Playing it by ear: Could audio recordings be mandated by law?
Here it is, a press release from the California Secretary of State office about a measure which may come to the public for a vote soon. You can find some information about it here. A letter from the proponent of this ballot initiative was sent to then State Attorney General Bill Lockyer last November.
The proposed initiative was assigned on record by both Secretary of State Debra Bowen and State Attorney General Jerry Brown.
California Petition Would Require Audio-Visual Record of Contacts Between Police and Public
February 15, 2007 News Release
A notice posted on California Secretary of State Debra Bowen's Website outlines a petition that would "require peace officers to create an audio-visual recording of all contacts with or searches of citizens." The petition "Requires that a copy of the recording be provided to affected citizens who are arrested and charged with a crime."The costs are unknown, said the notice, but could potentially cost"hundreds of millions of dollars on a one-time basis, with ongoing costs in the tens of millions of dollars."
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -DB07:005 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Evan Goldberg February 13, 2007 (916) 653-6575
Proposed Initiative Enters Circulation Recording of Contacts with Peace Officers. Initiative Statute. SACRAMENTO – Secretary of State Debra Bowen announced today that the proponent of a new initiative may begin collecting petition signatures for her measure.
The Attorney General's official title and summary of the measure is as follows: RECORDING OF CONTACTS WITH PEACE OFFICERS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Requires peace officers to create an audio-visual recording of all contacts with or searches of citizens.
Requires that a copy of the recording be provided to affected citizens who are arrested and charged with a crime.
Mandates dismissal of pending criminal charges for arrests after January 1, 1996, if the individual charged did not receive a copy of an audio-visual recording of the related contact or search.
Requires two-thirds vote of Legislature to amend provisions.
Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance offiscal impact on state and local governments: Unknown net costs to state and local governments, but potentially in the hundreds of millions of dollars on a one-time basis, with ongoing costs in the tens of millions of dollars. (06-0041.)
The Secretary of State's tracking number for this measure is 1236 and the Attorney General's tracking number is 06-0041. The proponent for this measure, Rosalyn Jamison, must collect the signatures of 433,971 registered voters, the number equal to 5% of the total votes cast for governor in the 2006 gubernatorial election, in order to qualify the measure for the ballot. The proponent has 150 days to circulate petitions for this measure, meaning the signatures must be collected by July 13, 2007.
The initiative proponent can be reached in care of Finish First, Inc.,ATTN: Mr. Jamison, 3824 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 117, Los Angeles, CA 90010. No phone number was provided.
###
This initiative if passed could require the Riverside Police Department to expand its current audio recording policy to include all professional contacts and not just those that its officers initiate with the public. Expanding the current policy is something that many community members have supported and have even asked the department to do. After all, it makes sense to do so for all involved parties, given that the audio recorder is actually a tool that if used properly, can protect both the community and the police officers.
Community members, even leaders have shaken their head in puzzlement as to why the Riverside Police Officers' Association under the leadership of then Officer Pat McCarthy had fought the expansion of a policy that would offer them protection from false allegations by members of the public against officers who were doing their jobs properly and in a professional manner.
The Community Police Review Commission have said on several occasions that it was through listening to the belt recordings submitted by police officers that they were able to determine that complaints were unfounded, rather than assigning them a "not sustained" finding. That was one of the reasons why the commission on two separate occasions submitted a policy recommendation to expand the policy to include all professional contacts. That policy recommendation was rejected by Chief Russ Leach twice. The same police chief who complained at a recent community forum and rightfully so, that he had not received very many policy recommendations from the CPRC in the past two years. It's a lot tougher to support and thus sign off on a policy recommendation like this one than on other recommendations that suggesting amending other current policies that should have been updated years ago with all the parties realizing that.
One of the most frustrating things that community members often feel is that the leadership of both branches of the police department works hard not so much to protect the department's good officers, who are behaving in an ethical and professional manner, but those officers who are behaving badly or in a manner that is not professional. Officers that exist in every law enforcement agency. Officers who obviously would have much to fear from a policy like this one.
Whether it is due to a feeling that officers need to support each other right or wrong to maintain a cohesive bond amongst them, or due to the city's need to constantly assess the financial risk that the department is placing it in and hide it from the public, the community believes that the refusal of the department to expand the audio recording policy is yet another example of the department circling its wagons against the scrutiny of any officers whose bad behavior would be exposed by having it recorded and listened to. And that apparently includes the department's own scrutiny of its own on this level.
