From acorns to mighty oaks: Why police unions are civilian oversight's best friend

"The history of the world is the world's court of justice."

---Friedrich Von Schiller



The Los Angeles Times responded to the failure of a state assembly bill that would have cracked the door open a little bit wider when it comes to scrutinizing the police complaint process with a scathing indictment of law enforcement unions in Bullies in Blue.

The Times was especially upset with the Los Angeles Police Department's Police Protective League for first telling the newspaper they supported it then testifying against it behind closed doors in a room where the lack of transparency included a ban on media coverage.


(excerpt)


The first sign of that was an extraordinarily ham-fisted e-mail from John R. Stites, one of the unions' leaders. Stites baldly threatened members of the Legislature who supported Romero's bill by vowing to oppose a term-limits measure, adding: "This will only be the beginning." Locally, leaders of the Los Angeles Police Protective League told this newspaper that they would support a bill that would reopen disciplinary hearings, then, once they were out of the building, announced their opposition.

The union thuggery continued this week as representatives testified that Romero's bill would embolden criminals and undermine safety. Nonsense. In a final insult, the Assembly's Public Safety Committee, host to that testimony, turned off the TV camera, preventing the public even from watching a debate over public access.

Police officers wear their names on their badges for a reason. They are public servants, paid by taxpayer dollars. They conduct their business in the most public of forums, and the public has every right to scrutinize their work. Recognizing that, Romero hopes to bring back an amended bill next week; she acknowledges that the odds are against it. As long as members of the Legislature are cowed by police unions, she's right. And we all suffer for their cowardice.






I think bullies is the wrong word to use, although I understand the frustration of the Times to be lied to by the League, who after all are members of a profession where lying is supposed to be against all that it stands for. But police officers aren't dieties either. They are drawn from the human race meaning that they can exhibit the best and worst qualities found in people.

But these aren't bullies. They aren't acting out of malice, but fear.

I think what you're seeing is a bunch of scared law enforcement officers who live in fear of each inch of extra scrutiny their actions receive from public oversight mechanisms like police commissions, auditors and civilian review boards. It's fear that causes them to lash out at those who believe that civilian oversight matters whether they lash out on a city street from inside their cars or decide to vote not through ballots but by razor, adopting a racist symbol when any one of them is fired. Or to circulate a campaign leaflet that states that their hands will be tied and their response times slower if a measure supporting the inclusion of a civilian review board in the city's charter.



All of these actions and more were inspired not by boldness or even resolve and not by malice, but by fear and terror of the future. Fear of anything and anybody that isn't part of them. It's at times like these whether in Riverside, Los Angeles, or the chambers of Sacramento when their attempts to assert themselves through isolating themselves further in their attempts to remain insulated from scrutiny is most acutely seen and felt by those who aren't members of their fraternity. These are also the times when the public most often rejects their message that they are sending and when they lose ground that they fought hard for to gain public trust during an era when they have to work much harder simply to remain in place. For every inch these unions try to gain in keeping the door slammed shut around them, the creation of another civilian oversight mechanism opens it up a bit more.



It's human nature after all among people born into a democracy pocked with a history of episodes where public trust in its governmental agencies including the presidency has been tested, to see a group of people struggle so hard to keep things so secret by shutting those doors and wonder what's behind those closed doors. What must be kept hidden by public scrutiny? The more that the police unions openly do so, the more curious and interested the public will become. And with curiosity comes concern and with concern comes resolve, and what often comes after that is the birth of another form of civilian oversight. And another. And another.

While the actions by the police unions is a setback and the decision by the committee to refuse to advocate for transparency involving the televising of its own sessions, more civilian oversight mechanisms will be created and more and more cities, counties and towns will hold discussions and debates about this growing issue.



