Not asked, not answered

Dan Bernstein, the columnist from the Press Enterprise wrote an insightful piece on last week's briefing by the Riverside Police Department before the Community Police Review Commission on its investigation into the Douglas Steven Cloud shooting. It addressed the blink-and-you'll-miss-it show that the police department puts on before the CPRC several weeks after each officer-involved death.

Listen and Like It

(excerpt)

After he laid out the details of the Oct. 8 incident, which began with an attempted Home Depot robbery and ended at a nearby crash scene, Cannon took no questions. Zero. RPD policy.

However, the responsibility does not lie at the door of what Bernstein called the "Just sit there and listen" police review commission. Its hands were tied on this issue. The responsibility lies elsewhere.

Basically, the routine is currently the following. The police department sends two high-ranking representatives from its command staff, who are most often Capt. Jim Cannon who heads its Investigations Division and Deputy Chief Dave Dominguez who was transferred out to the new Magnolia Station, to attend a CPRC meeting to provide a public briefing in front of the commissioners and members of the community. Sometimes, Lt. Darryl Hurt attends the briefings also, although it is not clear what capacity he serves under because he usually does not say anything.

Three high ranking officers, two Black and one Latino, who are examples of the slow diversifying of the department up into the highest levels of command. The department likes to put its men of color who are in upper management, front and center out in the community, which many see as a positive development. The routine before the commission appears etched in stone and well rehearsed.

First Dominguez offers his condolescences to the family of that who is deceased, especially if they are in attendance, an action that was criticized by an anonymous poster here who called his or her self, the "President of the League of Hot Female Cops" before departing once again.

"I wonder if Deputy Chief Dominguez extended his sympathies to the famalies of the officers who have been put in the unfortunate position of having to take another human life and of almost being seriuosly injured or killed themselves? I bet he hasn't. But can't say I'm surprised. Anyways, bye! "

Sometimes, there is a handful of people in the audience. Other times like with the Cloud shooting, it plays to nearly a full house. Cannon briefs the commission on the department's investigation which includes a narrative of the incident whether it's a shooting or an incustody death. Then when the briefing is concluded, all three police officers leave the building. Why? Because the commissioners and the public are not able to ask these individuals any questions.

It did not always used to be that way.

Beginning with the Vaseuth Phaisouphanh shooting in 2001, the department representatives always accepted and answered questions from commissioners. As more than one commissioner has said, the briefing was intended to be an expansion of the information provided by the department in earlier press releases in a forum accessible to the public. That is how it should be and that is how it was for the first seven incustody deaths investigated by the CPRC, from 2001-2004. Not that the police department representatives answered any questions asked by members of the audience, often picking up and leaving the building while members of the public were asking them. But the commissioners had a voice in that process.

Then along came the Summer Lane case.

The briefing for the Dec. 6, 2004 shooting took place over two weeks later on Dec. 22. The minute order provided by the CPRC does not provide much information into what happened, but the report on the Lane shooting approved by the CPRC nearly a year later, does.

Dec. 22, 2004 CPRC briefing minutes

In its report, the CPRC included a section titled "Initial Riverside Police Department Briefing". In it, the commission states that the information given by the police department indicated that Lane's car had been backing into Officer Ryan Wilson who was on the ground struggling with Christopher Steven Grotness when he fired the fatal shots.

The commission later found that this information contradicted with that uncovered by both its own investigator as well as the department's own Officer-Involved-Death Team. The correct information was also related in extensive detail in two interdepartmental memos relayed between members of that team on Dec. 7 and Dec. 8, well before the date of the CPRC briefing. In these memos and also in the statement provided by Wilson to investigators, the narrative was that after struggling with Grotness, Wilson had stood up, walked behind Lane's stationary vehicle up to the driver side window and had fired four times through the window. The CPRC reported using that information made the following observation.

In this case, it seems that the police department had a significant time, 17 days from the date of the incident to the date of the briefing, to submit accurate information. It didn't. Moreover the statements were never corrected when it was presumably discovered they were made.

Summer Lane shooting report

On Nov. 9, 2005 the CPRC determined unanimously that the shooting violated the department's use of force policy.

Summer Lane shooting finding

The department was criticized for providing incorrect information at the Dec. 22, 2004 briefing although the CPRC tempered its words by stating in its report that it was a balancing act to provide information that was both timely and accurate. That is true, and it is entirely possible that somehow the information transferred from the investigators to the designated representatives in the command staff contained errors, which were inadvertantly brought into the briefing with those individuals. Mistakes happen, and the police department should have corrected the ones made in this case as soon as it realized they had been made instead of leaving the commission in the dark for several months.

The eventual revelation of what really happened in the Lane shooting, a version that was in agreement with that given by the involved officer, cast the department in a negative light by making it appear as if it had been hiding the truth from the commission and the public when it is unclear what really happened.

What also became a problem was the department's reaction to criticism that it had erred on its briefing on the Lane shooting. Its response should have been to continue with the process, while examining its own internal process involving the dissemination of information on the shooting to ensure that the information provided by those working closest on the case was what was communicated to the CPRC. Perhaps the process needs to be tweaked so that the transfer of information from one level to the next does not become similar to a game of "telephone".

Instead, the department's response was as it often is when it faces criticism which is to withdraw into its self and away from the process, like a turtle retreating into its shell. To become less transparent and in a department which is still trying to improve itself after a five-year court-mandated reform process, that is a simply another mistake to throw on top of the one made at the Lane briefing. Hopefully, the department will instead decide to resume its practice of allowing commissioners to ask questions and do its best to answer them with the information available.

Diversifying through decree

The Los Angeles Times recently wrote an article about the Los Angeles Police Department's other consent decree, one that was imposed on the agency in 1980 and updated in 1992. This particular decree was directed towards diversifying the police department from bottom to top.

LAPD lags in promoting minorities, women

Some cheered the news. Perhaps some individuals cried in their beers or on Web sites about the agency being overrun by men of color and women.

Others including Sgt. Ronnie Cato, president of the Oscar Joel Bryant Police Foundation, which represents African American officers remained cautious, and said that more work needed to be done to accomplish the goals of the consent decree.

"When we talk about " coveted assignments, if you talk to most African Americans they really don't feel it is equal," Cato told the panel. "Most African Americans on this department will tell you our white counterparts promote two or three times faster than we do."

The head of an organization representing Latino police officers also criticized the lack of progress in moving up Latinos into upper management.

Det. Art Placencia, president of the Latin American Law Enforcement Assn., complained that with the recent departure of George Gascon, there are no Latino assistant police chiefs.

The department also fell short of meeting goals for Latinos promoted to sergeant I, detective III and police officer III.

"We have noted in the command level, Hispanics are under-represented," Placencia told the board.

However, he said the hiring of many Latinos is changing the face of the department. He said Latinos in the department went from 3,011, or 33.6% of the police force in 2001, to 3,459 officers, or 37.2% currently.

"We believe if recruitment continues as is, Hispanics will be the largest group, surpassing the Caucasian group, which has currently 3,900," Placencia said.


In other words, they'll be taking over the department pretty soon, in the minds of some people who still embrace the old ways. However, the influx of Latino officers merely reflects the tremendous growth of the Latino population in Los Angeles, and departments should reflect the communities that they serve. As the population of Los Angeles becomes majority minority, so should that of its law enforcement agency.

(Excerpt, Los Angeles Times)

LAPD breakdown

The Los Angeles Police Department's ethnic and gender breakdown out of 9,302 sworn personnel as of June 24, 2006:

No. of % of
Category officers personnel

Caucasian 3,900 41.9
Latino 3,459 37.2
Black 1,170 12.6
Asian 565 6.1
Filipino 166 1.8
American Indian 42 0.5
Men 7,570 81.4
Women 1,732 18.6

PBS Frontline interviewed Gerald Chaleff, a defense attorney who once served as counsel to the Warren Christopher Commission, which investigated the police department after the Rodney King beating incident and its aftermath in 1992 and as president of the Los Angeles Police Commission. The following is what he had to say about the 1980 consent decree on hiring imposed on the LAPD.

PBS frontline: LAPD

(excerpt)

"I think it's been helpful for the department. We've had goals that have been set to meet to increase the number of minority officers, and increase the number of women, and some of that is being achieved. . . ."

"You want to have a department that looks like the community it's policing so you can build up trust, and I think that's helpful. There are a number of people who want to complain, who say that that's why you have problems with your police department. But anybody who complains about it is missing the boat, because we're not getting less qualified officers, we're just getting different kinds of officers."

When asked if he believed that there was value in these hiring goals, Chaleff said the following.

"I believe there is inherent good in hiring goals. I believe there is inherent good in having a police department that looks like its community. I can't imagine a police department that doesn't have diversity. If not, it will always look like an occupying army. ."

Unfortunately, there are still those who equate "different" with "inferior" or "less qualified" as was evidenced by comments made by several individuals at the Oct. 10 city council meeting in Riverside. It just goes to show that Los Angeles and its police department are not alone in grappling with a police department that needs to better reflect the population that it serves.

The Riverside Police Department has struggled with the same issues that have plagued the LAPD in terms of diversifying its work force in the 1980s. According to its latest Equal Employment Opportunity Commission report, less than 10% of the RPD's sworn officers were female and of those, less than 25% were women of color. That number has not consistently improved in the past five years and in the past year, has decreased further.

Latino officers comprised 19% of the department's sworn ranks, a percentage which is less than half of Latinos' representation in the city's population. Black officers comprise just under 7% of the department's sworn officers, a level that is slightly less than their representation in the city's general population. Asian-American and American Indian officers are also underrepresented.

