What exactly is an internal investigation?
Lt. John Wallace, who heads the Attorney General's Task Force said it.
Lt. John De La Rosa who heads the department's Internal Affairs Division said it.
Chief Russ Leach who heads the department has said it.
There's a whole lot of internal investigations going on!
Civilian complaints are down!
Internal Investigations are up!
Accountability reigns!
Knock out some champagne.
When De La Rosa appeared before the Community Police Review Commission during a training session, he said that things were very busy in Internal Affairs. Buried in the police department's 2005-06 budget in the middle of a footnote, is the addition of a fifth sergeant to the Internal Affairs' Division.
So what exactly is an internal investigation?
In official terms, an internal investigation is one initiated against an officer by another officer. Statistically, these investigations tend to take longer to complete, and are also more likely to have their allegations of misconduct sustained. Why, should be obvious. Since they are initiated by police officers who never lie while the general public is comprised of liars, then there really needs to be no explanation for the higher sustain rate.
By their nature and because of state laws passed to protect the reputations of law enforcement officers, internal investigations are considered, top secret. Hence, the reaction of both De La Rosa and Leach to my attempts to obtain more information about an investigation conducted involving Det. Joseph Miera.
Miera has worked for the RPD for about 14 years, and has spent two separate stints totalling six years inside the department's gang intelligence unit. Last January, the Internal Affairs Division was conducting an internal investigation of Miera for undisclosed reasons. It is not clear whether this investigation has been completed. It is not clear what allegations involving Miera the department investigated.
Internal investigation aside, Miera continues to work in the police department, and continues to testify as a gang expert on criminal cases. He continues to testify in cases involving the seizure of narcotics. On April 14 and April 28, Miera testified in the preliminary hearing of an alleged 1200 Blocc Crip who was arrested last December on drug charges related to selling cocaine. Mark Roberts was arrested on Dec. 8, 2004 and had been an associate of another alleged gang member, Dione Mckinnon who had been arrested on July 14, 2004 on drugs and weapon charges, also by Miera.
McKinnon's lawyer said that his client had made allegations of the contraband being planted in his vehicle, said that he was being set up. In Miera's police report that he wrote detailing the events which led up to McKinnon's arrest, he states that McKinnon had said "that's not mine" after he pulled the change purse out of the secret compartment inside the dashboard of McKinnon's car, with the packets of cocaine still out of sight.
Miera's deduction on his report was that McKinnon was proclaiming his innocence, knowing that the change purse contained drugs, which could very well be true. Or perhaps, McKinnon did not recognize the change purse being removed from inside his car. The fact that the detective on this case is under investigation by his own department for alleged misconduct complicates the issue greatly when it comes to who is telling the truth and who is lying. The additional problems faced when it is not known what the alleged misconduct is, and what the investigative findings were create a situation which can not be anything but tainted with doubt and suspicion. That is the legacy of "top secret" internal investigations of police officers.
Business as usual, for a detective in the gang unit to testify at preliminary hearings and criminal trials. But does this mean that Miera has been investigated and cleared of wrong-doing? Does it mean he is being investigated and has not been notified, because supposedly when internal investigations are conducted by the RPD, the subject officer is the last to know.
How much damage an officer under investigation for allegations of misconduct does to his unit, and those in it, can not be estimated easily, but it is there.
Or does it just mean that internal investigations are just two words strung together that really have no meaning at all.
Lt. John De La Rosa who heads the department's Internal Affairs Division said it.
Chief Russ Leach who heads the department has said it.
There's a whole lot of internal investigations going on!
Civilian complaints are down!
Internal Investigations are up!
Accountability reigns!
Knock out some champagne.
When De La Rosa appeared before the Community Police Review Commission during a training session, he said that things were very busy in Internal Affairs. Buried in the police department's 2005-06 budget in the middle of a footnote, is the addition of a fifth sergeant to the Internal Affairs' Division.
So what exactly is an internal investigation?
In official terms, an internal investigation is one initiated against an officer by another officer. Statistically, these investigations tend to take longer to complete, and are also more likely to have their allegations of misconduct sustained. Why, should be obvious. Since they are initiated by police officers who never lie while the general public is comprised of liars, then there really needs to be no explanation for the higher sustain rate.
By their nature and because of state laws passed to protect the reputations of law enforcement officers, internal investigations are considered, top secret. Hence, the reaction of both De La Rosa and Leach to my attempts to obtain more information about an investigation conducted involving Det. Joseph Miera.
Miera has worked for the RPD for about 14 years, and has spent two separate stints totalling six years inside the department's gang intelligence unit. Last January, the Internal Affairs Division was conducting an internal investigation of Miera for undisclosed reasons. It is not clear whether this investigation has been completed. It is not clear what allegations involving Miera the department investigated.