That's a lesson they haven't learned as civilian review grows even despite all the efforts made by police departments and city governments to close that door both here in Riverside and elsewhere. In fact, it's these battles fought in public and behind closed doors that will ensure that civilian review does continue to grow and spread far and wide. In fact, the very action taken by several desperate law enforcement unions in this state to act as they did in Sacramento is proof positive that in the end, civilian oversight and transparency over a cloaked process will prevail because if the unions' position were solid and they had the public's support, they wouldn't have needed to go to the state capitol to press their case and it wouldn't have taken place inside a public building owned by the state's residents with even the debate taking place inside of its chambers restricted from public scrutiny and even public view.

Civilian oversight is here because the public has lost confidence in the abilities and intent of police agencies to investigate their own. Just like consent decrees exist because the federal and state law enforcement agencies are acting on behalf of legislation passed by Congress which reflected the growing disillusionment among the public that law enforcement agencies were even able to run themselves without outside intervention.

These twin developments of mechanisms of outside accountability were set up from the 1960s into the 21st century to respond to a crisis of confidence in law enforcement, its infrastructure and its identity more than the employees themselves.

It's hard to have read about what the police unions have done, because underneath the emotions which led them to this desperate act, are simply people who are hardworking individuals who just happen to be terrified of outsiders looking over their shoulders and knowing how they conduct business. It's part and parcel of the police culture to want to insulate you and your own in a security blanket and to fear and trust those not included as outsiders and the police culture was alive and well in Sacramento.

That fear was palpable this week in Sacramento even if the public was not privy to exactly what was being said but in the end, the only cause they are hurting is their own. That's the way these things usually work. And even if you disagree with their position on this issue, that's not an outcome that is acceptable either, for the day to come when law enforcement officers hit their nadir in their profession and realize that what they have lost is much more valuable than they realized. Seeing that day come will be more difficult than watching what is going on now.

I had a long-standing ardent supporter of the Riverside Police Department come up to me the other night and ask me if he was wrong to think that the police department had really changed after an unsettling experience he had with one of its sergeants. I told him that change doesn't come overnight and it doesn't come in five years and it doesn't come with several signatures on a release form. It comes with hard work, and most important, time. What is good and what is progress should be held up and praised. What is problematic and troubling is what needs to be scrutinized and addressed by the department, the city and the public who are all vested in this process. And that it matters, the people involved with it matter even when they do things that you disagree with, and it's important to remain involved in it.

Because no one really wants to revisit yesterday. I think that's one thing most everyone can agree upon even if episodes like what took place this week cast serious doubt on this.



The officers' head shaving campaign in Riverside during the summer of 1999 failed to win them support and gained the department a federal pattern and practices investigation when people were so offended by what they represented that the Congressional Black Caucus made its displeasure in Washington about what was transpiring 3,000 miles away from it, to the Department of Justice. The 200 or so officers who shaved their hair then grew it back almost as quickly as they had lost it. For some, maybe many, it was a hard lesson for them to learn.

Community leaders who were involved in the creation of a diverity training session mandated by former State Attorney General Bill Lockyer as part of the consent decree reported that it was very difficult for the officers involved with that process to even talk about the head shaving episode. That's a sign of progress, but it was a problem as well that had to be addressed.



The police union's campaign against the initiative that saved the Community Police Review Commission probably cost them more votes including from inside their own ranks as many officers allegedly felt offended by the actions of that campaign according to candidates running for city council the following year who had spoken with them. Their latest actions although hidden from the public like they wish everything else would be, behind closed doors will cause a similar reaction, insuring that the pendulum which has begin to shift away from them is pushed even further in that direction.

After all, in California, the pendulum is so far on one side, there's only one direction it can swing and what the police unions did this week has no doubt helped further that process along.



Jack Palm, who ran the Riverside Police Officers' Association in the 1990s and his ill-advised blacklist against Latino complainants in Casa Blanca created a tremendous backlash and a barrage of press coverage that lasted a month. I mentioned Palm and the infamous blacklist to a command staff member not long ago and he told me that Palm was gone. I said, yes indeed he is but history, good and especially bad, remains long after those who make it step aside.