One tool that has been used to diversify police departments is the federal consent decree process. A consent decree is a legally binding agreement between an agency in the federal government, i.e. the Department of Justice and a local city to implement a reform process involving one or more of its agencies. The more popularly known consent decrees involve the end results of the federal government suing local law enforcement agencies, utilizing legislation that was passed by Congress in the mid-1990s. These law suits placed pressure on the cities presiding over these agencies to enter into agreements to reform them. Cities that have had these types of consent decrees imposed on them include Pittsburgh, Los Angeles, Cincinnati and Tulsa.

Other types of consent decrees involve the creation of a more diverse workforce. The LAPD was on the receiving end of one of those types of decrees in 1980 involving the hiring of women in the wake of the Blake v the City of Los Angeles (1979) class action law suit and again in 1992 to address improving the promotional process for men of color and female officers.

Do these decrees work?

Penny Harrington and other women involved with the National Center of Women and Policing did a research study in 2003, examining the impact, both immediate and more importantly longer term, these decrees had on various city, county and state law enforcement agencies.


The Effect of Consent Decrees on the Representation of Women in Law Enforcement(pdf)

After exhaustive research, the study determined that while consent decrees had a relatively quick impact on improving the hiring and retention of female officers in all of the agencies in the study, the longer-term effects were not nearly as promising.

Fairly quickly, most law enforcement agencies improved their numbers of female officers after a consent decree was imposed. In 2001, the percentages of female officers in law enforcement agencies was much higher than that for agencies without consent decrees as well as the national average for that class of law enforcement agency.

The increases were most strongly felt at city agencies, where the average percentage of female officers was 77% higher than agencies without consent decrees and 25% higher than the national average for city law enforcement agencies. The figures of improvement for state and county law enforcement agencies were remarkable as well.

The problem was, these agencies were not able to sustain that growth of improvement. While many of the agencies still had hiring gains for female officers, that growth had slowed down considerably after the dissolution of the agreement. Still, the National Center of Women and Policing concluded that consent decrees were an excellent and necessary tool for increasing diversity in the work force until the agencies could implement their own policies to more successfully recruit, hire and retain female police officers.

Consent decrees are only as good as the commitment that goes to continuing the reform process after their expiration. The city of Riverside took a tumble after it dissolved its stipulated judgment with State Attorney General Bill Lockyer's office earlier this year. After initially promising to continue reforming the police department, the city council and city manager promptly forgot about it for nearly six months until they were reminded by city residents that there was still a job to do.

Consent decrees involving hiring practices deserve the same level of commitment during and following their implementation, but does that happen? Here are some statistics provided in the study.

Statistics:

During Consent Decree:

Hiring increases per year: 0.47%

Percentage of agencies which made serious progress: 87%

Post Consent Decree:

Hiring increases per year: 0.22%

Percentage of agencies which stalled or reversed progress: 71%

The Cincinnati Police Department was placed under a similar consent decree (not to be confused with its current patterns and practices decree) in 1981 to prevent it from discriminating against male African-American officers and female officers in its department. For women, it sought to have them represent 23% of the police force at a time, when the percentage was stuck at 5%.

In 2002, Cincinnati's police department still had not reached that point so the decree remains in effect over 20 years later. However, with 20.9% of its department female in 2002, it has come close and boasts one of the highest percentages of female police officers in the country.

For Black officers in that city, there are still many complaints, but not just against the police department, according to a blog called black cincinnati which stated here that Black officers with this department were being "sold out" by the Fraternal Order of Police Queen City Lodge #69 including those who complained about racism in the police department.

The authors of the study from the National Center for Women and Policing cautioned that the issue of enforcement of the consent decrees remains very important. These decrees need to be closely monitored by the courts with implementation of "meaningful sanctions" if the departments are noncompliant.

It is also imperative according to this study that there is strong leadership inside the law enforcement agency that supports the efforts of the consent decrees, especially after they have expired. Often, the success or failure of the consent decrees rests on those who sit at the top of a law enforcement agency and their own attitudes towards women both serving as police officers and as police officers in their law enforcement agencies.

It is not clear whether that commitment exists in the Riverside Police Department especially when any questions regarding the implementation of Strategic Plan's Objective #1.5 which is to "create a work force that better reflects the city of Riverside" simply lead to the response that this important goal that is included in a court-mandated document is a "general idea" and not a "quota" from the department's police chief. Yet, what plans are in place to implement objective #1.5?

Better not ask the police department.

Last month, a written request was submitted to Chief Russ Leach requesting both statistical information on the racial and gender breakdown of officers entering and leaving the police department within the past nine months, as well as documents detailing the goals and objectives from the department's Personnel and Training Division on how these goals and objectives including those listed in the department's Strategic Plan would be implemented. The department's response to this request from Deputy Chief John DeLaRosa was that there had been an extensive search conducted but that these documents did not exist.

So, no there does not appear to be any sign of strong commitment from the police department to implement objective #1.5 and see it come to fruition in the next several years. If there were, it would be clearly outlined in writing, wouldn't it?

Los Angeles Police Department 2001 Consent Decree(pdf)

Blogger update

Comments are down and Blogger has been notified. Once again, I apologize for all the Blogger difficulties.

UPDATE:

Blogger is working on these issues but stated that service will vary greatly for the rest of the day. This impacts only publishing and commenting. Comments may appear, even if the thread states "0" comments and posts if published may still appear in the "October 2006" archives.

CPRA Watch: Mental health training

The following California Public Records Act request was sent nearly three weeks ago. To date, there has not been a response in writing from either the city or the police department.

The issue of creating and implementing training to assist police officers in interacting with those individuals who are mentally ill, mentally disabled or medically ill has been one that community members have been pushing since the fatal officer-involved shooting of Lee Deante Brown in April.

The incustody death of Terry Rabb, a diabetic suffering a severe hypoglycemic episode that occurred last October and the fatal officer-involved shooting of Todd Argow, who suffered from clinical depression and allegedly committed "suicide by police officer" increased the concern in the community that the Riverside Police Department do what is done in other departments in major cities which is to develop and implement a mental health crisis intervention program.

Capt. Pete Esquival was assigned the task of researching and designing a program that was to be used by the police department, while he was serving as the personnel and training captain in Leach's office. In July, Esquival was transferred to the Magnolia Station and replaced by Capt. Michael Blakely. It is not clear what Blakely has done to further the development of this program as there has been very little news on what is happening to date. Hopefully, this CPRA request could have shed some light in this area but as of yet, it has received no response.



10/10/2006

Chief Russ Leach
Riverside Police Department
4102 Orange St.
Riverside, CA 92501

RE: Public Records Act Request

Dear Chief Leach,

Pursuant to my rights under the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.), I ask to obtain a copy of the following, which I understand to be held by your agency:

The following information from the Personnel and Training Division and/ or other relevant divisions:

1) Current department procedures, policies and training for dispatching and the assessment and handling of 51/50 calls by police officers

2) Statistical information on the number of 51/50 calls handled by month for 2006 and by year for the previous five years.

3) Current progress report on discussions with Victor Lloyd from the Mental Health Association of South-Western Ohio, Inc.

4) Progress report on the implementation of a mental health crisis intervention program and its current timeline.

5) Current training for officers in making assessments and in handling of the mentally ill or medically incapacitated including combative, nonresponsive or suicidal individuals.

As you can see, all the components on this list pertaining to issues involving the mentally ill, the mentally incapacitated and law enforcement, in terms of departmental policies, procedures, statistics and training. At a community meeting last April, Chief Russ Leach spoke of the department's interest in addressing issues pertaining to contacts between police officers and the mentally ill population andsolicitedd the community members for assistance.

Different individuals provided the police department with information of individuals to contact and programs to investigate including Mental Illness Crisis Intervention teams in Southern California, Portland, Oregon and Memphis, Tennessee. The department also received a referral involving an expert on training law enforcement officers how to interact with the mentally ill, named Victor Lloyd from the Mental Health Association of South-Western Ohio, Inc.

Different individuals have contacted and spoken to officers in the department about the current status of the mental health training program and have received different responses, ranging from "We do our own training" in response to an inquiry by a county mental health expert, to different variations of responses that nothing is really going on at the moment or that the training is very limited in scope, which has prompted this CPRA request to your department.

This assignment was initially handled by Capt. Pete Esquival while he was assigned to the Personnel and Training Division and I have been informed that this responsibility has now been reassigned to Capt. Michael Blakely who now heads that division.

I ask for a determination on this request within 10 days of your receipt of it, and an even prompter reply if you can make that determination without having to review the record[s] in question.If you determine that any or all or the information qualifies for an exemption from disclosure, I ask you to note whether, as is normally the case under the Act, the exemption is discretionary, and if so whether it is necessary in this case to exercise your discretion to withhold the information.

If you determine that some but not all of the information is exempt from disclosure and that you intend to withhold it, I ask that you redact it for the time being and make the rest available as requested.In any event, please provide a signed notification citing the legal authorities on which you rely if you determine that any or all of the information is exempt and will not be disclosed.


Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Mary Shelton


Cc: Capt. Michael Blakely

City Manager Brad Hudson

Steven Frasher, Press Information Officer

City Council

Announcement about Blogger

Hi,

As I'm sure some of you are aware Blogger and Blogspot have been experiencing many technical problems lately due to serious issues with their computer network hardware. There have been daily scheduled outages for both Blogger and Blogspot(where the blog is actually hosted) and many unscheduled ones.

