From acorns to oaks: civilian review is spreading
Up in Berkeley, the city council just voted 8-0 to sign on to the proposed legislation up in Sacramento that is intended to overturn the California State Supreme Court's decision to close the complaint process to the public.
Council supports open police complaint legislation
With only one city council member absent, the body sent a message that it's been listening to the voices in the community that have expressed great concern about the integrity of the complaint process involving Berkeley's civilian review board since the Copley decision was released last summer.
(excerpt)
“Unlike all other public employees, the public is prevented by state law from learning about serious police misconduct and any discipline that came as a result of misconduct,” wrote Councilmember Laurie Capitelli, who introduced the resolution.
“This prevents the public from learning about the extent to which problems exist within the Police Department [and] also from learning about how management addresses misconduct when it occurs,” Capitelli wrote.
A lot of criticism had been launched against Berkeley's city attorney, Manuela Albuquerque but if given a choice between her and Riverside's own city attorney, Gregory Priamos, Albuquerque is by far the bigger champion not only for civilian review but also for the public's participation in the process. Priamos sits in local meetings of the Community Police Review Commission and tells its members what they can't do, just like he tells the city council all the ways that the state's Brown Act restricts public participation at meetings.
In contrast, Albuquerque is in court fighting for her city's right to maintain its civilian review process and for it to maintain its transparency to the public. Maybe she understands that doing so helps promote public confidence both in that process and in Berkeley's police department. Or at least, those who give her marching orders do.
But you can't blame Priamos for just doing what he's been told and what he has to do to keep his job in Riverside, which means at least once or twice annually, he needs at least four votes from the city council to remain employed with the city. He is after all, "at will" and must do the elected government's bidding.
It's also clear that this elected government is ignoring the will of the city's voters who in every precinct in every ward in this city voted to affirm the necessity of civilian review in the city of Riverside. Even those who used their support of both the CPRC and the ballot measure that put it in the city's charter are quiet on the issue, except for Councilman Andrew Melendrez.
But what usually happens in cases like this is that down the road, the city's residents decide to push for an even stronger, more independent form of civilian review and for Riverside, that point in the juncture is probably about five years away, based on the time lines of cities facing similar situations.
Across the country in the sunny state of Florida, Key West The Newspaper published a column by its editor and publisher Dennis Reeves Cooper about that city's civilian review board's decision to rescind a policy keeping complaints filed against police officers private.
Apparently Cooper himself was a main proponent of this policy change after a public records request that he had submitted regarding a complaint to that board was denied. He took his case to court by filing a law suit and was backed by the local chapter of the ACLU, which its attorney expressed in a letter written to the board's attorney last November.
(excerpt)
“The CRB’s current confidentiality policy not only is unconstitutional and contrary to the spirit of the Sunshine Law, In a Free Society, the Public’s Trust In an Official’s Reputation Is Won By Greater Transparency, Not the Silencing Of Criticism but it affects the CRB’s ability to conduct business.”
One of the major problems is that the board had asked a question, was an entity that was not a law enforcement agency bound by the state's peace officers' bill of rights, and it was unable to get a legal opinion from its own attorney, Robert Citron. But then even the State Attorney General office in Florida didn't want to touch the question either first sending what Citron called a "nonopinion" then declining to get involved in the matter.
The Cooper v Dillion law suit did reach a decision in court.
(excerpt)
Last Monday night, CRB member Dr. Susan White distributed to the other board members some of the excepts from the Cooper vs. Dillon ruling— something Attorney Cintron had never bothered to do. Here are some of those excerpts:
• “In a free society, the public’s trust in an official’s reputation is won by greater transparency, not the silencing of criticism.”
• “The interest in protecting wrongfully accused officers from defamation is insufficient to sustain the statute.”
• “Our prior cases have firmly established that injury to official reputation is insufficient reason for repressing speech.”
• “The proper remedy for wrongfully accused officers is found in Florida’s libel laws . . . rather than a restriction which operates to suppress members of the press from reporting information of public concern.
The city's civilian review board was passed by the voters and doesn't report to any entity in city government, but the people, Cooper stated in his column.
ACLU Florida's brief on the Cooper law suit
Federal appeal court reverses decision that upheld statute
Commissioners are being picked for Eugene, Oregon's new civilian review board, according to the Register-Guard. Deadlocks on prospective appointments are expected given the contentious nature of the city government in that city.
All of the 15 applicants for the board were required to fill out written statements on why they wanted to serve.
(excerpt)
"Police conduct and oversight is a hot-button issue, especially in this community," said Richard Brissenden, a municipal court judge in Cottage Grove and Florence, who lives in Eugene. "It is of paramount importance that (oversight) be addressed with a cool head."
Only one finalist has law enforcement experience. N. Michael Hurley worked for the Oregon State Police for 28 years, before retiring as director of the state crime lab in Springfield.
The city of Oakland is facing a $5 million law suit filed by seven Black men who alleged that they were subjected to strip searches in public. It's only the latest law suit to be filed making allegations that Black men were stripped in public, to be searched by police officers.
(excerpt)
The suit was filed by Oakland civil rights attorneys John Burris and Michael Haddad, who have filed five other similar suits on behalf of eight other men.
"Oakland is the only police department of which we, and the OPD, are aware that has a written policy allowing officers to conduct strip searches on the street," Haddad said Thursday. "We contend that such searches are clearly unconstitutional."
"These humiliating searches are made worse" by the apparent singling out by police of African Americans that are searched, Haddad said. All but one of the plaintiffs in this suit are African American.
Oh, and thank you so much Alex Pham for your article in the Los Angeles Times. You put what so much of us who blog have experienced out there.