But mistakes still continued to be made anyway proving that the lessons of history don't always make enough of a lasting impression.





It's like the wind in Aesop's fable, the Wind and the Sun, where the wind tries to win a wager that it can force a man's coat off of his body through brute strength and force. If you remember the ancient parable, the wind fails. The sun, on the other hand, does succeed through gentle yielding and the man gladly removes his coat.



The harder the law enforcement unions push, the more money they throw around to will people to vote their way, the more doors they try to shut between them and the public, the more they will ensure that one day, those doors will be open probably much more than makes them comfortable. The more aggressive their actions become, the more they resort to trying to keep accountability at arm's length, the faster those doors will open. The more accountability becomes an important issue because of embarrassing scandals like the "second chance" agency of Maywood Police Department where even the chief is a convicted criminal. Or the LAPD, which generates at least one scandal by camcorder per quarter. Or a half a dozen other agencies or so in this state in any given month.



Who can forget agencies like those in Bakersfield and Oakland, especially Oakland where a Black police officer was killed by two of his own colleagues who racially profiled him to his death. At least as far as that officer was concerned, the officers who were supposed to back him and protect him were the most dangerous thing out there.



The Rialto Police Department, which was nearly shut down and agencies in Perris, Adelanto and Compton which were shut down due to mishandling and worse. Adelanto especially comes to mind as a place where police officers routinely beat people they arrested then forced them to lick their own blood off of the floor. Or Compton, where corruption ended the run of its police department and it entered into a contract with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department which promptly engaged in a shooting spree in one neighborhood where by its end, deputy was shooting at deputy.



The public feels that accountability comes through scrutiny and transparency, because the public closely watches the actions of police officers who work with those who engage in excessive force, corruption, sexual misconduct, perjury, racism, sexism, sexual harassment and other offenses and what the public sees are these things. And what they see causes the trust they have in their police officers to erode over time. This happens with agencies all across the country and are keenly felt in communities all over the country.

Some of the actions or more accurately, inactions include the following.


Officer protecting officer from accountability.



Supervisors backing their subordinates or choosing not to see misconduct.



The blue wall.



Failure of officers to report against other officers out of loyalty or fear or both.



Ostracising and harassment for those who do.



The circling of the wagon that continues upward to management



The city circling itself off to protect itself from civic law suits and its own police department.



Power struggles between leaders of police department and leaders of City Hall.



Officers defending individuals who bruise and batter people whether it's those who are arrested or their own spouses by talking about how nice and professional these individuals are, as if the same criminal behavior that they see every day in others is an aberration when evidenced or found among their own.



Officers who knowingly turn their backs at officers who engage in criminal conduct and other misconduct and do not say anything or in worse cases, lie for them. Whether it's five minutes or 12 years.





Silence, or "I really didn't know him" when an officer is busted in a child molestation sting who leaves a string of broken lives behind him. A badge doesn't change that, it emphasizes that.



It's calling an officer fired for lying, either the most honest officer on the force or the most honest one you'll ever meet because it's more important to look good than it is to honor and respect the officers who don't get fired for lying by giving them that distinction instead.



Officers including those in management giving "preliminary" briefings of critical incidents and from day one, defend or explain away the actions of the officers even though in actuality the investigations take six or more months to complete.



Officers who put their own lives at risk not to mention the community when they make serious mistakes do not receive what they need to remedy that situation because being "right" or circling the wagons against the public or against civil litigation is much more important.







All these things are transparent at some point even against the efforts made to keep that from happening and most often it's at the worst possible time and place that they spill out in public. And at some point for many agencies whether it's Atlanta, Georgia, Los Angeles, New Orleans, New York City and of course, Riverside, that's the point when outside agencies come to take an in depth look at what's gone wrong and impose mandates for change when those problems could have been addressed and solved much sooner before departments imploded and communities exploded.


It's become a battle where the unions are fighting on the opposite side and not even aware of it which must be exhausting considering how much energy they are expending on their side. Or tug of war, where the strategy is to let the opposing side wear itself out with its own efforts and then gently tug on the rope and step by grudging step, they draw closer to their opposition.

