Canary in the mine: The minority report, part one
The Community Police Review Commission had another special meeting to continue its ongoing discussion of the public report it has drafted on the Lee Deante Brown shooting case. The report is set to be approved sometime before 2010.
Maybe.
Unveiled for the first time, was Commissioner Jim Ward's minority report, where he stated that he strongly believed that Riverside Police Department officer Terry Ellefson used excessive force when he shot and killed Brown at the Welcome Inn of America on April 3, 2006.
In his 10-page report, Ward provided 15 relevant case factors, which ranged from providing information on the officers' training records in terms to their training on interfacing with the mentally ill, to tests ran on evidence uncovered in the investigation including DNA samples and trajectory analyses. It was an investigation which Ward believed was fraught with problems.
He wasn't the only one.
On that point, most of the rest of the commission was in agreement with him. After reading the report, several commissioners including Chair Brian Pearcy said that they agreed with some of his points and wanted to concur with him on others that he raised. Commissioners had complained about problems with the Brown investigation yet even as they did, eight of them remained committed to their decision to exonerate Ellefson.
All except Ward.
He raised credibility issues involving the statements provided by both officers, Ellefson and Michael Paul Stucker which conflicted with each other in several key places and conflicted with the statements given by the half-dozen civilian witnesses of the shooting. He criticized the handling of evidence including the DNA sample taken from Ellefson's taser using only one swab for what the department said, was the stock and handle of the taser.
The report submitted on the DNA test conducted by State Department of Justice criminalist David Wu stated that at least two DNA samples were collected from the taser. One of them, was a low level mixture where Brown was identified as a potential donor. However, problems with the swabbing technique used by the department's evidence technician resulted in the test being excluded from consideration by the commissioners who instead relied on the officers' statements.
The problem was, even the officers' statements didn't match. One of the officers had Brown squatting or sitting on the ground while he was shot by the other one. The officer who pulled the trigger said that Brown was standing on his feet and lunging at him with his own taser that he said he had lost in a struggle.
After the shooting? One of the officers said the other had kicked the taser away from Brown's body. The officer who supposedly had kicked the taser away said he never saw it after the shooting. He told investigators he had assumed it was tucked underneath Brown's fallen body. If so, that was one potential source of Brown's DNA, given that he was likely sweating because he had felt compelled to remove his shirt earlier in the incident and bleeding due to two bullet holes in his torso and one in an arm.
One of the belt recordings contained a statement by one officer asking the other one where the taser was.
The other officer answered, "over there". The photographs placed the X-26 taser in front of motel room #9. Brown was shot two doors and about 14 feet away.
The police department believed the differences in the officers' statements were "minor" and Pearcy made excuses for them as well. Last night, Pearcy said that the reason none of the civilian witnesses saw the taser in Brown's hand was because the black surface of the parking lot didn't provide a contrast. The only problem was that the surface of the parking lot where the shooting took place was somewhat lighter colored than black, something Pearcy would have known if he had looked at the evidence photographs taken by the police department for its own investigation. After all, members of the Eastside's Think Tank sitting in the audience shaking their heads through most of the discussion knew what color the pavement was.
Previously, Pearcy had said it was the darkness of Brown's skin which rendered the taser which was black not visible to the civilian witnesses. Those statements elicited protests from community leaders at a later meeting. Pearcy admonished people not to turn his statement into a racial issue.
"You're the one who made it a racial issue," Ward said in response.
One community member, Rev. Milton Vincent, raised the same issues in a letter he wrote to the commission, urging the department to continue to investigate the Brown shooting case. Ward appeared to support that as well in his report.
He took the investigation team to task on several issues.
(excerpt, minority report)
"RPD inability and/or unwillingness to do a complete investigationleads one to believe that the only objective or the RPD is to protect its officers. The leading questions tend to suggest to the officers what to say to protect themselves, rather than to ask questions to search for the truth."
For example, Ward stated that the police department had told an FBI agent who was investigating the Brown shooting for potential civil rights violations which was obtained from Ellefson's belt recording. This statement, "drop the gun", was provided for the FBI and was one piece of evidence used by that agency to close out its inquiry according to a conversation that CPRC investigator, Butch Warnberg had with this agent which he relayed to the commission during one of his briefings on the case.
