Petitions and programs

Riverside City Hall was evacuated when a fire alarm was activated yesterday, at 11 a.m. The article stated that it was an erroneous alarm but one city employee said while a large group of us were in line at the Pacific Stix that it was related to a fire drill that had been conducted at the Riverside Convention Center. Since both the center and City Hall were customers of the same security firm, apparently an error had occurred.


Also running around downtown was Asst. City Manager(among other unofficial titles) Tom DeSantis who provided an update on the mental health intervention program to be used by the Riverside Police Department, only his update wasn't much different than the one that was given as part of his power point presentation at a public safety committee meeting in January. The department's management and the city's management have met with mental health professionals with the county, the city's fire department and American Medical Response, the ambulance service that the city contracts with to handle medical calls. That was about as far as the city has gotten with its plan but it will be providing an update to the public safety committee chaired by Councilman Andrew Melendrez next week.

Another step that the police department has taken so far, according to DeSantis, was to work with the mental health professionals to revamp the 51/50 training to be provided for the police officers. The revised training protocol had been sent up to Sacramento for POST's approval before being implemented by the department. Currently, officers receive four hours of training on handling 51/50 calls.

Contrast this with City Manager Brad Hudson who said last week that the new mental health intervention program would not provide new training for police officers. If two of the city management's top employees give you two different accounts on the same thing, which one do you listen to? Which one is to be believed?

What was also confusing was when DeSantis mentioned the creation and deployment of mobile teams to address calls involving mentally ill or incapacitated individuals. He wasn't clear what kind the department would implement but threw out different models including those used by Birmingham(mobile community service officers), the Los Angeles Police Department(co-partnered with some crisis intervention team proponents) or Memphis(which pioneered the Crisis Intervention Team model). It was the city's first reference to the proposed use of mobile response units since the whole issue of mental health intervention veered off its previously set crisis intervention team path at some point last summer.

Back then, the department had allegedly been geared up to select its first team of officers and send them off to Ohio in September to be trained as crisis intervention team officers. However, that path was soon aborted and the model proposed at that time was apparently the same one that Chief Russ Leach later derided as being "cookie cutter" at a recent public safety committee meeting.

So in a sense, DeSantis is putting the cart before the horse. But it won't be the first time the city has done just this.

He mentioned placing the responsibility of handling mental illness calls on the employees who work for AMR and AMR because it's interested in keeping its lucrative contract with the city may oblige. However, the annual salaries given to AMR paramedics are quite low, which has caused more than a few of them to lateral from that profession into law enforcement agencies including the Riverside Police Department. Having talked to several officers in Riverside who used to be EMTs with this company, one of the reasons they gave for going into law enforcement were better salaries and career opportunities in that profession.

As the Terry Rabb incustody death case showed, the EMTs can receive the same medical information as the police officers do about an individual in distress and they can observe this individual's behavior when they arrive and recognize it as being a medical condition. However, if a police officer arrives and believes it's due to something else like drug intoxication as may have happened in Rabb's case, the knowledge of the EMTs doesn't count for much in that situation. In part because it's a violation of policy for employees of the fire department to engage in the restraint of individuals who are 51/50 candidates so they defer their authority to the police officers at the scene, as was the situation in the Rabb incident.

It remains to be seen if the city manager's office and its satellite agency, the police department have a plan or at the very least, another power point presentation to show the city council and the public that is not too much different than the last one.

An interesting note arose when DeSantis like his boss Hudson said that there would be something significant coming up with the Community Police Review Commission at this time(meaning it has something to do with the Lee Deante Brown shooting case) involving mental health. What the most micromanaged officer-involved shooting investigation in the history of Riverside has to do with the city's now fervent drive to devise a mental health crisis program remains to be seen.

The rush after long months of silence to create and implement some form of mental health program mirrors that involving other areas in the police department, most notably the personnel and training division which appears to have come back to life after months of silence and stagnation after staffing changes were made by Leach last summer and the city was stalling on the promises it had made at an earlier meeting regarding implementation of the department's strategic plan. News also came out that the police department had been conducting a diversity study that's being done by one of the area lieutenants, Mike Perea. Part of this study involved interviews with officers or new hires who had left the agency. It's not clear what the purpose is involving this report, but it was interesting to hear that the department was conducting one.