Also, Blogger has informed its bloggers that there will be a mandatory move to Beta Blogger within a few weeks. As a result, this site will be down temporarily and/or be unable to be updated or have comments approved for an unspecified amount of time, possibly up to a week or two.

A portion of this blog is being hosted at the following site.

http://rivercitycopwatch.wordpress.com

Posts will be published at both sites until up to the upgrade.

Stay tuned for future announcements on this issue.

Scheduled outage: Today at 12-2 pm, approximately give or take an hour or two on either end.


UPDATE: Sunday, Oct. 29, 2006

Blogger is addressing the publishing issue this morning. Hopefully, it will be up again soon.

Also, the comment count for the front page is incorrect. If you submitted a comment in the pastg 24 hours, all comments have been approved and they are posted on the appropriate threads even if the comments link says "0".

UPDATE: Noon

Blogger claims that the problem is fixed. We shall see. There's at least one comment on this thread and the past several threads.

Stay tuned on more updates on the move to Beta. Blogger claims that it should go smoothly but for some individuals, their blogs either are delayed, initially changed and then delayed when they upgrade. There are also other problems with the new Beta version that Blogger is still trying to iron out. From this point out, new posts will be done simultaneously here and at the http://rivercitycopwatch.wordpress.com site. Hopefully, when the time comes it will be smooth sailing for Five Before Midnight.

CPRC: Douglas Steven Cloud shooting

A full audience sat and listened to Capt. Jim Cannon from the Riverside Police Department as he briefed the Community Police Review Commission on the fatal officer-involved shooting of Douglas Steven Cloud.

One row of seats in the city council chambers were occupied by Cloud's relatives including his father, grandmother and cousins. They listened to the briefing but left feeling as if they had learned very little information about how Cloud had lost his life.

Also in attendance were Sara Danville from the Riverside County District Attorney's office, Det. Ken Tutwiler who is the president of the Riverside Police Officers Association and an attorney hired by the RPOA. Lt. Darryl Hurt and Deputy Chief Dave Dominguez completed the contingent from the police department. Even the United States Department of Justice, Community Relations Division sent out a representative from its Los Angeles office.

Cannon related an updated version of the department's investigation into the Cloud shooting.

On Oct. 8 at around 4:15 p.m., a police officer was doing a cite and release near the Home Depot on Madison Avenue. A person ran up to the officer and said that he had seen Cloud steal a cleaner from the store and an employee and two other individuals had chased after him. Two individuals had tried to grab him while another tried to remove the cleaner from Cloud's vehicle. Cloud drove off, a man fell in his path and the employee tried to pull him out of the way.

Cloud drove down Indiana west bound towards Jefferson on the wrong side of the street, nearly hitting a van. His car spun out of control and hit a seven-foot palm tree and a truck on display at a dealership. An employee at the store broadcast Cloud's actions at the store as a "robbery" to a dispatcher.

Officers Brett Stennett and Nicholas Vazquez stopped at the crash scene on the way to Home Depot and exited their squad car with their guns drawn. Officer David Johansen arrived separately and also exited with his gun drawn. The officers ordered Cloud to put his hands where they could be seen but he put them down. They tried to open his door but the collision had damaged it. Stennett tried to pull Cloud out of the car but Cloud tried to grab the console, then the steering wheel. The officers became more concerned about their safety they said, after Cloud freed himself from their grasp on him. The wheels of the car were spinning and turning, after Cloud regained his position in his seat. At that point, Vazquez fired four times and Johansen fired once, because they feared for their safety if Cloud was able to steer the car in their direction.

Deputy Chief Dave Dominguez extended his sympathy to the Cloud family and said that the department would work diligently on its investigation to finish this case.

Dr. Ron A. Bailey, M.D. addressed the commission on the shooting and said it had been the first time in over a month that he had been there. In that time, came the Cloud and Joseph Darnell Hill shootings.

"Two more deaths that could have been prevented," he said.

He criticized Dominguez for offering his condolescenes.

"How many times this year have we heard this same statement?"

Dominguez and the other representatives did not take questions from commissioners or the public. For three years during briefings they had done so, but this procedure changed after the department erred in some of the information it provided in its Dec. 22, 2004 briefing on the Summer Marie Lane shooting. At its briefing on the Lane case, a representative had said that Officer Ryan Wilson had been on the ground behind Lane's car and shot at it as it headed in his direction. Both the CPRC and the RPD investigation discovered that Wilson had walked behind Lane's stationary vehicle and up to the driver's window before firing shots inside the window from between 1-3 feet away.

After that shooting, the department changed its policy on these briefings by eliminating the question and answer portion.

Commissioner Jim Ward criticized the newer procedure and said that it has rendered the process "useless".

"You give us this information and we are not able to respond," Ward said.

The Cloud shooting remains under investigation by both the CPRC and the department. The CPRC dispatched investigator Butch Warnberg to Riverside within one day of the shooting. When both investigations are completed, Warnberg will return to give a presentation on the results of his investigation and the commissioners will begin their discussions on the public report.

Commission is briefed by police on Cloud shooting


Meanwhile, across town, a candlelight vigil was held by over 40 people in memory of the Oct. 19 shooting death of Joseph Darnell Hill.

Family calls for justice at vigil

(excerpt, Press Enterprise, 10/26)

Speaking at the vigil, Braden said she knew not all police are bad, but some are.
Joe was the youngest of nine children and Braden spoke of changing his diapers and looking after him.

"I felt like I lost a baby," Braden said.

The crowd stood at the spot where Joseph was pulled over, the intersection of Babb and Crest avenues, shielding candles from the breeze.

Ron Hill, the oldest sibling, said he didn't hate the police. He said that officers don't know who they are pulling over and have to think the worst.

Hill also said that police get six months of training and then they carry a gun.
Leslie's husband, Kenneth Braden, said the police feel they are above the law.

"I believe they pulled (Joseph) over for the way he looked," Kenneth Braden said. "They can pull you over, stop you, without shooting you."

Joseph Hill, 34 was the second brother in a family of nine to be shot to death by law enforcement officers. On April 14, 1992 Charles "Chuck" Hill was shot to death by Riverside County Sheriff Department deputies. The family filed a law suit against that department, but the case was dismissed by the judge on a motion of summary judgment in 1998, according to court records.

Joseph Hill was shot by Officer Jeffrey Adcox after he allegedly became belligerent during a traffic stop, attacked Adcox and Officer Giovanni Ili and grabbed Ili's taser, according to several department press releases. The police department stated through an Oct. 23 press release that Adcox shot Brown because he feared for the safety of Ili after Hill allegedly pointed the taser at him.

It was the second fatal shooting that occurred after an officer allegedly lost his taser this year. Earlier this year, Officer Terry Ellefson shot and killed Lee Deante Brown after Brown had allegedly grabbed his taser and advanced towards him with it.

The impact of the Copley ruling

Last night, at the city council meeting, Chief Russ Leach responded to concerns from the public about the city's delay in releasing the identities of the police officers involved in two recent fatal shootings. He and Deputy Chief John DeLaRosa appeared at the city council meeting but left soon after responding to public comment.

Leach's comments came after representatives from the Riverside Coalition for Police Accountability thanked the police department for releasing the names but said it should have been done so earlier to improve transparency and thus build on the trust created between the department and the local communities during the five-year stipulated judgment. Human Relations Commission Chair Chani Beeman called the initial failure to disclose the officers' names earlier "two strikes" against the city.

City Manager Brad Hudson also reiterated the city's decision to release the names. Councilman Frank Schiavone chipped in and said that the city council had taken an active role in asking City Attorney Gregory Priamos to research the Copley decision. Everyone from the city suddenly seemed interested in jumping on this bandwagon.

After the shootings of Douglas Steven Cloud on Oct. 8 and Joseph Darnell Hill on Oct. 19, the police department had declined to release the identities of the officers who pulled the triggers. According to a Press Enterprise article, the reason was that the Riverside Police Officers Association had sent its attorney to remind Priamos about the recent Copley Press v Superior Court of San Diego County ruling, which prohibited the names of officers from being released during disciplinary proceedings. Priamos said that his office would review the decision and then decide what to do.

On Oct. 23, the police department issued two press releases which included the names of the officers involved with both shootings. Apparently, Priamos had determined that the ruling only applied to officers' disciplinary records. Because officer-involved shooting investigations are not themselves disciplinary processes, but inquiries that may or may not result in disciplinary action depending on the findings reached, they did not fall under the scope of the decision. For the Community Police Review Commission, this may have been the one occasion when its weak design worked in its favor.

The stronger police boards and commissions in the state are having a much more difficult time interpreting the decision and its effect on their operations.

Berkeley, home of the oldest and most independent form of civilian oversight in California has grappled with this issue and how it will be discussed, according to a recent article in the Berkeley Daily Planet.

Critics criticize closed door discussion of police disciplinary hearings

Berkeley's city attorney, Manuela Albuquerque made the decision to hold the discussion with the commission behind closed doors which rankled at least two commissioners including Sherry Smith, who felt any debate over the Copley decision should be held in public. Commissioner Bill White was also concerned and said the following.

"Discussion of the Copley decision should not be handled in closed session. If we're going to discuss the Copley decision, it's a public discussion."

Berkeley's Cop Watch planned a march and rally in protest of the closed session.

The San Francisco Police Commission placed the same item on its agenda for open discussion at a recent meeting as posted here. On Sept. 20, that discussion was held, according to this minute record. The city's attorney had already offered this legal opinion. Asst. City Attorney Dennis Herrera offered the following advice.