With opposition like that, advocates for civilian review really don't have to do much but sit back and watch the other side do their work for them. And the police unions of the state of California did just that during their jaunt to the state capitol this week. Their actions done in the desperation that is most often born from deep-seated fear should not elicit anger, or even sadness. It should draw forth empathy, sympathy and even pity that it's come to that type of response.

Proof positive that the pendulum is swinging back.





A jury acquitted former San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department deputy, Ivory J. Webb in his criminal case stemming from his shooting of U.S. airman, Elio Carrion, according to the Press Enterprise.



(excerpt)


But jurors accepted the defense's contention that Webb saw Carrion reach toward his jacket -- as if grabbing for a gun -- and sprang to his feet as if lunging to attack the officer, said Day and juror Michael Thompson.

"I think, from Ivory's point of view, that was the straw that broke the camel's back," Day said. "He did everything that a reasonable officer would do in his position.

"You have to look at the totality of what happened, not just that minute-and-a-half video."

Another juror heaped the blame squarely on Carrion and Escobedo.

"If they would have just shut their mouths and did what he said, none of this would have happened," said juror Linda Goldstein. "I couldn't see (Webb) going to prison. If they don't shoot you on the job, they prosecute you? No one would be a deputy."

It's pretty clear between emotion and reason, what won this day. Goldstein's comments make that very clear. But people in the Inland Empire know this is a fairly typical outcome in a region where as one representative of the Department of Justice once put it, every police agency would be under consent decree if that agency had the resources.

Elio Carrion's family was not surprisingly upset by the verdict.

(excerpt)

The lawyer blasted Thursday's not-guilty verdict.

"The residents of San Bernardino (County) are so conservative, they put police officers above the law," he said. "There is no justice."

"I don't think it was a good call. I wasn't happy after they read the verdict," said Hector Carrion, brother of Elio Carrion.

Hector Carrion said the judge ordered the family not to show emotion when the verdict was read, regardless of the outcome. He said his sister, 24-year-old Veronica Carrion, began to cry after the verdict was read, and he comforted her. Bailiffs made them leave the courtroom.

"I guess it was OK for him (Webb) because he's a cop and got to show emotion," Hector Carrion said.

What can be said? Welcome to the Inland Empire. Hopefully, Webb doesn't get rehired in Riverside County. There's always Maywood, except that agency might be soon joining Riverside's police department on the list of police departments that were under a state consent decree.

Cassie MacDuff from the Press Enterprise wrote a great column on why juries never convict police officers in cases like this one.

(excerpt)


The video clearly shows Webb struggling to get control of the situation, shouting repeatedly for Carrion to shut up.

As Carrion yells back that he's on Webb's side, that he's in the military police and means Webb no harm, Webb's voice drops. He seems to be calming down in response to the assurances.

But as the sirens of backup officers arriving begin to be heard in the background, Webb says, "OK, get up then. Get up." He even motions with his gun for Carrion to rise.

Prosecutor Lewis Cope argued that Carrion posed no threat to Webb, because he had both hands on the ground as he pushed himself up.

While Schwartz argued that Webb feared Carrion was reaching for a gun when he put his hand on his chest moments earlier, Cope pointed out that Webb didn't shoot him then.

Webb never mentioned anything about a gun to the officer who spoke to him at the scene, Cope said. He told that officer Carrion lunged at him.

But the contradiction mattered not at all to the jury. It took them less than three hours to vote unanimously to acquit Webb.

Schwartz argued Webb feared a gun and a lunge. "It can't be both," Cope argued.

Carrion didn't lunge or reach for a gun, Cope said, arguing that a reasonable peace officer would have seen that.

But the jury didn't see it that way. Perhaps Schwartz convinced them when he argued that expecting law enforcement officers not to shoot suspects they believe are coming at them would make their jobs virtually impossible.