This week, the city council will be receiving legal advice in closed session on how it will handle two grievances filed by several city employees.

The first is listed as a personnel grievance arbitration involving two police officers, Juan Munoz and Emilio Angulo.

The other involves another employee, Mark Andrews from an unknown city department.

Grievances and appeals of terminations were apparently higher last year than in any other recent year and this year seems to be keeping on pace.




Only a block to the south, alarms of a different sort have been going off with the Riverside County Superior Court system being hit with the crisis of too few judges to hear too many trials. Add to that changes(which some local attorneys call "overzealous politics") in how the Riverside County District Attorney's office files and prosecutes cases and a county grand jury investigation of the public defender's office and you have one big mess of criminal trials delayed, justice denied, jails filled with defendants awaiting their day at trial for months or years and civil trials and even family court proceedings being put on indefinite hold.

So, when the Press Enterprise published an article on the assignment of retired judges to the bench in Riverside County to handle the tremendous caseload, it was a few drops in the bucket as far as many people were concerned.


Fingers have been pointed every which way, by different people in the system.

The judges say that there are two few of them on the bench to handle the caseload of a rapidly growing county and not enough appointments coming down from Sacramento. People who screen attorneys to become judges say that it's hard to find qualified candidates who will take a salary cut from what they could earn in private practice. The defense attorneys blame the Riverside County District Attorney's office for filing too many cases and not allowing defendants to plead out on many of them.

The defense attorneys have a point. While the same judicial shortage impacts San Bernardino County even more markedly, it hasn't had to take the same drastic measures that Riverside County has taken and the only real difference between the two counties is how their county prosecutors handle criminal cases and how many felony cases are mandated to go to trial by the respective counties. But the major issue is the shortage of judicial officers in two of the fastest growing counties in the state.





The Los Angeles Times published an article several weeks ago about eight Los Angeles Police Department officers whose salaries were higher than $200,000 last year thanks to the amount of overtime they had put in while working for a department that is about 1,000 officers short of its staffing goal.

Some of the overtime pay was higher than $100,000 per officer and the total budget of overtime pay is expected to exceed over $74 million, which is about $12 million higher than expected.

Chief William Bratton blamed the overtime on a shortage of officers in his agency.


(excerpt)


"As we expand the department, a lot of the new officers for the first year or two are going to be in the academy," said Bratton, who will ask for an $11-million increase in the department's overtime budget for fiscal 2007-08.

"After next year, once we get over that hiring crunch, then we will have those additional officers out in the field without the overtime."



Letters published in the Times on the issue were mixed, with one letter saying that it was the policies used by the department's management that needed to be reexamined.


The city's mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa, in another Times article pushed for the hiring of more police officers.


(excerpt)


In previous years, Los Angeles has not always been able to pay for more officers or keep them after they were hired. After reaching the 1998 peak, for example, the LAPD's ranks were depleted by an exodus of officers fed up with low morale caused in part by the Rampart Division police corruption scandal and a subsequent federal consent decree that severely restricted police operations.

At the same time, budget problems prevented the department from hiring enough officers to counter that attrition.The force had fewer than 9,000 officers in 2002 when Bratton became chief and at one point dipped to 8,247 sworn officers.



Meanwhile, at the LAPD's blog, Bratton had wrote this article on what he called the swelling of the ranks in the department but if you read the comments that follow, you'll see that the majority of those who responded don't agree with him.



In New York City, one of the detectives who was recently indicted on criminal charges by a grand jury in connection with the fatal shooting of Sean Bell last year was the subject of a lawsuit filed by a man, according to the New York Daily News.


NYPD detective involved in Bell shooting faces law suit


Det. Marc Cooper was sued by Michael Blakey in connection with an incident at a bar that took place before the Bell shooting where he had allegedly "manhandled" Blakey and Earnest Ellison. Right after the Oct. 28, 2006 incident, Ellison had filed a claim against the city.

(excerpt)


"What we know so far is that Marc Cooper was the main culprit," said Blakey's lawyer, Leonard Zack. "Until we start the discovery process, we won't know the names of all the officers."