1) Close disciplinary hearings to the public unless the involved officer(s) waives privacy.

2) Amend the procedures in accordance to Copley

3) Petition law makers in Sacramento through the mayor and board of supervisors to amend state law, PC 832.7 or other applicable codes.


At that meeting, the police commission voted to try the third option which was to urge the mayor and board of supervisors to send a resolution up to Sacramento to change the state's public disclosure act.

Commission seeks transparency on police discipline

San Francisco's commission conducts disciplinary hearings and was preparing to hear one on the infamous "Fajitagate" case when the decision came down. That hearing was pushed into closed session, one day after the commission held its public discussion on the case decision.

It is not clear what the response will be from the RPOA to Priamos' decision to authorize the release of the officers' names based on his legal interpretation of the recent state supreme court decision or whether there will be one. After all, the book on the Copley decision and its impact on the state has yet to be closed, but its reverberations will probably be felt in months and even years to come.

Still, it is interesting, if very surprising to see the city attorney who probably has the most conservative interpretation of PC 832.7 in the state come out with a decision which releases information on police officers in this city.

When letters spell names

Officers A, B, and C now have names, deemed the city attorney's office in Riverside.

The Riverside Police Department has decided to release the names of the three officers involved in two recent fatal onduty shootings after all. This development provided a layer of transparency to a process that many members of the public feel remains shrouded in secrecy.

Initially, the agency had nixed releasing their identities after an attorney retained by the Riverside Police Officers' Association reminded City Attorney Gregory Priamos of the recent Copley Press v Superior Court decision released by the California State Supreme Court which prohibited the release of police officers' names without their permission. The department was advised to withhold the names until Priamos's office reviewed the ruling. In order to release their names, the officers involved in the shootings probably gave permission to do so or the city decided that the ruling didn't apply to officers' identities.

In two press releases written by Press Information Officer Steven Frasher, the names of the officers were disclosed.

The officers who shot Douglas Steven Cloud were Officers Dave Johansen and Nicholas Vazquez.

Oct. 8 shooting

Release of names of officers in Oct. 8 police shooting

Riverside, Ca- The Riverside Police Department is releasing the names of Police Officers involved in the recent shooting incidents in the City of Riverside.
On Sunday, October 8, 2006, Officers Nicholas VAZQUEZ and Brett STENNETT were en route to a robbery call at the Home Depot when they encountered the recently-wrecked suspect vehicle on Indiana Avenue near Jefferson. Officer David JOHANSEN also arrived within one minute of the suspect’s collision with a tree and parked truck.

According to the investigation to date, Officer Stennett was trying to physically remove the suspect, identified as Douglas Steven Cloud, 27, of Riverside, from his wrecked vehicle. Cloud struggled to break away and accelerated the vehicle at a high rate of rpm, working the steering wheel back and forth in an effort to escape. Fearing the car would lurch into one of the officers, and because suspect Cloud several times appeared to reach for something in the vehicle console officers feared might be a weapon, Officers Vasquez and Johansen fired their duty weapons.

Cloud died at the scene. Subsequent investigation found no weapon. The investigation continues.



The officer who shot Joseph Darnell Hill was Jeffrey Adcox. The officer who was with him was Officer Giovanni Ili.

Oct. 19 shooting

Release of names of officers in Oct. 19 police shooting
Riverside, Ca- The Riverside Police Department is releasing the names of Police Officers involved in the recent shooting incidents in the City of Riverside.
On Thursday, October 19, 2006, at approximately 10:15 a.m, Riverside Police Officer Jeffrey ADCOX conducted a traffic enforcement stop in the 5800-block of Crest Avenue, near the corner with Babb Avenue, on a motorist who had made an illegal U-turn and had failed to stop at a stop sign. Officer Giovanni ILI arrived within minutes as a backup.

During the enforcement stop, the suspect driver became belligerent with the officers. The incident escalated when the suspect physically attacked the officers. During the violent struggle the suspect and the officers fell to the ground. Once on the ground the suspect grabbed Officer Ili’s duty weapon and tried to pull the gun from the holster. As the officer fought to maintain his handgun the suspect grabbed the officer’s taser and pointed the taser at the Officer Ili. Fearing for the safety of Officer Ili, Officer Adcox fired his duty weapon striking and killing the suspect, identified by the Riverside County Coroner as Joseph Darnell HILL, 34, of Riverside.

The investigation continues.

At a forum held on Oct. 19, many community members expressed frustration at the fact that the department had released little information on the shootings, especially their names. Local attorney Andrew Roth who attended the event as a panelist explained that the justices on the state's highest court had made the Copley ruling based on state law.

Links and things

The Press Enterprise did a brief update on the shooting of Douglas Steven Cloud shooting.

Police shot man because he grabbed stun gun


This is the second fatal officer-involved shooting where it is alleged that a Black man grabbed an officer's department issued taser, with the first being the Lee Deante Brown shooting in April.

Lee Deante Brown shooting narrative

CPRC briefing on Brown shooting(pdf)

Is the taser truly a "less lethal" option? Amnesty International tried to determine that in its lengthy report, which ultimately stated, no it is not. Taser International, Inc. did its own analysis(mostly in response to an ACLU critique of its product) and said that there have been no deaths directly, attributed to its products. But what about tasers when they fall out of the hands of the officers who carry them? Are they then considered a lethal weapon?

Here are some recent cases:

Suspect shocks officer with own taser

Orange County deputy stunned by own taser gun

Officer stunned by own taser

Manitoba Mounties tased by own weapon

What were the actions taken? What were the outcomes?

Then there are incidents where officers tase other officers. Officers like John Scavotto in Connecticut who pointed his taser at another officer during roll call and shot its taser probes into that officer's face and mouth. What was his alleged excuse? I didn't think it was loaded and the safety was switched on. That sounds familiar.

Officer shocks officer in roll call mishap

In the Riverside Police Department, the X26 and M26 tasers carried by approximately 57.7% of the officers in the field operations division are found in the department's use of force policy, at Level 4, which also includes the multiple officer takedown and the carotid restraint. The training involving tasers offered by the police department through Taser International, Inc.'s training manual, apparently doesn't address the issue of officers losing their tasers. It apparently does not cover what to do or how to prevent officers from shocking each other with their tasers, either.

During its briefing on the Brown shooting, the department representative admitted that Officer Michael Stucker had looked down at some point and saw a taser probe stuck in his hand, just after he felt an intensive shock moving up his arm. However, that representative did not say where that probe came from or even mention how and when it traveled from the probe cartridge to the web of Stucker's hand.

(excerpt from CPRC briefing)

Immediately, Officer Stucker felt an
electrical shock run through both of his arms. Officer Stucker also saw that he had a Taser probe stuck in his left
hand.

Weeks later, the department still claimed it didn't know.

Taser International, Inc. which has a fairly generous warranty of immediately replacing defective tasers purchased by police departments in order to "save lives" and "improve officer safety" has a strange philosophy when it comes to looking out for officers who may have been harmed by their product. Recently, the company celebrated its victory in a law suit filed against it by a law enforcement officer for damages and lost wages.

When law enforcement officers receive taser training, they are often purposely shocked by the tasers. In the following case, the officer was hit by a blast from an M26 model sold by Taser International, Inc, which apparently caused severe injuries that ended his career. He sued the manufacturer but lost in court. His was the first law suit against Taser International, Inc. to make it to trial.

"I'm disappointed with the verdict, obviously," he said. "But maybe some good came out of this and other police officers will understand the risks of Tasers before they take a hit."

Taser, Inc. not liable for officer's injuries during training exercise

OfOfficer files law suit against Taser International, Inc.


An interesting article published in the Oct. 23 edition of the Los Angeles Times discussed the impact of the 3-12 schedule(three days, twelve-hour shifts) on the 70% of the officers in the Los Angeles Police Department which work under this schedule. Like most law enforcement agencies in Southern California, the LAPD had utilized the 4-10 schedule until five years ago.

Pros and cons weighed in the LAPD's 3-12 schedule

Now, there is mixed feelings about whether or not this work schedule is producing better rested, more effective officers or whether it is causing the opposite to happen. Many different sides weigh in on this issue in the article.


The City Strikes Back, kind of

The city of Riverside filed its case management statement in the case of Ryan Wilson v the City of Riverside (RIC456429) and again insisted that the Riverside Community Police Commission had been erroneously sued as a separate legal entity when in actuality, it was an "agency" of the city. It recognized that other civil litigation had been filed in this case against itself and Wilson, by relatives of Summer Marie Lane last year.

In its five page document, the city asked for a trial by judge in the next 12 months and stated that it expected the trial to last 2-3 days. Many people wondered if this controversial incident in Riverside's history would ultimately be decided upon inside a courtroom. The only surprising aspect of all this, is which parties have decided to shine a spotlight on this case.

Some questions that could be asked and answered at trial.

Will the CPRC's finding against Wilson go up against the city's risk management philosophy and be found wanting?

Will Wilson get his administrative hearing or will the city ultimately sell out the CPRC to avoid the "burdensomeness" and "cost" of that process, as happened in Berkeley?

Has Wilson's career suffered from the CPRC's essentially nullified finding?

These and other questions may be asked, but will they be answered?

More likely, the city, Wilson and all "real" parties will settle their differences behind closed doors. The Lady and the Tiger, remember.