Internal investigation aside, Miera continues to work in the police department, and continues to testify as a gang expert on criminal cases. He continues to testify in cases involving the seizure of narcotics. On April 14 and April 28, Miera testified in the preliminary hearing of an alleged 1200 Blocc Crip who was arrested last December on drug charges related to selling cocaine. Mark Roberts was arrested on Dec. 8, 2004 and had been an associate of another alleged gang member, Dione Mckinnon who had been arrested on July 14, 2004 on drugs and weapon charges, also by Miera.
McKinnon's lawyer said that his client had made allegations of the contraband being planted in his vehicle, said that he was being set up. In Miera's police report that he wrote detailing the events which led up to McKinnon's arrest, he states that McKinnon had said "that's not mine" after he pulled the change purse out of the secret compartment inside the dashboard of McKinnon's car, with the packets of cocaine still out of sight.
Miera's deduction on his report was that McKinnon was proclaiming his innocence, knowing that the change purse contained drugs, which could very well be true. Or perhaps, McKinnon did not recognize the change purse being removed from inside his car. The fact that the detective on this case is under investigation by his own department for alleged misconduct complicates the issue greatly when it comes to who is telling the truth and who is lying. The additional problems faced when it is not known what the alleged misconduct is, and what the investigative findings were create a situation which can not be anything but tainted with doubt and suspicion. That is the legacy of "top secret" internal investigations of police officers.
Business as usual, for a detective in the gang unit to testify at preliminary hearings and criminal trials. But does this mean that Miera has been investigated and cleared of wrong-doing? Does it mean he is being investigated and has not been notified, because supposedly when internal investigations are conducted by the RPD, the subject officer is the last to know.
How much damage an officer under investigation for allegations of misconduct does to his unit, and those in it, can not be estimated easily, but it is there.
Or does it just mean that internal investigations are just two words strung together that really have no meaning at all.
posted by Five Before Midnight | 3:25 PM
2 Comments:
Mary,,,the ONLY reason there is an investigation, is because Mr. Mckinnon alleged the drugs and gun were planted...that's why Internal Affairs is looking into it..they have to!...Mr. Mckinnon is a gang member and a drug dealer. He is looking at a long time in prison because of his current case. He is desperately trying to save himself...it's really that simple. When this all plays out in court, and other facts about the evidence found come out,,you will drop this topic like a hot potato,,trust me..
Dear Anonymous:
Thank you for your comments.
Mary,,,the ONLY reason there is an investigation, is because Mr. Mckinnon alleged the drugs and gun were planted...that's why Internal Affairs is looking into it..they have to!...Mr. Mckinnon is a gang member and a drug dealer. He is looking at a long time in prison because of his current case. He is desperately trying to save himself...it's really that simple. When this all plays out in court, and other facts about the evidence found come out,,you will drop this topic like a hot potato,,trust me..
Saturday, August 26, 2006 12:21:56 PM
Interesting. It is true that there was a legal document filed in court that had stated that the Internal Affairs Division was doing an internal investigation involving the gang detective who was involved with this particular case. I have no idea what that investigation was for or its eventual disposition, because that information was not included in the document and in fact, that information is protected from disclosure by state law. Also, the lawyer did not seem to know what the investigation was about, according to the declaration in his Pitchess motion. He wrote in his declaration that an Internal Affairs lieutenant had contacted his client in jail about an active internal affairs investigation involving this detective.
This presents a potential problem for your supposition. If the department's internal investigation involved his client's allegations against the gang detective, then it is likely that his client would have informed him of these allegations. However, according to the court document, the attorney instead contacted a lieutenant in the Internal Affairs division to ask for an explanation of what the investigation was about. An Internal Affairs representative told him that information was privileged and he would need to file a Pitchess motion in court which the attorney did, hence the document.
One could surmise that McKinnon's allegations against the detective and the Internal Affairs investigation were directly related, but one can not state it as fact, because without being able to access that information, it's impossible to know for sure what was actually being investigated or why that detective was under investigation.
The judge did grant the Pitchess motion and unidentified discoverable information was provided from an officer(s) file to the defense attorney, according to the minute records. Since there was more than one officer listed on the motion, it is not clear which officer(s) had discoverable information in their personnel files that was provided to the defense. These hearings are held in a judge's chambers and are not open to the public. The city's custodian of record releases the personnel files to a judge for his review and it is his or her decision whether or not the defense will be privy to any of their contents.
That said, given certain restrictions placed on the release of certain information, situations of this type easily provide more questions than answers. I'm curious as to why you seem so sure about the content of this particular internal investigation.
However, I do thank you for your interest in clearing up the ambiguities on this investigative issue with "facts" whatever your source. I appreciate your preview of events to come and your reference of "other facts about the evidence". If you would like to elaborate, that would of course be appreciated as I am obviously not as close to this case as you purport to be!
Trust you? Do you have a name? Did you really come up with your theory of this case after reading your tea leaves that day? I do see that you have apparently stopped praying at least for me, lol.
Have a nice day,
Post a Comment
<< Home