Cooper's attorney said his client was probably the target of opportunists.


I will say that in my client's 17 years on the NYPD, he has a clean record - no allegations whatsoever," Martin said. "He is a model police officer."



If it is indeed true that it's opportunists who are filing claims and law suits, then that must make Ellison a psychic.

It also makes the cab driver who filed a law suit against Det. Mike Oliver a psychic too, because he filed his litigation in 1995, alleging that Oliver had made racist remarks and slammed his head against the roof of his car. The city settled that law suit for $10,000 presumably too because it saw what was coming up down the road.

The New York Daily News ran an article last week on Oliver's background as a police officer in the NYPD including his run in with cabbie, Moussa Ndiaye.

Ndiaye, who apparently is a psychic, said that he had seen Oliver go into a violent range during his encounter with him. At the time, Oliver had clocked about a year on the force.


Bell cop had wild streak


(excerpt)


"He grabbed my neck behind me," Ndiaye, 40, told the Daily News. "He pushed me to the car, again he pulled me to him and pushed me to the car again the second time. That's when my head hit the window.

"After my head hit the window, I fell down. ... My head was bleeding."


Ndiaye said that in the ambulance, Oliver had told him he would be sending him back to Africa.


(excerpt)


"Whatever any problem I have with him, he should have not tell me 'I'm going to send you back to your country,'" Ndiaye said.

"That was not about moving the car. That was about something he had deep inside him. That was some anger he had inside him against black people," the cabbie added.


Oliver was the NYPD detective who shot his gun 31 times at Bell's vehicle, exhausting two magazines and firing about 20 more bullets than any other officer at the scene of the Nov. 25, 2006 shooting.




The ACLU's southern California office is circulating a FAQ and other information regarding the impact of the recent ruling by the state's supreme court on the Copley case and the proposed legislation up in Sacramento that would essentially overturn that court's decision.




What was the Copley Press decision and what did it do?


On August 29, 2006, the California Supreme Court in Copley Press held that records of an administrative appeal of sustained misconduct charges – held by an independent civil service commission – are confidential and may not be disclosed to the public. The decision prevents the public from learning the extent to which police and correctional officers have been disciplined as a result of sustained misconduct.

Statutory background: Prior to Copley Press, Penal Code 832.7 prevented public access to complaint records held by the “employing agency.” This meant that internal affairs records were confidential, while records of administrative appeals to outside bodies such as a civil service commission were open to the public. Also, in some jurisdictions, independent civilian review boards functioned in public hearing complaints separate and apart from the police department.

What the court said: Copley Press held that the San Diego Civil Service Commission records on police officer administrative appeals were confidential. In reaching this conclusion, the court held that the Civil Service Commission performed a similar function to the police department in the disciplinary process so, for purposes of the case, the commission was functioning as the employing agency. The court essentially undid the legislatively enacted distinction between employing agencies and independent agencies, cloaking the records and findings of both in confidentiality.

How has Copley Press impacted agencies and the public right to know?


Copley Press has effectively shut off all avenues for the public learning about police misconduct perpetrated by individual correctional officers. It has eliminated, for example, the ability of the medial or other outside agency to determine whether there are patterns of leniency towards particular officers, particular officers who engage in repeat or serious misconduct, or whether a department hires officers that have previously been disciplined for misconduct by another agency. Among the agencies that have been effected are:

San Francisco Police Department: For years, San Francisco Police Commission records have been open to the public, allowing the public to learn about serious misconduct cases ranging from excessive force to dishonesty. Following Copley, all hearings have been closed and related records – even the identity of the subject officers – are longer released.

Los Angeles Police Department: For decades the LAPD held public hearings in serious misconduct cases and the Commission regularly released information on use of force incidents, including officer-involved-shootings. Such information was included in both the Christopher Commission report and the Report of the Rampart Independent Review Panel, and helped play a critical role in bringing about much needed changes in the LAPD. Now, on advice of the Los Angeles City Attorney, the Commission no longer releases identifying information in officer-involved-shooting or other uses of force and all disciplinary information is closed to the public.