Even though officers are required to record all of their contacts with the public, the department's supervisors apparently only listen to recordings when a complaint is made. That's unfortunate, because the recordings of both professional encounters of police officers with the public and those that are less than professional could be used as training tools especially for newer officers. If you are paying for the equipment and the storage space for digital recordings which will be held for a certain period of time, then you might as well make the most use out of them as is possible. The equipment and especially the necessary storage places for digital recordings does cost a lot of money. So do consent decrees and civil litigation if the police officers are missing very important evidence to defend their actions.
Then there is the unknown variable for community members which is the compliance rate by police officers to the current audio recording policy. In 2005, the CPRC delivered two "misconduct noted" findings in relation to officers who had failed to activate their recorders when required to under the policy. When the policy was first implemented, there was apparently an unwritten "grace period" for officers before the policy would be fully enforced. That grace period had ended in August 2003, according to then Asst. City Manager Penny Culbreath-Graft. But there has still been a push to expand the policy even further.
The passage of this initiative by the voters, if it makes it on the ballot would make this point moot. Of course, it probably would have to get past the signature gathering point(after of course, being amended or resubmitted to address the obvious typo in the text) to get on the ballot and past a formidable if somewhat disappointing campaign launched by the state's law enforcement unions to pass.
Atlanta, Georgia is pushing for a stronger form of civilian review of its police officers. Even though the city currently has a civilian review mechanism in place, its members have not met in five years and it's cited as being too weak, according to this article posted by NBC news in Atlanta. This time it's the police killing of Kathryn Johnston, 92, which has led to the push to create a stronger, more independent review board with subpoena power.
Leading the charge at city hall, is an elected official. It's always amazing to read articles about how city officials in other places besides Riverside actually advocate or even fight for stronger forms of civilian review rather than claim to support it up front and then undercut it behind the scenes through their direct employees. No one currently sitting on the dais has that kind of courage. Not those who personally oppose what the voters wanted. Not those who say they support it but remain silent on it because they are worried that if they do voice their support of it, then the RPOA will run a candidate against them. Maybe they're waiting until the end of the filing period for city council candidates to show some courage?
(excerpt)
The FBI and Fulton County's District Attorney are already investigating the raid for possible criminal charges. But City Councilman H. Lamar Willis thinks that isn't enough. He wants to set up a stronger civilian oversight pannel he calls a Citizen Review Board.
Unlike the old one, his would have subpoena powers and be able to conduct its own investigation at the same time as other authorities, not just after they have finished.
The proposed initiative was assigned on record by both Secretary of State Debra Bowen and State Attorney General Jerry Brown.
California Petition Would Require Audio-Visual Record of Contacts Between Police and Public
February 15, 2007 News Release
A notice posted on California Secretary of State Debra Bowen's Website outlines a petition that would "require peace officers to create an audio-visual recording of all contacts with or searches of citizens." The petition "Requires that a copy of the recording be provided to affected citizens who are arrested and charged with a crime."The costs are unknown, said the notice, but could potentially cost"hundreds of millions of dollars on a one-time basis, with ongoing costs in the tens of millions of dollars."
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -DB07:005 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Evan Goldberg February 13, 2007 (916) 653-6575
Proposed Initiative Enters Circulation Recording of Contacts with Peace Officers. Initiative Statute. SACRAMENTO – Secretary of State Debra Bowen announced today that the proponent of a new initiative may begin collecting petition signatures for her measure.
The Attorney General's official title and summary of the measure is as follows: RECORDING OF CONTACTS WITH PEACE OFFICERS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Requires peace officers to create an audio-visual recording of all contacts with or searches of citizens.
Requires that a copy of the recording be provided to affected citizens who are arrested and charged with a crime.
Mandates dismissal of pending criminal charges for arrests after January 1, 1996, if the individual charged did not receive a copy of an audio-visual recording of the related contact or search.
Requires two-thirds vote of Legislature to amend provisions.
Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance offiscal impact on state and local governments: Unknown net costs to state and local governments, but potentially in the hundreds of millions of dollars on a one-time basis, with ongoing costs in the tens of millions of dollars. (06-0041.)
The Secretary of State's tracking number for this measure is 1236 and the Attorney General's tracking number is 06-0041. The proponent for this measure, Rosalyn Jamison, must collect the signatures of 433,971 registered voters, the number equal to 5% of the total votes cast for governor in the 2006 gubernatorial election, in order to qualify the measure for the ballot. The proponent has 150 days to circulate petitions for this measure, meaning the signatures must be collected by July 13, 2007.
The initiative proponent can be reached in care of Finish First, Inc.,ATTN: Mr. Jamison, 3824 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 117, Los Angeles, CA 90010. No phone number was provided.