Council supports open police complaint legislation
With only one city council member absent, the body sent a message that it's been listening to the voices in the community that have expressed great concern about the integrity of the complaint process involving Berkeley's civilian review board since the Copley decision was released last summer.
(excerpt)
“Unlike all other public employees, the public is prevented by state law from learning about serious police misconduct and any discipline that came as a result of misconduct,” wrote Councilmember Laurie Capitelli, who introduced the resolution.
“This prevents the public from learning about the extent to which problems exist within the Police Department [and] also from learning about how management addresses misconduct when it occurs,” Capitelli wrote.
A lot of criticism had been launched against Berkeley's city attorney, Manuela Albuquerque but if given a choice between her and Riverside's own city attorney, Gregory Priamos, Albuquerque is by far the bigger champion not only for civilian review but also for the public's participation in the process. Priamos sits in local meetings of the Community Police Review Commission and tells its members what they can't do, just like he tells the city council all the ways that the state's Brown Act restricts public participation at meetings.
In contrast, Albuquerque is in court fighting for her city's right to maintain its civilian review process and for it to maintain its transparency to the public. Maybe she understands that doing so helps promote public confidence both in that process and in Berkeley's police department. Or at least, those who give her marching orders do.
But you can't blame Priamos for just doing what he's been told and what he has to do to keep his job in Riverside, which means at least once or twice annually, he needs at least four votes from the city council to remain employed with the city. He is after all, "at will" and must do the elected government's bidding.
It's also clear that this elected government is ignoring the will of the city's voters who in every precinct in every ward in this city voted to affirm the necessity of civilian review in the city of Riverside. Even those who used their support of both the CPRC and the ballot measure that put it in the city's charter are quiet on the issue, except for Councilman Andrew Melendrez.
But what usually happens in cases like this is that down the road, the city's residents decide to push for an even stronger, more independent form of civilian review and for Riverside, that point in the juncture is probably about five years away, based on the time lines of cities facing similar situations.
Across the country in the sunny state of Florida, Key West The Newspaper published a column by its editor and publisher Dennis Reeves Cooper about that city's civilian review board's decision to rescind a policy keeping complaints filed against police officers private.
Apparently Cooper himself was a main proponent of this policy change after a public records request that he had submitted regarding a complaint to that board was denied. He took his case to court by filing a law suit and was backed by the local chapter of the ACLU, which its attorney expressed in a letter written to the board's attorney last November.
(excerpt)
“The CRB’s current confidentiality policy not only is unconstitutional and contrary to the spirit of the Sunshine Law, In a Free Society, the Public’s Trust In an Official’s Reputation Is Won By Greater Transparency, Not the Silencing Of Criticism but it affects the CRB’s ability to conduct business.”
One of the major problems is that the board had asked a question, was an entity that was not a law enforcement agency bound by the state's peace officers' bill of rights, and it was unable to get a legal opinion from its own attorney, Robert Citron. But then even the State Attorney General office in Florida didn't want to touch the question either first sending what Citron called a "nonopinion" then declining to get involved in the matter.
The Cooper v Dillion law suit did reach a decision in court.
(excerpt)
Last Monday night, CRB member Dr. Susan White distributed to the other board members some of the excepts from the Cooper vs. Dillon ruling— something Attorney Cintron had never bothered to do. Here are some of those excerpts:
• “In a free society, the public’s trust in an official’s reputation is won by greater transparency, not the silencing of criticism.”
• “The interest in protecting wrongfully accused officers from defamation is insufficient to sustain the statute.”
• “Our prior cases have firmly established that injury to official reputation is insufficient reason for repressing speech.”
• “The proper remedy for wrongfully accused officers is found in Florida’s libel laws . . . rather than a restriction which operates to suppress members of the press from reporting information of public concern.
The city's civilian review board was passed by the voters and doesn't report to any entity in city government, but the people, Cooper stated in his column.
ACLU Florida's brief on the Cooper law suit
Federal appeal court reverses decision that upheld statute
Commissioners are being picked for Eugene, Oregon's new civilian review board, according to the Register-Guard. Deadlocks on prospective appointments are expected given the contentious nature of the city government in that city.
All of the 15 applicants for the board were required to fill out written statements on why they wanted to serve.
(excerpt)
"Police conduct and oversight is a hot-button issue, especially in this community," said Richard Brissenden, a municipal court judge in Cottage Grove and Florence, who lives in Eugene. "It is of paramount importance that (oversight) be addressed with a cool head."
Only one finalist has law enforcement experience. N. Michael Hurley worked for the Oregon State Police for 28 years, before retiring as director of the state crime lab in Springfield.
The city of Oakland is facing a $5 million law suit filed by seven Black men who alleged that they were subjected to strip searches in public. It's only the latest law suit to be filed making allegations that Black men were stripped in public, to be searched by police officers.
(excerpt)
The suit was filed by Oakland civil rights attorneys John Burris and Michael Haddad, who have filed five other similar suits on behalf of eight other men.
"Oakland is the only police department of which we, and the OPD, are aware that has a written policy allowing officers to conduct strip searches on the street," Haddad said Thursday. "We contend that such searches are clearly unconstitutional."
"These humiliating searches are made worse" by the apparent singling out by police of African Americans that are searched, Haddad said. All but one of the plaintiffs in this suit are African American.
Oh, and thank you so much Alex Pham for your article in the Los Angeles Times. You put what so much of us who blog have experienced out there.
Labels: Backlash against civilian oversight, civilian review spreads
posted by Five Before Midnight | 8:09 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home