Oakland Citizens Police Review Board: Since the early 1980s the CPRB has investigated cases of police misconduct and held open hearings, separate and apart from the Police Department’s internal affairs unit, to provide an independent and public forum for examining police misconduct. After over 20 years, the CPRB hearings and records have been closed down, as have the records of other oversight agencies.

Los Angeles County Sheriff: The Los Angeles County Sheriff by its own initiative set up an Office of Independent Review to audit internal affairs investigations and provide public reports on issues related to alleged police misconduct. Following the Copley decision, OIR attorneys have been barred from attending Civil Service Commission hearings on misconduct cases. In the words of OIR Chief Attorney and former Assistant US Attorney Michael Gennaco the decision “has had a tremendous effect on our ability to provide transparency. In one fell swoop, so much as been closed.”

How does the proposed legislation solve this problem?


The proposed legislation remedies these problems in two ways:

Redefined Employing Agency: Section 832.5(d)(4) clarifies that department or agency within this statutory scheme, only refers to the agency that directly employs peace or custodial officers. This section directly overturns the specific holding in Copley and will allow commissions that operated in an open manner prior to Copley to continue as they were prior to the court’s decision.

Allows Public Access to Limited Information Related to Sustained Misconduct Cases: Section 832.7(e) and 832.8(g) provide public access to specific categories of information about sustained misconduct complaints, providing a window to the public into the disciplinary process. The information that shall be provided to the public includes the name of the subject officer and complainant, a summary of the factual findings, charges brought against the officer, and discipline imposed.

Why is it important that this information be made public?

Public access to information about police complaints and a department’s response is critical to ensuring public trust in the way police complaints are handled and effective investigations. Dissemination of information serves as a deterrent against police misconduct and generated public confidence in the ability of government to hold police accountable. According to Merrick Bobb, Executive Director of the Police Assessment Resource Center and Independent Monitor for the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department, there is “broad agreement that whether or not police retain the power to investigate themselves, law enforcement’s business, in general, is the public’s business, and therefore must be an open and transparent process.

Open and independent oversight not only benefits the public. Only a transparent complaint process can convincingly clear a police officer of misconduct charges in the eyes of the public. According to Professors Jerome Skolnick and James Fyfe – also a former Deputy Commissioner for the New York Police Department – “in the long run, only an independent investigative body can allay public suspicions of the police and render a convincing exoneration of police who have been accused of misconduct.”

The current law hamstrings police executives from communicating with the public about significant cases of public concern, undermining the credibility of law enforcement agencies in the community. Under the current law, if a police chief wants to talk with the public about a particular case, they are hamstrung. As Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton recently said: “I am in support of change," Bratton said. "I am very frustrated by [the current process]. The public has no access to it. The media has no access to it. That's crazy, absolutely crazy. We have nothing to hide in the Los Angeles Police Department.”

Shouldn’t peace officers be entitled to the same confidentiality rights as other public employees?

Yes. Under the current law police and correctional officers are given special rights beyond those of other public employees. The public as a right of access to misconduct and disciplinary information for all other public employees, lawyers, and doctors. Police wield an incredible amount of power and hold a tremendous amount of responsibility in our society. Arguably, records about police misconduct should be more accessible. The proposed legislation, however, while providing greater access to information about police misconduct, still does not allow as much access for police records as for other public employees.

What about people who target police with frivolous or unfounded complaints?

Under the proposed legislation, the public only has access to information about police complaints that result in discipline. By definition, they are not frivolous.

How do other state’s treat police complaints?

California is in a small minority of states that so completely shield police records. At least 30 other states allow greater access including Georgia, Florida, Indiana, Utah, Oklahoma, Hawaii, Ohio, and Louisiana.


Why were confidentiality provisions passed in the first place?

Ironically, they were imposed in response to police misconduct. Following the 1974 Supreme Court decision Pitchess v. Superior Court, which allowed a defendant access to certain citizen complaint information, several law enforcement agencies “launched mass record-shredding campaigns to evade court orders pursuant to Pitchess.” In Los Angeles, for example, dozens of criminal charges were dismissed by the courts due to file shredding. Ultimately the legislature took up the issue, requiring files to be maintained for five years. Police unions pushed for confidentiality measures in return and the result is the existing law.