Running in place

Hours after the fatal shooting of Joseph Darnell Hill, 34 by an unidentified Riverside Police Department officer, over 40 people had congregated in the sanctuary of the Universalist Unitarian Church on the corner of Lemon and Mission Inn Avenue in downtown Riverside to discuss the Oct. 8 shooting of Douglas Steven Cloud.

Hill was the second African-American man to be fatally shot by police officers this year and the third to die in police custody in 12 months.

According to the police department, the shooting took place after one officer had conducted a traffic stop on Hill after he allegedly did an illegal u-turn and ran through a stop sign, in the predominantly Latino neighborhood of Arlanza. The police stated that Hill became "belligerent" while two officers spoke with him and then had tackled with the officers, knocking both of them to the ground. At one point during the struggle, Hill allegedly tried to grab one officer's handgun and then grabbed hold of his department issued taser. After he pointed the taser at the officer, the backup officer shot Hill because he feared for the safety of his partner, according to a police department press release issued on Oct. 20.

Taser information: M26 and X26 models

It was the second shooting which involved an officer allegedly losing control of a taser in less than seven months. In April, Officer Terry Ellefson shot and killed Lee Deante Brown, after Brown had allegedly grabbed his taser during a struggle and had approached him with it, according to the police department. In a briefing the police department gave to the Community Police Review Commission on that shooting, a department representative admitted that none of the civilian witnesses had reported seeing a taser in Brown's hand before he was shot.

The police department has completed its investigation of that shooting and the CPRC is expected to begin drafting its public report on that shooting within the next several months after it has reviewed reports submitted by the police department and its own investigator, Butch Warnberg. The CPRC briefing from the police department on the Cloud shooting will be held next week at City Hall. Several panelists at the forum urged people to attend.

Conversation at the forum was topical and stuck to the agenda until the two plainclothed officers sitting by themselves, a few rows in front of the musical organ left the building. After they left, emotions began to flow into the dialogue, between panelists and the audience as people expressed their frustration with the lack of definitive information about either shooting. They told stories afterwards of neighbors wanting to leave Riverside because they were scared of being in a car accident and shot by police officers, whose faces they might never see, whose names their relatives would never know, in deference to a recent California State Supreme Court decision that prohibits the release of the names of any police officers involved in an onduty shooting. The mood in many communities has been tense since the Brown shooting and that sentiment increased with the Cloud shooting.

Local attorney, Andrew Roth did say that the officers' names would be publicly revealed if there was civil litigation filed in civil court in relation to a fatal shooting and that there was a lot of case law that would support that practice, because inside the courtroom, the public's right to know usually was upheld above considerations of individual privacy.

Litigation has been initiated in the officer-involved deaths of Summer Marie Lane, Terry Rabb and Lee Deante Brown. Cloud's family has also hired an attorney.

At least one community leader at the forum expressed frustration at the disparate versions of events given in the Cloud shooting by the involved officers and several civilian witnesses.

"One and one isn't two," Woodie Rucker-Hughes told the audience.

Hughes, who is the current president of the NAACP, Riverside chapter expressed her dismay about how the department was acting towards this shooting. She said that after the Brown shooting occurred, a representative of the department had appeared at a community healing meeting held soon after.

"The police were there," Rucker-Hughes said.

Now, the department was keeping its distance. Chief Russ Leach had been invited to either attend or send a representative to the forum, but declined. It was not clear why the two plainclothed officers were in attendance.

"They are circling their wagons again," sighed Rucker-Hughes.

Roth also noted the difference in how the police department handled its shooting cases. He said that he had met with the family of Vaseuth Phaisouphanh who was shot and killed by former officer Edgar J. Porche in 2001. After that shooting, Leach had personally briefed the CPRC on the shooting and had provided evidential information on the shooting to Roth and the family including police reports and a copy of the officer's recording from his department issued digital audio recorder. Why did he do that? Roth said, because the Phaisouphanh shooting was a legally justified shooting.

Fast forward to the Cloud shooting five years later.

"You are not going to see the police chief stand up in front of the city," Roth said.

Roth blamed the police culture for problems that contributed to police shootings.

"It's not merely the "bad apples" who find themselves in that situation," Roth said.

He added that the department needed to work on its training including the examination of alternative options to use instead of the handgun. The police department needed to receive the resources it needed to develop training for its officers, who Roth said, were typically 22 or 23-year-old individuals.

According to Leach, the average age of a police officer in the department is 24 with 2 1/2 years experience.

Roth reminded the audience that there were no fatal officer-involved shootings from the shooting of Tyisha Miller on Dec. 28, 1998 until the Phaisouphanh shooting in June 2001. The reason why, he said, was because the five police officers including the sergeant who were involved in the Miller incident lost their jobs. The officers who were fired by former Chief Jerry Carroll were the first to ever be fired for an onduty fatal shooting in the department's history. But then the police officers' union made it clear what it thought about that and soon after Carroll was sent off into retirement. That first vote was cast by razor at a local high school. The second, by a collective pink slip.

James Williams, III, who is assigned to Department of Justice's Community Relations Division in Los Angeles said that it took on average, at least 12 years for a police department to change the culture of its police officers.

Whether that change had been initiated at all, was the topic of much conversation both during the forum and afterwards, over cookies and apple juice in the reception room of the church. Some people said yes, there has been change. Others did not seem as sure. Individuals appeared mixed on whether the rash of shootings this year including those in the past two weeks was merely a cluster of tragic events or harbingers of problems remaining inside an agency that just finished a five-year, $22 million process to tear itself down and rebuild itself from the ground, up.

State Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who placed the department under that decree in March 2001 said he did so to break the "racist, sexist, cowboy culture" of the police department. Five years later, a Riverside County Superior Court judge dissolved the stipulated judgment, after Lockyer had determined that the police department had made great strides in improving its patterns and practices on its way to becoming a "model" agency.

The police department can only do so much and it can't do it alone, inside a vacuum. Yet, soon after the dissolution of the judgment, the process ran aground fairly quickly in many respects. That being the failure of the city to take a leadership role in furthering the reform process, not to mention the lack of response from the community's leaders when it became clear that there were problems.


The horror of that moment," the King went on, "I shall never, never forget."
"You will though," the Queen said, "if you don't make a memorandum of it."

Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There, by Lewis Carroll


Things looked promising at first, in terms of the city's commitment at a March 28 workshop when the city council voted 7 to 0 to continue the reform process through its implementation of the Strategic Plan. However, soon after, it appeared as if the city's elected officials and many of its community leaders had placed this reform process on the backburner as they moved onto other things including seizing blocks of commercial property downtown through eminent domain and approving a five year "Riverside Renaissance" plan that many doubt would ever see fruition. After all, if the city could not see through a five-year "renaissance" of the police department through the implementation of the Strategic Plan, then how could it seriously commit itself through reinventing and remolding the entire city?

So what exactly took place after the city council voted on a process to continue the implementation of the Strategic Plan?

What happened is this.

The consultant that the city was supposed to enter into a contract with to assist in the implementation of the Strategic Plan apparently cares more about the future of the police department and the integrity of that process than the city government does. It is also clear that six months had passed without the police department presenting a single "quarterly" report and no one in the city's leadership was paying attention. Even those city leaders who belatedly remembered their promises made to the city's residents and then tried to address a process gone off-track, appeared more interesting in running interference for City Manager Brad Hudson and his sidekick, Asst. City Manager Tom DeSantis who had failed to deliver on the mandate given to them by vote, by their employer, the city council.

There was much concern about the present and future of the RPD expressed at that meeting, which was sincerely felt.

However, the time to concern yourself with what is going on with the police department should not just be when there are critical incidents involving its employees, but during the time in between them, when questions should be asked as to whether the department is doing things like continuing with its evaluating and training of its employees and whether or not it is developing new training programs to address challenging issues, one of the most recent being how police officers interact with mentally ill and medically incapacitated individuals. Perhaps, the investigations into the past four three critical incidents will help answer some of these questions in a much more difficult way than could have been done if the three partners of this arduous seven-year process had stepped up to the plate.

Is this process moving forward or is the city running in place? Because what you get from running in place is tired feet.


"A slow sort of country!" said the Queen. "Now, here you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that."

Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There, by Lewis Carroll

Another Fatal Officer Involved Shooting

Over 40 city residents and two plainclothed police officers attended a forum addressing what many people thought was the most recent officer-involved shooting in Riverside, that of Douglas Steven Cloud which occurred on Oct. 8. Unfortunately, by the time the 7 p.m meeting was held, that was no longer true. Earlier in the day, the department's third fatal officer-involved shooting in 6 1/2 months and its second in nine days occurred in the area where La Sierra borders Arlanza.

That individual was later identified as Joseph Darnell Hill, 34 from Riverside. The officers can only be referred to as Officer A and Officer B in deference to the recently released California State Supreme Court case, Copley vs Superior Court, which prohibited the release of the names of officers involved in onduty shootings. There is no information available on how many years they had been with the department or if they were hired out of academies or from other law enforcement agencies. It also can not be revealed whether or not these officers had been involved in prior officer-involved shootings.

The short term impact of this court decision is acute, and the city of Riverside is one of the grounds where it has put on display twice, in nine days. The long-term effect of the Copley decision remains to be seen and is probably at least a decade away from being keenly felt by those who live in communities where these shootings take place, and those who work in law enforcement.

Video: Riverside police respond to shooting

(scroll down to bottom of page)

Details are sketchy at this point, but a woman who attended the forum said she had listened to the incident play out on her personal scanner. There had been either a traffic stop and/or a short pursuit. The man fled the car and two officers pursued him on foot. There was a struggle and at least one of those officers shot him a short while later. He died after being transported to Parkview Hospital.