###
This initiative if passed could require the Riverside Police Department to expand its current audio recording policy to include all professional contacts and not just those that its officers initiate with the public. Expanding the current policy is something that many community members have supported and have even asked the department to do. After all, it makes sense to do so for all involved parties, given that the audio recorder is actually a tool that if used properly, can protect both the community and the police officers.
Community members, even leaders have shaken their head in puzzlement as to why the Riverside Police Officers' Association under the leadership of then Officer Pat McCarthy had fought the expansion of a policy that would offer them protection from false allegations by members of the public against officers who were doing their jobs properly and in a professional manner.
The Community Police Review Commission have said on several occasions that it was through listening to the belt recordings submitted by police officers that they were able to determine that complaints were unfounded, rather than assigning them a "not sustained" finding. That was one of the reasons why the commission on two separate occasions submitted a policy recommendation to expand the policy to include all professional contacts. That policy recommendation was rejected by Chief Russ Leach twice. The same police chief who complained at a recent community forum and rightfully so, that he had not received very many policy recommendations from the CPRC in the past two years. It's a lot tougher to support and thus sign off on a policy recommendation like this one than on other recommendations that suggesting amending other current policies that should have been updated years ago with all the parties realizing that.
One of the most frustrating things that community members often feel is that the leadership of both branches of the police department works hard not so much to protect the department's good officers, who are behaving in an ethical and professional manner, but those officers who are behaving badly or in a manner that is not professional. Officers that exist in every law enforcement agency. Officers who obviously would have much to fear from a policy like this one.
Whether it is due to a feeling that officers need to support each other right or wrong to maintain a cohesive bond amongst them, or due to the city's need to constantly assess the financial risk that the department is placing it in and hide it from the public, the community believes that the refusal of the department to expand the audio recording policy is yet another example of the department circling its wagons against the scrutiny of any officers whose bad behavior would be exposed by having it recorded and listened to. And that apparently includes the department's own scrutiny of its own on this level.
Even though officers are required to record all of their contacts with the public, the department's supervisors apparently only listen to recordings when a complaint is made. That's unfortunate, because the recordings of both professional encounters of police officers with the public and those that are less than professional could be used as training tools especially for newer officers. If you are paying for the equipment and the storage space for digital recordings which will be held for a certain period of time, then you might as well make the most use out of them as is possible. The equipment and especially the necessary storage places for digital recordings does cost a lot of money. So do consent decrees and civil litigation if the police officers are missing very important evidence to defend their actions.
Then there is the unknown variable for community members which is the compliance rate by police officers to the current audio recording policy. In 2005, the CPRC delivered two "misconduct noted" findings in relation to officers who had failed to activate their recorders when required to under the policy. When the policy was first implemented, there was apparently an unwritten "grace period" for officers before the policy would be fully enforced. That grace period had ended in August 2003, according to then Asst. City Manager Penny Culbreath-Graft. But there has still been a push to expand the policy even further.
The passage of this initiative by the voters, if it makes it on the ballot would make this point moot. Of course, it probably would have to get past the signature gathering point(after of course, being amended or resubmitted to address the obvious typo in the text) to get on the ballot and past a formidable if somewhat disappointing campaign launched by the state's law enforcement unions to pass.
Atlanta, Georgia is pushing for a stronger form of civilian review of its police officers. Even though the city currently has a civilian review mechanism in place, its members have not met in five years and it's cited as being too weak, according to this article posted by NBC news in Atlanta. This time it's the police killing of Kathryn Johnston, 92, which has led to the push to create a stronger, more independent review board with subpoena power.
Leading the charge at city hall, is an elected official. It's always amazing to read articles about how city officials in other places besides Riverside actually advocate or even fight for stronger forms of civilian review rather than claim to support it up front and then undercut it behind the scenes through their direct employees. No one currently sitting on the dais has that kind of courage. Not those who personally oppose what the voters wanted. Not those who say they support it but remain silent on it because they are worried that if they do voice their support of it, then the RPOA will run a candidate against them. Maybe they're waiting until the end of the filing period for city council candidates to show some courage?
(excerpt)
The FBI and Fulton County's District Attorney are already investigating the raid for possible criminal charges. But City Councilman H. Lamar Willis thinks that isn't enough. He wants to set up a stronger civilian oversight pannel he calls a Citizen Review Board.
Unlike the old one, his would have subpoena powers and be able to conduct its own investigation at the same time as other authorities, not just after they have finished.
Labels: civilian review spreads
posted by Five Before Midnight | 8:28 AM
2 Comments:
The reason cops did not want the madatory recordings are because when they failed to record for different and ofter times reasonable reasons, they could and usually would face some type of discipline. Your such a whore!
