Hiding in Plain Sight: The women in the RPD

At a recent city council meeting, over 40 representatives from both the RPD's management and the RPOA's Board of Directors filled the city council chambers, to listen to and in some cases speak on several issues on the meeting agenda.

What was most notable about this gathering, was the absolute absense of female officers sitting in the audience. Where were they? They are not holding positions of leadership either in the department's management or in the union that is set up to represent them. That is why none were present in the audience.

Statistically, about 9% of all officers in the RPD are female. This number has remained fairly stagnant since 2000. While the numbers of female officers slowly climb, they lag behind the hiring of male officers, which is why the percentage of women in the department remains so low. There are three female sergeants, five female detectives and two female lieutenants, according to the 2004 EEO report issued by the Human Resources Department.

Nation-wide, about 17% of all law enforcement personnel are women. Why are the numbers in the RPD, the state's newest "model" agency so low? And why when the RPD does recruit women into its ranks, is their retention relatively poor?

One person I knew reported the following assertion by an officer she had been talking to, about female officers.

"I don't think women should be in law enforcement. I don't like them and they could never be as good as men"-- RPD cop(2002)

Why indeed.

In 1998, the city of Riverside paid out a handsome settlement well into the six-figures on a sexual discrimination, harassment and retaliation law suit filed by former Sgt. Christine Keers. Keers filed the complaint alleging that she faced a hostile work environment, a rather thick glass ceiling and retaliation under two police chiefs when she complained about unfair treatment.

Keers alleged that the mistreatment started when she joined the agency as a probational officer on May 15, 1981. She stated in her law suit she was subjected to many sexist and sexual comments on the job including the following:

"Women cops are like snails, when they get up, you can see the wet marks"

"Come and scoot across my face."

On one occasion, Keers alleged that former Det. Ron Adams saw her yawning and said:

"Her mouth is open. She must want to get promoted."

In 1993, an investigation was launched by the department when a unit secretary accidently heard through an open phone line sexist comments made by male detectives, including one that referred to a female officer as a "brood mare". Another was that "women did not know their place." Instead of disciplining the officers involved, the administration told Keers not to talk to the secretary because it would just upset her.

If two female officers were assigned to the same squad car, it was called the "lesbian" car.

Many of these comments were allegedly said in roll call sessions, the same roll call room which would later be placed by State Attorney General Bill Lockyer under video surveillance as part of the stipulated agreement. One would think this agency would have had a professional environment of professionals, but Keers in her suit against the city alleged otherwise.

When Keers tried to get promoted to sergeant, the situation really heated up, according to her law suit. Former Chief Linford "Sonny" Richardson promoted men who were less qualified, less experienced and who had disciplinary histoires, according to Keers' complaint. When asked why he promoted one male individual, Richardson said:

"I owed it to him for his faithfulness."

Richardson was eventually cycled out of the department's revolving door and Ken Fortier replaced him. As history would soon show, his stay at the helm of the top administrative position in the department would be relatively short. Still, Keers had to wait for her promotion, despite Fortier's assurances that she would be promoted if she dropped her grievance.

But she would not, and eventually was promoted to sergeant although her stint in that position was even briefer than Fortier's stint with the department. Soon after, Internal Affairs began investigating her and a criminal case was filed against her for knowingly buying stolen goods at a store.

The Riverside County District Attorney's office took the case but presented three conditions to the Police Department before it would be allowed to make an arrest. Those being that the department could not utilize informants for information who were working off cases, that officers who Keers had complained against not be involved and that an arrest not be done until the D.A.'s office authorized it. According to Keers' law suit, the department violated all three conditions.

Keers was arrested on Aug. 17, 1994 by three of the officers named in her past and present grievances: Sgt. Al Brown, Det. Ron Adams and former Capt. Michael Smith. Her case went to trial and she was acquitted after an hour of deliberation. A defense fund was initiated by officers within the department to raise money for court costs, until Fortier tried to thwart that fund raising effort.