According to video footage placed on its Web site by the Press Enterprise, a woman who is Spanish speaking is providing an account of what she eyewitnessed, which is translated into English. She said that a man got out of the car and struggled with two officers, both of whom shot him.

It is not known if the man was armed. Several individuals said that they had heard that one of the officers had at some point lost control of his department issued taser, and something happened which led his backup officer to shoot the man. It would be the second fatal incident this year where an officer allegedly lost control of his taser before shots were fired. The first, being the shooting of Lee Deante Brown in April.

Still, the city's residents must wait until the police department produces an initial version of events. The Community Police Review Commission will dispatch its own investigator as is customary in officer-involved deaths, to conduct an independent investigator.

The two male White police officers who attended sat for a while a few rows in front of the organ at the church, before leaving together. Ironically, the police department including Chief Russ Leach had been issued a formal invitation to either attend or to send official representatives but had declined to do so.

Most of the community leaders waited until after the two young men who were so obviously uncomfortable and out of place had left before speaking about how they felt about the two most recent shootings involving officers from the police department. Many of the same feelings that washed over the room were eerily similar to those that flooded community meetings held after prior shootings in the late 1990s.

Community holds forum after Cloud shooting

By the evening, the latest shooting was all over the television news broadcasts and the next morning, in different newspapers in Southern California.

Traffic stop ends in death

Man shot by officers identified

Man shot after assaulting officer

Man's identity revealed after shooting

On Oct. 20, the Riverside updated its information through a press release.

RPD update

Riverside, Ca- On Thursday, October 19, 2006, at approximately 10:15 a.m, Riverside Police Officers conducted a traffic enforcement stop in the 5800-block of Babb Avenue, near the corner with Crest Avenue, on a motorist who had made an illegal U-turn and had failed to stop at a stop sign.

During the enforcement stop, the suspect driver became belligerent with the officers. The incident escalated when the suspect physically attacked the officers. During the violent struggle the suspect and the officers fell to the ground. Once on the ground the suspect grabbed an officer's gun and tried to pull it from the holster. As the officer fought to maintain his handgun the suspect grabbed the officer's taser and pulled it from its holster. The suspect pointed the taser at the officer. Fearing for the safety of the partner officer, the second officer discharged his duty weapon striking and killing the suspect.

Medical aid was summoned. The suspect was transported to Parkview Community Hospital, where he was pronounced dead at 11:15 a.m. The Riverside County Coroner identified the deceased suspect as Joseph Darnell HILL, 34, of Riverside.
The investigation is on going and anyone with information about the incident is asked to call Riverside Police Detective Mike Medici at (951) 353-7104 or Detective James Brandt at (951) 353-7137.


The Community Police Review Commission, as is customary, soon dispatched its own investigator from the Baker Street Group to conduct its investigation of the shooting. The police department will send representatives to brief the commissioners on details in relation to the Hill shooting some time in the next several weeks. Next week, the police department will of course be briefing the CPRC on its investigation into the Cloud shooting, which is also under investigation by the CPRC.

Perusal, the police department will not be taking questions from either the commissioners nor the community. But that will not stop those questions forming in the minds of those who have been following events of the past nine days. Questions that no doubt will need to be addressed in the ongoing investigations in upcoming months as well.

CPRA Watch: Personnel and Training

On October 4, I submitted a California Public Records Act request for information from the Personnel and Training Division of the Riverside Police Department.

On Oct. 17, I received a letter via certified mail from Deputy Chief John DeLaRosa informing me that the information that I had requested was enclosed.

Inside that envelope were items pertaining to two of my requests. The first was a series of documents detailing the department's recruitment schedule, including dates, locations, events and whether or not any representatives of the department had actually attended those events. The second item, in compliance with item #10(see below) was literature pertaining to community programs including Neighborhood Watch, the Neighborhood Watch Academy held this summer and Business Watch.

DeLaRosa closed his letter by stating that he had responded to the request. However, numerous items on the list below were not included in the envelope nor were they even addressed in his letter. It is not clear from DeLaRosa's letter whether requests for those items were accepted, denied or not available, because the department did not keep records.

Since the two components of the Personnel and Training were not covered in any great detail during the police department's first "quarterly" report, it would be interesting to find out what progress has been made on the Strategic Plan's objectives addressing these two important issues.

So this request will be submitted again.



10/23/2006

Chief Russ Leach
Riverside Police Department


RE: Public Records Act Request

2nd request

Dear Chief Leach,

Pursuant to my rights under the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.), I ask to obtain a copy of the following, which I understand to be held by your agency:

On Oct. 4, I submitted a CPRA request to the police department for the following information, printed in bold below. On Oct. 17, I received an envelope via certified mail sent by Deputy Chief John DeLaRosa from the police department, containing information addressing several of the requested items in my CPRA request. These items received, are marked on the list with an asterisk and are numbered # 7 and #10. Thank you for sending me this information. I do appreciate it.

However, I did not receive any information on the remaining items on my CPRA list, nor was there any language included in Deputy Chief DeLaRosa's letter that explained whether my requests for that information had been granted, or denied by the department and if denied, on what grounds and including a signed notification of the legal authorities supporting that decision.

I am resubmitting this request.

Information from the Personnel and Training Division which shall include the following:

1) Statistics pertaining to the racial and gender breakdown of officers hired since January 1, 2006
2) Statistics pertaining to the racial and gender breakdown of officers who ceased being employed or left the agency by the police department since January 1, 2006.
3) Statistics pertaining to the officers hired by the department in terms of percentage that have graduated from local peace officer academies vs officers who lateral from other law enforcement agencies
4) Number of field training officers and breakdown by race and gender
5) Mean age and experience level(years in law enforcement) of the following:
a) total sworn officers
b) patrol division
c) field training officers division
d) SWAT/Metro teams
e) sergeants
f) lieutenants
g) captains and deputy chiefs

6) Percentage of lateral officers in the following divisions:
a) field training officers division
b) SWAT/Metro Teams

*7) Information pertaining to the recruitment goals of the police department and how those goals would be met.
a) six month goals
b) 12 month goals

8) Information pertaining to goals to improve retention of officers hired in the department, i.e. mentoring programs.
a) pertaining to all officers
b) pertaining to female officers of all ethnic and racial groups
c) pertaining to Hispanic officers, male and female
d) pertaining to Black officers, male and female

9) Information pertaining to the department's commitment to meet objective #1.5 of the Strategic Plan, which is defined as the following, "create a workforce that better reflects the diversity in Riverside."

*10) Information pertaining to the implementation of objective #3.7 which is defined as the following, Improve outreach efforts to educate members of the community about their roles of co-producers of public safety.

I ask for a determination on this request within 10 days of your receipt of it, and an even prompter reply if you can make that determination without having to review the record[s]question. If you determine that any or all or the information qualifies for an exemption from disclosure, I ask you to note whether, as is normally the case under the Act, the exemption is discretionary, and if so whether it is necessary in this case to exercise your discretion to withhold the information. If you determine that some but not all of the information is exempt from disclosure and that you intend to withhold it, I ask that you redact it for the time being and make the rest availablerequested. In any event, please provide a signed notification citing the legal authorities on which you rely if you determine that any or all of the information is exempt and will not be disclosed.

I ask that you notify me of any duplication costs exceeding $0 before you duplicate the records so that I may decide which records I want copied.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Mary Shelton


Cc: City Manager Brad Hudson
Deputy Chief John DeLaRosa
Capt. Michael Blakely
City Council and Mayor Ron Loveridge
City Attorney Greg Priamos

Update on Douglas Steven Cloud shooting

The Community Police Review Commission will be briefed by representatives from the Riverside Police Department on the Douglas Steve Cloud officer-involved shooting next Wednesday, Oct. 25 at 5:30 p.m. inside the city council chambers at City Hall. On Oct. 8, Cloud was shot four times by Officer #A and one time by Officer #B after he had crashed his car into a pickup truck and a palm tree outside a used car dealership. Earlier, he had tried to steal a carpet cleaner from Home Depot, but was stopped by several shoppers.

After it erred in information it had provided on the Summer Marie Lane shooting at a briefing in December 2004, the department has decided not to take questions from either commissioners or members of the public. The CPRC dispatched its own investigator Butch Warnberg from the Baker Street Group, two days after the shooting.

The fierce debate on the Cloud shooting continues at the Press Enterprise Web site here with people arguing one position or the other. The poll results currently state the following results:


Excessive force: 1923

Not excessive force: 346

Not sure: 23


This being Riverside, city residents had plenty to say on the matter whether they were civilians or not. It's clear that individuals have probably been voting more than once, in the first two categories, as one individual pointed out in his or her comments.

(Excerpts)

Yes, it was excessive force:

Given the history of the RPD, as residents we all feel that excessive force is being used in many of the RPD Officers. They always have an excuse as to why they shot somebody, Tyesha Miller and now this guy, who allegedly stole equipment, the RPD is trigger happy and need to reformed.

The people who are saying that "Douglas deserved what he got" are ignorant fools. Since when is being shot repeately at close range the proper punishment for trying to steal? Douglas made some really bad choices and did break the law by TRYING to steal, however being shot like a mad dog is totally unacceptable. I have heard that some of the RPD Officers present were saying that the one who pulled the trigger was "an idiot" for doing it and that it should not and did not have to happen. I hope that they will not try to cover up for him. The Officer should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for taking the life of someone who had NO weapon and most likely was so injured from the crash that he couldn't "get out" of the car or comprehend what was really going on. Why didn't the cop use mace, a tazer, a shot in the arm or some other method instead of murder? I hope he is haunted by this for the rest of his life.