Yet the department later determined when it belatedly transcribed Ellefson's belt recording some 10 months after the shooting that it was unable to attribute this statement to Ellefson or any particular person and that information was shared with the commission. Ward stated in his report that information of any kind on this compelling statement was never included, never noted nor even mentioned in any of the department's case books containing its investigation into the Brown shooting. He found that a bit odd, considering at least earlier on, it had been considered important evidence.
Although Stucker's belt recording was transcribed much earlier than Ellefson's, the statement was not picked up by his device. Ward asked questions about that too.
Ellefson never mentioned this statement in his interview with investigators. Neither did Stucker. Investigators apparently didn't re interview either officer in the criminal investigation about the statement once they heard it on Ellefson's belt recording. Ward wondered why. He noted that in order to hear the statement being made, the recording had to be slowed down considerably.
(excerpt, minority report)
"If the RPD is using information off the record and not in evidence to influence a civil rights investigation, then I find this extremely troubling."
Several commissioners including Jack Brewer and Steve Simpson pleaded with the others to just issue the public report already. Simpson told the commissioners to stop "diddling" and just do it.
Still, the discussion will continue on yet another day. Perhaps another year on a case that likely was adjudicated by the department months ago, perhaps not long after the shooting took place. After all, the department began defending the Brown shooting within several days of when it took place, although allegedly the police chief did make some reference to it and the words, "keystone kops" in the same sentence. Just before the shooting, Ellefson had inadvertently fired a taser probe into Stucker's hand.
Questions about whether or not the department "arrests under power" when using tasers remained unanswered until an expert in taser training can provide more information on both the topic and the answer to these questions.
Two commissioners have dropped out of the decision making process, feeling that they are unable to do so. One of them, Arthur Santore, the Ward Six representative, asked what training and qualifications he needed to serve on the CPRC. During one critical vote, the commission hit an impasse with three voting for the motion, three against and two abstentions.
In the beginning of his minority report, Ward stated its purpose or what he hoped it would accomplish.
(excerpt, minority report)
"The general purpose of this minority report is to promote effective, efficient, trustworthy and just law enforcement in the City of Riverside, and to bring to the attention of the citizens, policy makers, and Riverside Police Department my finding regarding the law enforcement policies and practices as they relate to the Lee Deante Brown shooting."
The community gets it including those who walked out of last night's meeting disgusted when they couldn't sit through it any longer. The problem is that the CPRC doesn't belong to the community, it's the city's tool now under the current (micro)management of Asst. City Manager Tom DeSantis and company.
Kind of like the police department. The public library. The Human Resources Department. Here, there and everywhere or so people say.
What is past is prologue.
The city did finally hire an executive manager for the CPRC. Former Pomona Police Department commander, Kevin Rogan was hired by the city and will be formally presented to the city at an upcoming city council meeting. He's also a part-time attorney.
DeSantis bristled a bit under some discussion regarding statistical information that was requested to be included in the annual report that hopefully will be finalized and released before the end of the year. What were these statistics and which commissioners actually put DeSantis(and his kind-of employee, Commissioner Peter Hubbard who manages American Medical Response) on the spot?
The answer might surprise you.
Anyone who wants to comment on the Riverside Police Department's new Bear Cat vehicle can do so here. It's the Press Enterprise's question of the week.
Maybe.
Unveiled for the first time, was Commissioner Jim Ward's minority report, where he stated that he strongly believed that Riverside Police Department officer Terry Ellefson used excessive force when he shot and killed Brown at the Welcome Inn of America on April 3, 2006.
In his 10-page report, Ward provided 15 relevant case factors, which ranged from providing information on the officers' training records in terms to their training on interfacing with the mentally ill, to tests ran on evidence uncovered in the investigation including DNA samples and trajectory analyses. It was an investigation which Ward believed was fraught with problems.
He wasn't the only one.
On that point, most of the rest of the commission was in agreement with him. After reading the report, several commissioners including Chair Brian Pearcy said that they agreed with some of his points and wanted to concur with him on others that he raised. Commissioners had complained about problems with the Brown investigation yet even as they did, eight of them remained committed to their decision to exonerate Ellefson.
All except Ward.
He raised credibility issues involving the statements provided by both officers, Ellefson and Michael Paul Stucker which conflicted with each other in several key places and conflicted with the statements given by the half-dozen civilian witnesses of the shooting. He criticized the handling of evidence including the DNA sample taken from Ellefson's taser using only one swab for what the department said, was the stock and handle of the taser.