The timing of the arrest and prosecution in relation to Keers' grievance filings, not to mention the parties involved in both processes are disturbing, but hardly novel in terms of how the department treats its "whistle blowers". Former Officer Rene Rodriguez was mirandized during his interview with Internal Affairs in relation to his discrimination and harassment complaint against the department after the division decided to reopen a closed out complaint against him involving an off-duty arrest.


Keers reported other retaliation in her law suit, which worsened as she navigated through the promotional process.

Graffiti in the men's bathroom at one facilty referred to Keers as a "bitch" and a "whore". Threatening and hang up phone call messages were left on her machine including one at the workplace which the caller said, "bitch, you are going to die." Fliers of sexual cartoons appeared on her desk and elsewhere in the department.

The city spent the relatively miniscule amount of $19,000 in court costs before it settled the case for considerably higher than that and eventually gave Keers a paid retirement at tax payer expense.

Today, the department like others has in place a policy governing sexual discrimination and harassment in the workplace, but former police chief Penny Harrington testified during the Roger Sutton law suit trial that although she found that policy adequate, she did not believe the enforcement and implementation of it was satisfactory.

The number of female officers in the department took a serious dip after 1999, which it only recently has begun to recover from, but the number of women promoted to higher positions especially those in management continues to lag. Women also traditionally have not served on their own union's board of directors, a glass ceiling of a different kind not likely to break soon. It is not clear whether there are any female officers serving as grievance representatives in the labor union, which means that if any sexual discrimination or harassment is taking place inside the department, it is much less likely to be reported to either the labor union or management.

During the state attorney general's investigation, evidence emerged that sexist and sexual jokes and comments were being told alongside their racist counterparts during roll call sessions. Hence, the decision to put video cameras in the roll call room, during its sessions to as, Bill Lockyer said, break the racist and sexist culture of the police department.

Recruitment of women continues to be difficult. At a departmental recruiting forum held in May 2004, there were few female officers present and only one, Det. Rita Cobb, participated in a demonstration involving police skills and tactics. Representatives from male-dominated divisions including Aviation, canine, motorcycle, bicycle, narcotics and SWAT/METRO were on display in front of the public but no female officers were present. During the SWAT/METRO question and answer session, one potential female officer candidate asked Sgt. Kendall Banks if there were any women on the SWAT Team. He answered, no because none of the women were strong enough.

The recruitment tables inside the boathouse had applications for both sworn positions and for nonsworn positions in the dispatch unit. The "officer" table was manned by a man. The "dispatcher" table was manned by a woman, which sent a message to women who attended the forum that they were hireable as dispatchers, rather than officers.

The Use of Force training Team has one female officer who recently was present at a training session given by the CPRC. However, except for a brief display of her considerable baton welding skills, she functioned mainly as the "suspect" to be searched, handcuffed and apprehended by the other male officers on the team who were allowed to display their defense skills. As a fully trained officer in the department, she would be required to be just as skilled in defense tactics as her male counterparts yet her skills were not put on display as theirs were during the demonstrations.

The RPD continues to do most of its local officer recruitment at ball parks, air shows and military installations, locations where they are likely to find far more men than women. Before the latest Iraqi war dried up the prospective pool, nearly 2/3 of its recruitment time and energy was spent at local military institutions including Camp Pendleton Marine Station.

Retention of women in the department and others like it continue to be a problem, particularly during the probational period when women are dropped for poor evaluations for being "too slow", lacking in "gusto" and other similar reasons. Experts in women and policing state that such terms are code words to promote the idea that female officers are simply inferior to their male counterparts. EEO reports for the past several years show a net gain of two female officers over a four year period.

Promotions for female officers remain few and far between. Women comprise less than 6% of all sergeants and less than 5% of all lieutenants. There are no female captains and there has only been one female deputy chief in the department's history. That situation is unlikely to change in the next five to ten years.

Which is a shame, because many studies done comparing female officers to male officers have favored the women, including those done on the issue of excessive force. In statistics provided for many larger law enforcement agencies, women comprise about 5% of complaints involving excessive force, 5% of citizen complaints and 2% of sustained complaints. Women engage in as many arrests as their male counterparts and do not hesitate to use force when necessary, but their rates of excessive force are far exceeded by male officers.