From what I understand of the shooting and from past shootings and use of force incidents involving the Riverside Police Department. It is my opinion that the police officer who did discharge his weapon acted prematurely and without provocation. I find it very odd that of the other officers involved no one else fired their service weapons.


No, it wasn't excessive force:

I am just a little sick and tired of the press and the public's attitude that police officers are society's whipping posts. Why aren't you asking the question "Do you think the thief who endangered police officers lives and the lives of the public should have cart blanche to drive through the streets and crash and then expect us to persecute the police??" I'm just glad he crashed before he killed someone and I for one am sorry for the officer who was forced to shoot this man to protect his own life and the life of his fellow officers. The crook should probably should have #1) not committed a crime, #2) not fled the scene #3) crashed and finally #4) not followed directions when the officers told him to keep his hands in sight. He probably would still be alive.

TO THE ONE WHO SAID HE WOULDNT HURT ANYONE WHY WAS HE ARRESTED FOR ASSAULT ON HIS SPOUSE. QUIT PLAYING THIS GUY A S A POOR INNOCENT VICTIM. YES MAY BE HE SHOULDNT OF BEEN SHOT BUT WHAT WOULD YOU GUYS BE SAYING IF THE POLICE NEVER WERE CALLED AND HE HIT SOMEONE IN THE PARKING LOT HE SO ERRATICALLY DROVE OUT OF PUTTING INNOCENT PEOPLE IN DANGER FOR WHAT TOOLS HE COULDNT PAY FOR NOW HE IS PAYING WITH HIS LIFE.

Wow...some of these responses are really proving the general public of Riverside to be extremely ignorant. Such as the guy that said: "I didn't see most of it, but I knew that RPD did something wrong" ppshhh okay---hold on. You didn't see most of it, but you knew that RPD did something wrong? Slap yourself. Or the rest of these people: "Douglas Cloud only wanted to make sure that everyone was okay when he crashed" How the hell do you know? Did you go up to his car and ask him what he was feeling? No. He almost killed people with his car on the way out if the parking lot---yeah, REAL concerned about the safety of others. And yeah, maybe RPD could have gone about the situation a different way however the vehicle itself is a weapon. I do recall Douglas trying to keep pushing down his gas even after he crashed. Who is to say that he was not attempting to leave again, this time potentially harming an officer or innocent bystanders? This trick stole from the home depot, fought off employees and customers and attempted to get away. Not even two months ago he was charged with spousal abuse. This was not as if some guy had crashed his car out of nowhere...he was evading police and although his family is in my prayers I will not stand for the destruction of Riverside by supporting criminal activity and behavior. But the rest of you people who are sitting here defending him, I guess it's okay to rob others, to steal things upon which the hard working man would pay for, to abuse your spouse, to almost hit innocent bystanders with vehicles, etc.,. So since you all have such strong feelings for these types of characters, just make sure you're still taking the side of the criminal if you ever find yourself caught in the middle of a robbery or the next time you're at home depot, if someone is flying through the parking lot evading police, just smile and wave, because remember, you support it. Thanks.

Then there are those who chide those who have expressed opinions either way, calling them "idiots" before jumping on a bandwagon themselves.

Anypne who weighs in on this with a yes or no is an idiot. None of you were there! Not one of you witnesed what the officers did! I'm sick and tried of kneee jerk responses, "They should get a few shots to their toros". This just shows the idiocy of the public. The problem we have is lack of public support for the Police and parents not teaching their children to respect people in postions of authority. This is the police, teachers, and parents. They spout that they do not have to listen to these people and the kids do not which escalates these situations. Then they grow up to be adults with no respect for authority. If the officer(s) acted irresponsibily then they will face the punishment.

NOBODY in this forum is qualified to answer this question. One thing is certain however, the suspect won't be stealing from Home Depot, or from you or I any longer. I'm confident the man would not have been shot if he would have given up. His choice the last of his many bad decisions that day.

A public forum will be held on the shooting at the Universalist Unitarian Church on the corner of Lemon Street and Mission Inn Avenue, adjacent to the public library. It will be held on Thursday, Oct. 19 from 7-9 p.m.

Panelists will include Woodie Rucker-Hughes, who heads the local chapter of the NAACP, Andrew Roth, who is a local attorney and James Williams, III from the Department of Justice's Community Relations office in Los Angeles. The forum will address the recent California State Supreme Court's decision on the Copley Press vs Superior Court and its impact on what members of the public will be able to learn about their police officers who are involved in officer-involved deaths. It will also address the timeline utilized by both the CPRC and the police department in terms of investigating officer-involved deaths.

The Lady and the Tiger

The Community Police Review Commission has placed its public report on the Terry Rabb officer involved death online at its Web site.

Terry Rabb OID

Rabb, a Black 35-year-old man suffering from diabetes died in police custody after two officers, Camillo Bonome and John Garcia had responded to a 51/50 call at Rabb's friend's residence.

Missing from the public report, is Commissioner Jim Ward's insightful minority report. When that issue came up to a vote, other commissioners voted against its inclusion in the official report. An assistant city attorney, Susan Wilson, who just happened to be on hand at the meeting said that they could not proceed with a minority report unless they had a process already in place. Actually, the commission has been issuing minority reports on citizen complaints for several years now, and in fact, was encouraged to do so by Chief Russ Leach at a workshop on March 17, 2004. So there is already a process in place.

The lack of a similar written process involving the final disposition of the department's officer-involved deaths did not stop City Manager Brad Hudson from opting out of the process entirely on the Summer Lane shooting and leaving it up to one of the parties in dispute(in this case, Leach) to make that decision. Was there a representative from the city attorney's office present at the time, advising Hudson to put together a process in writing first?

It's doubtful, but the city attorney's office has been fairly busy making up for the years it had spent disinterested in the CPRC, during the past several months and then some.

Susan Wilson has been attending the CPRC's meetings during the past several months not long after a flurry of wrongful death claims and law suits were filed in connection to three out of the past five officer-involved deaths. If the family of Douglas Steven Cloud follows through on its intentions to pursue litigation, then it will be four out of the last five.

Currently known or proposed litigation against the city on officer-involved deaths includes the following:

Summer Marie Lane: At least one law suit filed by family members

Terry Rabb: Two claims filed against the city by family members

Claims filed in Rabb case

Lee Deante Brown: One claim filed by Brown's family

Claim filed in Brown case

Douglas Steven Cloud: A claim could be pending

Family hires attorney


Some more statistics to drop off:

Percentage of OIDs in litigation or threatened litigation, pre-Summer Lane: 16.6%

Percentage of OIDs in litigation or threatened litigation Lane and beyond: 80%

With statistics like this, what's a city to do? Well, wait until opportunity drops into your lap, this time courtesy of a law suit filed by the Riverside Police Officers Association. Or more specifically, by one of its members, Officer Ryan Wilson. On Sept. 5, he filed his lawsuit against both the CPRC and the city of Riverside. The RPOA is duty bound to represent Wilson in a law suit whether it agreed with him or not, though it's likely that it is in agreement in this particular case.

The response I received from city residents who heard the news about this latest law suit, was why on earth would Wilson, the RPOA, the department and the city want to reopen that chapter of the city's history again? After all, many people had thought that the city manager's decision not to make a decision and its end result had closed the book on Lane, as far as those parties were concerned. Well, except for any law suits filed by Lane's family members which are currently being litigated but that's another story.

Councilman Dom Betro himself had explained this process, and then said, that was that. It's time to move on.

Well, it's clear that everyone was wrong about that.

Summer Lane has returned to the forefront again, even as other incustody deaths that have occurred since hers have either come in front of the CPRC or are closing in on their dates of deliberation and decision.

The Rabb case still awaits a finding released by the CPRC, although the clock ran out on that case nearly three weeks ago. The police department has finally released its iron grip on its files pertaining to the Brown shooting and those three case books are currently being examined by the CPRC, with an estimate of 30 days until that is completed. The police department is also scheduled to brief, but not take any questions from the CPRC on the Cloud shooting next week.

Still, Lane, otherwise known as the case which will not go away, has reemerged, thanks this time to Wilson and the organization which represents his interests. The five-page law suit provides insight into what format that will be.

In Ryan Wilson v the City of Riverside (RIC456429), Wilson alleged that he was denied due process when his attempts to administratively appeal a finding against him regarding the Lane shooting were denied. At first glance, this allegation is puzzling giving that the final disposition on the Lane shooting was definitely in his favor. In fact, as stated, Hudson opted out of the decision making process and deferred that responsibility to Leach who backed both his own department's investigation and his Internal Affairs Division's own finding that the shooting was in line with the department's use of force policy, to the surprise of no one. That outcome should have made Wilson, the RPOA and the department happy, but apparently some concerns still linger at least on the part of Wilson.

What Wilson is actually stating in his law suit is that he wants to appeal the CPRC's finding on the same shooting, which was that the shooting violated the department's use of force policy. The same finding that was again, essentially nullified by both his direct employer, Leach and by the city government including those members of the city council (through their public silence) who ran on successful election campaigns while claiming that they were firm supporters of the CPRC.

