCRB Mtg #1 (Review) 05/11/10
PCRB Mtg #2 (Review & Assign) 06/08/10
PCRB Mtg #3 (Review Draft) ? ? / ? ? / ??
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PCRB Report due (45days): 06/24/10
30 -day Ext Request: 07/26/10
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
July 13, 2010
August 10, 2010
September 14, 2010
October 12, 2010
POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD
OFFICE CONTACTS
May 2010
Date Description
None
POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD
A Board of the City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City IA 52240 -1826
(319)356 -5041
May 12, 2010
Mayor Matt Hayek
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
At the May 11, 2010 meeting, the PCRB voted in open session to request a 30 -day extension
regarding the reporting deadline for the Public Report according to the City Code for PCRB
Complaint #10 -01 for the following reasons:
• Due to timelines, and scheduling
• Public Report presently due June 24, 2010
30 -day Extension request — Report would be due on July 26, 2010
The Board appreciates your prompt consideration of this matter.
Sincerely, .
Donald King, Chair
Police Citizens Review Board
cc: City Attorney
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