Financially, women are more cost-effective when it comes to civil litigation paid out by cities and counties in relation to excessive force, sexual assaults and domestic violence. Although nationally, women are outnumbered by about 6.5 to 1, in terms of law suits paid out, men outnumber women, anywhere from 20 to 40 to 1.

So the logical thing to do would be to hire more female officers, particularly as the department moves away from parimilitary style policing and continues to embrace Community Oriented Problem Solving policing. Yet, the numbers of female officers in the RPD will continue to lag behind those of men for a long time.

Legal Cases:

The People of the State of California vs Christine Keers(criminal)

Christine Keers vs the City of Riverside(Civil)

Links:

National Center of Women and Policing

Publications:

Excessive Force: A Tale of Two Genders

Recruiting and Retaining women: 2003 update (Adobe Acrobat Reader required)

Effect of Content Decrees on Hiring Women: During and After (Adobe Acrobat Reader required)

Police Officers and Domestic Violence: a study

Can you say, doh?!

It's also an election year all around in Riverside. Inside City Hall, and inside the RPOA. And elections have ways of making involved parties engage in rather interesting behavior, to win them.

TO BE CONTINUED...

CPRC: Summer Lane shooting was excessive force

During a closed session held on Nov. 9, the Community Police Review Commission determined that Officer Ryan Wilson violated the department's use of force policy when he shot and killed Summer Lane on Dec. 6, 2004. Hardly a shock considering the circumstances of the shooting, as well as actions taken by departmental management and other employees from day one. It is very difficult to read the investigation and not believe that those involved knew what was coming down the pike, early on.

Consent decree or not, the department's management will always resort to its favorite defense mechanism when trouble is brewing, which is to deny that there are any problems or any misconduct. After all, they are working from a very old script. A script that many, including most recently Attorney General Bill Lockyer, took a crack at rewriting but which remains etched in stone as much today as it was on Dec. 28, 1998.

The mood was somber as the eight commissioners departed from the session to begin the public meeting. No decision was announced that evening, pursuant to legal advice given to the commissioners by City Attorney Gregory Priamos. That announcement was in a sense, the city attorney's inadvertant way of revealing the CPRC's decision. Why else would Priamos even attend a CPRC closed session, if this shooting was going to follow on the heels of the previous six reviewed by the commission?

The finding was however, published at the CPRC Web Site
--------------------------------------------------

CPRC

click "findings"
click "2005"
click "November 9" (document is in pdf format)
--------------------------------------------------

Before the closed session began, Interim Executive Director Pedro Payne and CPRC Chair Michael Gardner had engaged in a discussion in the hallway with Capt. Richard Dana, from the chief's office, and Priamos. Priamos then went in closed session before the deliberations began, to brief the commission on how the finding was going to be disseminated to the public...which of course would be through the medium every city resident of course had access to: The internet.

The Lane shooting is the first of seven incustody deaths investigated by the CPRC to be found in violation of departmental policy. It is also the first shooting to have found by any committee inside or outside the police department to have involved excessive force in the department's history.

The CPRC will forward its finding to City Manager Brad Hudson who will make the final disposition on the shooting. The department completed its own administrative review months earlier and has forwarded its own findings. Deputy Chief David Dominguez and other department representatives from its management team have declined to comment on the Lane shooting, except to protest weakly that the Riverside County District Attorney's office declined to file criminal charges against Wilson as if that decision has anything to do with the department's administrative review. It does not and it should not.

But then strong leadership during turbulent times has never been this department's strongpoint. Five years spent spinning its reluctant participation in court-mandated reforms into the image of the "model agency", the new, improved RPD, has left the agency ill-prepared to face another controversal shooting, involving a woman inside a motor vehicle. The startling, if daunting aspect of this mess is that were it not for the CPRC and its power to investigate officer-involved deaths, the city's residents would be none the wiser.