According to state law and the police officers' bill of rights, an officer who has completed his probationary period has the right to appeal a sustained finding and/or any resultant discipline through an arbitration process, as well as through an earlier Skelly hearing. Almost always, the cases that wind up in front of arbitrators are those where the final dispositions have been against the officer and those officers have been disciplined to the extent that they experienced a loss in wages, through either suspension without pay, demotion or termination of employment.

Writ of Mandamus

(if login comes up, follow instructions)

One exception occurred in the case of Caloca vs the County of San Diego (1999), a case which is cited in the RPOA's law suit. This law suit which was based on a claim similar to Wilson's was decided in the county's favor in trial court, then overturned on appeal. The response to it has differed from one jurisdiction to the next.

In Berkeley, which is the home of one of the strongest and oldest forms of civilian oversight, the response of the city attorney, Manuela Alburquerque, was to cave, according to an article published in the Berkeley Daily Planet.

Berkeley's response to Caloca

(excerpt)

City Attorney Manuela Albuquerque said the Caloca case opens the door for a cumbersome and therefore costly appeal process, and she suggested that the police chief no longer use the commission's findings for any personnel-related purposes.

It is clear that the power of Caloca is entirely dependent on the integrity of the city and county officials who are left to interpret it. It is most influential in cases where governmental officials led by their city attorneys are willing to sell out their civilian oversight mechanisms on the way to denying their police officers the right to an administrative review while claiming that this process is "burdensome" or "too costly". Berkeley's refusal to honor the arbitration process for its officers is also what led it to strike a serious blow against its police review board without its long time foe, the Berkeley's police officers association, having to lift a finger.

On the other hand, this court decision has the least impact in cities and counties where the leadership honors both processes, in that they protect the rights of their civilian oversight mechanisms and they keep the administrative appeal process for officers intact as well.

It is not clear which group the city of Riverside falls into at this point.

However, in his law suit, Wilson is clearly hedging his bets, by providing the city and if not it, the Riverside County Superior Court judge(as long as it's not that Sutton trial judge) with two options in his case. The first being to "compel" the CPRC to overturn or nullify its sustained finding on the Lane shooting. The other being, that Wilson be granted an administrative hearing involving that finding. Whether or not the city government has respect for both processes or not may ultimately determine which of these two options are exercised. Behind door number one, is the process which nullifies the CPRC. Behind the second door, lies that which essentially validates it.

Kind of like the story of the Lady and the Tiger by Frank R. Stockton, Riverside style.

In earlier times in a distant setting, that was the story of a man whose life or death was literally in the hands of a woman whose intentions he was not sure that he could trust. The same is true in a sense involving the CPRC in the role of the male protagonist and the city's government as the king's daughter.

In this updated version, there lies a third option which is to not open either door, but to instead fight the law suit in court. It appears that at least initially the city council has decided to do just that. Perhaps its members are remembering that the majority of the city's voters in every precinct of every ward voted to protect the CPRC from political influence by placing it safely in the city's charter. Of course, simply because the city's voters and many of its other residents believed that the CPRC should be free to perform its duties without facing political pressure does not mean that this is what they will get, as this law suit and its aftermath will ultimately show. There are two separate entities that both want the CPRC to either be weakened or to go away, and at the moment they are on opposite sides of a court room. Months from now, they could face off together against both the CPRC and the voters who supported it and the public could be none the wiser. Or the city could choose the option which best serves both parties, thus negating the Caloca decision's impact in this city.

The RPOA has always opposed the CPRC since even before its creation by city ordinance in 2000. It is honest in its consistency of targeting the CPRC first politically through the local election process(unsuccessfully) and later legally through civil court. It is merely picking up the mantle that has been held by every law enforcement union that has ever existed in a city or county that also includes a civilian review mechanism, except that it has reversed the usual protocol. All of them work from the same playbook until they get tired and toss it aside. The RPOA is doing nothing more than what everyone expects it to do, based on its track record. After all, a tiger's got to eat.

In contrast, the city's government embraced the CPRC as that "most important commission"(a statement made ironically by one of its detractors) until it issued its ruling on the Lane case, and the city realized for perhaps the first time, that its decisions could potentially expose it to civic liability. After that, the city tried to remold the CPRC into a public relations tool to bridge the gap between City Hall, the police department and its communities. Even the commissioners met recently to determine what their role was to be, six years after the commission's inception. The community's response was for its members to get out of their seats and exercise the powers given to them in the charter.

Ultimately, it is what the city council decides behind closed doors and not what happens in public inside a courtroom that may decide the CPRC's fate on remaining the body that is heavily supported by the city's residents. Whatever decision that the city government makes behind closed doors, will likely remain there, in secret as is often the case when it reaches settlements with people or organizations that litigate against it. Though it is hard to imagine that Wilson or the RPOA would remain silent if the decision were made in their favor, a fact that would actually work in the city's favor if the finding were eventually nullified.

Whether the finding is nullified either in open court by a judge or behind closed doors by the city council, one involved party will ultimately be painted as the villain in this piece, complete with sound effects and the other party will wring its hands and say to its constituents, well we tried very hard when community members protest. In response, the city will merely point to the entity with the track record etched in stone when it comes to fighting the CPRC and there is not a single resident in the city who does not recognize the identity of that party. The other party, whose identity is also known, could be in a situation of sitting back in relief that by nullifying the finding on the Lane shooting, it has lessened its own risk of civil liability in any litigation related to that incident without being held accountable for doing so.

And that reality, which could be as inevitable as the rising sun, would not be entirely fair if it were both parties who were involved in the nullification of the Lane finding, but as they say, que sera, sera. That process began several weeks ago when one city council member publicly complained that people were not showing up at city council meetings criticizing the "RPOA's law suit".

At least, the city did respond right on schedule to the law suit through a document filed on Oct. 6 which was sent to a judge which the city finds much more hospitable than that Sutton trial judge. Handling the case is the Honorable Dallas Holmes, an individual with many civic ties.

In its seven-page response, the city rebutted nearly all of the arguments filed by Wilson, stating that it denied each and every allegation in its entirety, from the first paragraph to its last. Interestingly enough, the city challenged Wilson's contention that the CPRC was a separate legal entity worthy of being sued separately. Instead, the city argued that the CPRC was actually an agency of the city. The real reason the city made this distinction is critical, but a separate issue from this law suit and worthy of its own discussion down the line.

There were several allegations, the city did not initially deny, most significantly those in paragraphs that addressed the actions that Wilson engaged into up to and including the Lane shooting. The city's response was that these allegations were immaterial to this litigation and thus there is no need to respond to them. Then the city went and responded to the allegations anyway by denying all of them which is interesting, because all these "allegations" were directly related to Wilson's account of the Lane shooting. The unwillingness of the city's outside legal counsel to address this issue without a big caveat attached makes it clear that civil liability and its twin, risk management, not defending the CPRC's right to investigate officer-involved deaths, is what comes first in their minds. That may not be good news for the CPRC. It is not really good news for the RPOA either.

That is also why that even if it were necessary to do so to defend the CPRC's powers and responsibilities under the city's charter by bringing the issue to trial, that day would never happen. The city would never take that risk, not with pending litigation filed in the case against both Wilson and the city. Remember, the plaintiff and one of the defendants in this law suit are both defendants in another case being processed in the same courthouse, hence the quandary. Not to mention that the city that is opposing Wilson in his own law suit today will be paying for his defense in any wrongful death litigation tomorrow, because he is a city employee.

Of course, if this law suit mirrors the Caloca case, it could end up going to trial inside a courtroom and once the door has been opened on the shooting(by Wilson through his statement of facts), it may be difficult to shut it again or like trying to put a genie back in its bottle. Of course, a trial involving any part of the Lane shooting which would place Wilson on the witness stand under cross-examination is probably the last thing the city or the police department would want to face, if there were any way to avoid it. Why, because again, Wilson and the city are defendants in other pending litigation in connection with the Lane shooting taking place in the same courthouse. And as mentioned previously, all decisions regarding Wilson's defense in any wrongful death litigation will be made by his employer, the city.

The city completed its response by listing six affirmative defenses against the validity of Wilson's writ, and its lawyer signed off as a representative of both the city and the CPRC, which again, was erroneously sued, according to the city. The last thing the city also wants is for the CPRC to be viewed as and sued as a separate legal entity, for obvious reasons.

Wilson's attorney and the city's attorney from its outside firm of choice met inside a courtroom, on Oct. 11 in order to postpone their first hearing to a future date. Initial briefs were scheduled to be filed later this month.

In this final report to the city before the dissolution of the stipulated judgment, monitor Joe Brann had recommended that the CPRC be strengthened. The city leadership appeared to nod in agreement to that suggestion, as it nodded in agreement with many things in the eve of that judgment, like the 120 digital video recorders which have yet to be purchased using the $500,000 that was allotted from the general fund to pay for them. Currently, according to Hudson and his sidekick, Asst. City Manager, Tom DeSantis, the cameras are at the bottom of a growing shopping list. Unlike the CPRC, the cameras are still viewed as assets, not liabilities.

Now, seven months later, is the city still serious about honoring its promise regarding its only form of civilian oversight? Here sits the CPRC in the arena, facing two doors. What will the city decide today? What will it decide six months from now?

(excerpt, from Stockton)

Her decision had been indicated in an instant, but it had been made after days and nights of anguished deliberation. She had known she would be asked, she had decided what she would answer, and, without the slightest hesitation, she had moved her hand to the right.

The question of her decision is one not to be lightly considered, and it is not for me to presume to set myself up as the one person able to answer it. And so I leave it with all of you: Which came out of the opened door - the lady, or the tiger?

Which will it be?