Dear "Ron Jeremy":
Only two officers had received "misconduct noted" findings on allegations related to their failure to utilize their recorders according to the CPRC records and that was over two years ago. The vast majority of "misconduct noted" findings arise from the department's investigations because it is the department which has the right to designate such a finding. As you know, a "misconduct noted" is a sustained finding for misconduct not included in the original allegations of the complaint.
That's two officers out of approximately 200+ that have been assigned recorders to use, not to mention two incidents out of thousands of contacts with the public. That's hardly a lot of discipline being given out now, is it? But then again, you all appear somewhat prone to hyperbole.
So when you mention all this discipline of these "cops", what are you rambling about? Could you be more clear? Let's try this. Can you be clear?
Oh, and Ron dear or whoever you may be, you are very boring in your continuously childish behavior. You are very disgusting and I'm probably not the first person to tell you that but it's your choice to behave in this way.
You've been here a while I suspect and your material is just very stale and your use of insults is just well, repetitive. You and your pals are cowards, afraid to use your real names because that would require you to crawl all the way out from underneath your rock and it would quickly be apparent what pathetic creatures you are. Oh wait, it already is clear by your rantings here. Fortunately, about 99% of my visitors don't even read the comment sections.
If you're a police officer, you are a disgrace but I think you know that. Otherwise you wouldn't be here. Or you're just a run of the mill creep who harasses women because they want nothing to do with you in your life.
I don't use gender slurs so I'll just call you an asshole, okay?
Now be a good boy and go read my response to your previous comment you wrote several days ago. I noticed that you haven't done so yet. The only people who have read the response so far both work for the city of Riverside(with one of those on server IP=192.248.248.67). Hopefully you weren't one of them.
Your ISP tonight indicates that your server is based in Upland. It matches the Verizon ISP for "Ron Jeremy"'s post last Thursday. Your computer's signature(thanks to FunWeb Product and Media Center 3.1) matches that of several posts that appeared last autumn including posts under the "Kramer" moniker. I'm not sure how long you've been here exactly but it's probable that you have been here for a while.
You know I spent a lot of good months of my life being frightened of you and your friends and any other nasty people who appeared at this site to spew their venom. It's hard being virtually assaulted and threatened by people without faces or even names except for silly monikers. I had to talk to someone else who had a similar experience to understand why I felt such fear. It took a long time before it went away but it did.
Always looking behind me wherever I went and probably subjecting a lot of hard-working, good officers to looks of fear because I thought you might exist behind their faces. This has been hard on my family and my friends who worried about me. For over a month, I had six panic attacks daily. I think my record was somewhere around 16. I know that reading this makes you feel all giddy inside because inducing fear in me and other targets of your vile hatred and bitterness is what gives you life. But make no mistake here, I'm writing this not for you but for myself. To take back what you took from me. Something that didn't belong to you.
I had a hit and run incident on my property last autumn that caused extensive property damage and didn't call the police. Why? because of comments that you and others like "Kevin, RPD" and the RPD officer who wrote not to bother to call the police if I needed them wrote here.
You see, if you are RPD officers, I don't know who you are and what you look like and I couldn't take the risk of you or any of your buddies coming to take the report and terrorizing me more if you are indeed officers. That's not fair to the department because most of the officers wouldn't behave this way but it's not fair to be put in a position of feeling that fear either. You condemned me and the vast majority of the police officers in the police department to this through your cowardly and twisted behavior.
You are one deeply troubled person, you and your buddy or buddies real or imaginary, you know the one who described what I was wearing and when I was walking in the Eastside. What pathetic behavior! You probably shook with your giddiness when you saw me on television at that city council meeting or heard about it. Perhaps you were the one who said he would smile whenever he thought of that moment.
What a sad, sad little man you are and you know it.
But I'm not scared anymore no matter who you may be, you and your set are pathetic little boys who uses my blog to piss on because everyone else around you is probably tired of listening to your bullshit.
You cyberstalk because you have nothing else to do in your life to be fulfilled and for your selfish little reasons. And what makes you ultra pathetic is that some of you either are or are impersonating police officers in my city. I'm not sure which is worse as both possibilities are vile and disgusting.
My religious beliefs mean that I must forgive you and your friends and pray for your heart to be less filled with hatred and bitterness and that certainly won't be easy but if Jesus can do it, I guess I can. Again, that's probably more for my benefit than yours.
I only hope I'm the only woman you treat this way and there aren't others out there. But if there are, hopefully they will stand up to your abusive, cyberstalking, pathetically cowardly behavior as well. That's the only way to put cowards like you into the proper perspective.
Have a nice evening,
Post a Comment
<< Home