From the beginning, the department's stance has been that Wilson shot and killed Lane because he was in fear for his life. However, at a briefing by its investigator held on Sept. 28, commissioners listened in shock as details from the shooting emerged which differed from those they had heard at an earlier briefing by the department held on Dec. 22, 2004. As the commissioners drafted their public report, it became clear through their statements that none of them believed that Wilson was in danger when he shot Lane. That conclusion was included in the public report released on Nov. 2.

The shooting has elicited a lot of discussion in City Hall in the sense that it is seen as a very bad shooting, but everyone is waiting to see what Hudson will decide to do.

Some see Hudson as a person who will take a strong stance and back the decision of the CPRC. Others, realize that he was hired by a city council, with a majority of its members financially backed by the Riverside Police Officers' Association. He is well aware what happens behind closed doors, twice a year.

It's also an election year all around in Riverside. Inside City Hall, and inside the RPOA. And elections have ways of making involved parties engage in rather interesting behavior, to win them. Toss in the stipulated agreement which people have announced plans to move on from already...before the ink on the signatures has even been written, let alone dried.

Once again, past is prologue and the future is unwritten in River City.

Elections: To Be Continued

The semifinals round of the 2005 municipal elections were completed in Riverside, with two candidates from wards 2 and 4 heading into the final round to be held on Jan. 17, 2006.

Winning the first round in the second ward, which includes the Eastside, University neighborhood south of Blaine St, as well as portions of Canyoncrest and Sycamore Hights, was retired Riverside County Sheriff's Deputy Ruben Rasso, with 43% of the votes. He will be joined in the ward 2 final by Businessman Andrew Melendrez, who managed to secure 31% of the votes. Traditionally, the winner of the semifinal round of the election race loses in the finals, because the vote is no longer split among different candidates. It is anticipated that the majority of Deen Teer's voters(comprising 12% of the total votes) will jump onboard the Melendrez train straight to City Hall.

However, one can never underestimate the tenacity of campaigns done by candidates supported by the status quo. What Rasso lacks in experience and polish, he more than makes up in the zeal of those who back him with large financial contributions, exhaustive phone banks and door-to-door campaign. The sight all over his ward of members of the Fire Fighters union Political Action Committee waving signs as if they were trying to land Boing 747 jets on University Avenue and also in the "Four Corners" could be enough to sway the tide against semi final winners. Abeit, a wardrobe change for those who man the streets with signs, may be useful because most of the motorists at least in the "Four Corners" intersection were more concerned with the traffic logjam aggravated in part by our current incumbants from several wards, than in voting to give them four more years to create even more traffic congestion on the beleagured city streets.

The battle among the five candidates in Ward 4 is now down to only two, and weary voters can anticipate twice the mudslinging that occurred in the contentious first round between incumbant Frank Schiavone and retired trash collector, Sam Cardelucci. More colorful, entertaining advertisements and brochures detailing the evil acts committed by one candidate against the other are sure to fill the mail boxes of those residing and working in the city's largest ward. Cardelucci, riding on a wave of anti-DHL and unchecked housing development, tails Schiavone in the first round votes, but is anticipated to pick up crucial votes from those who supported the other three candidates in the race.

In less contested contests, Mayor Ron Loveridge won enough votes to avoid the final round all together and will be mayor for another 16 years, with Terry Frizzel coming in second, in the tally.

Nancy Hart who picked up some GASS Quartet money this time around, won a relatively uncontested race in ward 6.


County and state election results

CPRC issues public report on Summer Lane shooting

The CPRC voted 8-0 to approve its public report on the Summer Lane shooting. It will be available online by the end of today, Oct. 3.

CPRC Public Report

Click link.

(Adobe Acrobat Reader required)

Over 15 community members and members of Lane's family attended the special CPRC meeting on Oct. 2 at City Hall. Also in attendance and sitting in their own corner, were RPD Robbery-Homicide Sgt. Steve Johnson and Commander Richard Dana, who works in the Chief's office and supervises the Internal Affairs Division.

Summer Lane: The Interrogation

The interrogation of the Riverside Police Department officer who shot and killed Summer Lane last December came under fire, by members of the Community Police Review Commission during a special meeting held to draft its public report on the incident.



"The detectives appear to be giving answers to the officer to their own questions," Commissioner Brian Pearcy said.



Pearcy, a former Los Angeles Police Department officer, made his comments while he was drafting the section of the report which critiqued the investigation conducted by members of the Officer-Involved Shooting Team.



Pearcy also said that the detectives appeared to have been coaching Wilson on what to say, rather than asking him objective questions designated to elicit information which would have presented a clear picture of the events that occurred before and during the shooting. Most impacted by the investigators' line of questioning were portions of the interrogation which addressed what was going through Wilson's mind when he walked up to Lane's car and pulled the trigger four times.



"In their questions, detectives were leading the officer away from responses that would subject the officer to possible violations of law and policy," Pearcy said.



Pearcy in his comments gave higher marks to other portions of the investigation, which he said had been done more thoroughly than others had been in the past. For one thing, more eyewitnesses to the shooting had been located and interviewed by department investigators. For the most part, the department's investigation matched what had been uncovered by the CPRC's private investigator Norm Wright in his own investigation, Pearcy said. The interrogation of Wilson, was its main problem, in his opinion.



"That's where the investigation broke down, " Pearcy said.




Other commissioners including Les Davidson, Sheri Corral and Jim Ward sharply disagreed that the interrogation of Wilson was the investigation's only downside.




"I just have a problem saying this is a good investigation," Davidson, another former Los Angeles Police Department officer, said, repeatedly.



Ward said that it is not just the quality of investigation that is important but how it is interpreted by those who make the decisions. That was where the department and the CPRC parted ways.



"We came up with a whole different conclusion than they did," Ward said.



Indeed, the department has already concluded both its criminal investigation and its administrative review done by its Internal Affairs Division, but has yielded no information on its findings citing state laws pertaining to the confidentiality of peace officer personnel files. However, Wilson is still working as a patrol officer nearly 10 months after the shooting, which has allowed people to draw their own conclusions.



Wright, on the other hand, told commissioners at a Sept. 28 meeting that he did not believe that Wilson was in imminent danger when he shot Lane. None of the commissioners believe that Wilson was in danger or shooting at a fleeing felon, according to statements they gave at two meetings since they had first listened in stunned silence to Wright's presentation of his investigation's findings.



From the beginning of its investigation, the department stated in documents that Wilson shot Lane because he was in danger.



Wilson shot Lane to eliminate a threat to his life, according to a memo submitted by Det. Jay Greenstein of the Robbery-Homicide Unit to his supervisor, Sgt. Steve Johnson on Dec. 21, 2004. In that same memo, and even in an earlier one written by Johnson to Chief Russ Leach on Dec. 7, 2004, were statements that Wilson had left suspect Christopher Grotness on the ground and approached Lane as she sat in the driver's side of her stationary vehicle and shot four times into her window.



These earlier accounts contrasted with a briefing the police department gave to the CPRC on Dec. 22, 2004 that stated that Wilson had shot at Lane from some location behind the car, and that he was probably on the ground with Grotness at the time. The department has not publicly explained the discrepancies between the two accounts. In the current draft of the its report, members of the CPRC were careful not to include possible explanations as to why the information put out by the department verbally, and later in writing was contradictory. But several of them had harsh words in response.



"The department lied," Ward said at a meeting held on Oct. 12, adding that he did not feel mistakes were made.



The interrogation of Wilson in question, took place at the department's general investigation bureau on Dec. 7, 2004, the day after the shooting. Detectives Greenstein and Ron Sanfilippo, from the Robbery-Homicide unit met with Wilson and his attorney, Anthony Snograss. At the beginning of the interview, the detectives ask Wilson to relate the events that led up to the shooting and listen to his account. However, further into the interview process, they begin to ask him questions, interjected with their own opinions.



During several portions of the interview where Wilson's account differed from those of other eyewitnesses, the detectives appeared to use their experience as officers to give Wilson the benefit of the doubt, according to a transcript of the interview. At one point, Sanfilippo questions Wilson about whether or not he gave verbal commands to suspect Christopher Grotness at any point during the process of trying to arrest him.



Det. Sanfilippo: When we talked to him[Grotness] last night, he said, you know, 'the officer didn't say nothing to me the whole time. You know he didn't make any statements. He didn't make any commands. We both neither of us talked,' which is kind of unusual in a fight. I mean, I was an officer.

Wilson: Right.

Sanfilippo: I know you're probably at all times giving commands. That's part of the whole thing.

Wilson: Right.

Sanfilippo: So you were giving commands telling him to stop and he just wasn't complying?

Wilson: Yeah.



The CPRC had expressed concern in several of its annual reports about investigations of citizen complaints where the assigned investigators asked leading questions and engaging in questioning that was not objective.



"All too often, the investigations read like a defense brief as opposed to an objective investigation," the 2003 annual report stated, "The Commission has found that the investigator provides his or her opinion as opposed to simply gathering evidence and interviewing witnesses. This needs to stop."



The department's Conduct and Performance Manual on administrative investigations also states that investigators are to avoid asking leading questions or refresh the witness's memory of events. Although the Officer-Involved-Shooting team concentrates mainly on the criminal investigation of a shooting, it also asks questions pertaining to administrative issues to assist the Internal Affairs Division in its own administrative review of a shooting.



Wilson's interrogation continued with Sanfilippo asking him questions about his state of mind before the shooting. Again, it appeared as if the detectives were providing possible answers to their own questions, while Wilson simply agrees.



Sanfilippo: --what were you thinking at that point. Because that's what it, you know, comes down to. What were you thinking? Why did you make those decisions?

Wilson: right.

Sanfilippo: Because you were the one involved in that fight for five minutes. You were the one that had somebody trying to run you over. And you're the one that makes that ultimate decision to do what you did.

Wilson: right.



Sanfilippo also questions Wilson further about whether or not Wilson was in fear for his life, when he shot Lane. Wilson says little, except in agreement.



Wilson: --If he[Grotness] pins me down again with his girlfriend trying to run me over, then, you know, I'm in trouble. So I figured, you know, I can't deal with this guy--he's so strong. He's aggressive--and have her running over me at the same time So--

Sanfilippo: Like a will to survive.

Wilson: Right.

Sanfilippo: I mean, you basically are out there. You don't know when your backup is coming.

Wilson: Right.

Sanfilippo: And all of this is coming on, and you've got to take care of each issue. And you just chose the more violent issue at the time to deal with and go back to the other one. Is that basically what you're saying?

Wilson: Right.



At several points in the interview, Wilson laughs in response to the detectives' questions including a statement by one detective about how emotional he appears to be.



Greenstein: Good. I could tell that it was a pretty emotional situation because I can see like right now you're--I don't know if you're just tired or still fatigued but you're shaking(unintelligible)

Wilson: (laughs)

Greenstein: I can tell that it's a --that you survived a huge ordeal. How are you feeling now? Are you okay?

Wilson: Yeah, I'm good now. Thanks.



Initially, Lt. Jeffrey Collapy had said that Wilson had suffered a broken ankle during the incident, which the department said had occurred when his left leg being run over by Lane's car at least once. However, according to Greenstein's later memo, Wilson had suffered a minor sprain to his left ankle.



Several commissioners expressed doubts about whether or not his leg had actually been run over by the car because there was scant evidence of visible injuries on photographs taken of Wilson's legs after the incident. Others argued that the lack of visible injuries did not mean that Wilson had not been hit by the car. A short discussion of whether or not the commission should subpoena Wilson's medical records took place, but Chair Michael Gardner said that before the commission took a vote, it would have to ask for those records and be denied first.



The CPRC planned to meet on Nov. 2 at 3pm to discuss the public report and possibly vote on whether or not it was ready to be released to the public. After its release, the CPRC will then access the department's administrative review and then discuss the case in closed session before deciding whethr or not the shooting was within policy. Until then, it remains to be seen whether the difference in opinions between the CPRC and the department which it oversees continue to part way.