The report submitted on the DNA test conducted by State Department of Justice criminalist David Wu stated that at least two DNA samples were collected from the taser. One of them, was a low level mixture where Brown was identified as a potential donor. However, problems with the swabbing technique used by the department's evidence technician resulted in the test being excluded from consideration by the commissioners who instead relied on the officers' statements.
The problem was, even the officers' statements didn't match. One of the officers had Brown squatting or sitting on the ground while he was shot by the other one. The officer who pulled the trigger said that Brown was standing on his feet and lunging at him with his own taser that he said he had lost in a struggle.
After the shooting? One of the officers said the other had kicked the taser away from Brown's body. The officer who supposedly had kicked the taser away said he never saw it after the shooting. He told investigators he had assumed it was tucked underneath Brown's fallen body. If so, that was one potential source of Brown's DNA, given that he was likely sweating because he had felt compelled to remove his shirt earlier in the incident and bleeding due to two bullet holes in his torso and one in an arm.
One of the belt recordings contained a statement by one officer asking the other one where the taser was.
The other officer answered, "over there". The photographs placed the X-26 taser in front of motel room #9. Brown was shot two doors and about 14 feet away.
The police department believed the differences in the officers' statements were "minor" and Pearcy made excuses for them as well. Last night, Pearcy said that the reason none of the civilian witnesses saw the taser in Brown's hand was because the black surface of the parking lot didn't provide a contrast. The only problem was that the surface of the parking lot where the shooting took place was somewhat lighter colored than black, something Pearcy would have known if he had looked at the evidence photographs taken by the police department for its own investigation. After all, members of the Eastside's Think Tank sitting in the audience shaking their heads through most of the discussion knew what color the pavement was.
Previously, Pearcy had said it was the darkness of Brown's skin which rendered the taser which was black not visible to the civilian witnesses. Those statements elicited protests from community leaders at a later meeting. Pearcy admonished people not to turn his statement into a racial issue.
"You're the one who made it a racial issue," Ward said in response.
One community member, Rev. Milton Vincent, raised the same issues in a letter he wrote to the commission, urging the department to continue to investigate the Brown shooting case. Ward appeared to support that as well in his report.
He took the investigation team to task on several issues.
(excerpt, minority report)
"RPD inability and/or unwillingness to do a complete investigationleads one to believe that the only objective or the RPD is to protect its officers. The leading questions tend to suggest to the officers what to say to protect themselves, rather than to ask questions to search for the truth."
For example, Ward stated that the police department had told an FBI agent who was investigating the Brown shooting for potential civil rights violations which was obtained from Ellefson's belt recording. This statement, "drop the gun", was provided for the FBI and was one piece of evidence used by that agency to close out its inquiry according to a conversation that CPRC investigator, Butch Warnberg had with this agent which he relayed to the commission during one of his briefings on the case.
Yet the department later determined when it belatedly transcribed Ellefson's belt recording some 10 months after the shooting that it was unable to attribute this statement to Ellefson or any particular person and that information was shared with the commission. Ward stated in his report that information of any kind on this compelling statement was never included, never noted nor even mentioned in any of the department's case books containing its investigation into the Brown shooting. He found that a bit odd, considering at least earlier on, it had been considered important evidence.
Although Stucker's belt recording was transcribed much earlier than Ellefson's, the statement was not picked up by his device. Ward asked questions about that too.
Ellefson never mentioned this statement in his interview with investigators. Neither did Stucker. Investigators apparently didn't re interview either officer in the criminal investigation about the statement once they heard it on Ellefson's belt recording. Ward wondered why. He noted that in order to hear the statement being made, the recording had to be slowed down considerably.
(excerpt, minority report)
"If the RPD is using information off the record and not in evidence to influence a civil rights investigation, then I find this extremely troubling."
Several commissioners including Jack Brewer and Steve Simpson pleaded with the others to just issue the public report already. Simpson told the commissioners to stop "diddling" and just do it.
Still, the discussion will continue on yet another day. Perhaps another year on a case that likely was adjudicated by the department months ago, perhaps not long after the shooting took place. After all, the department began defending the Brown shooting within several days of when it took place, although allegedly the police chief did make some reference to it and the words, "keystone kops" in the same sentence. Just before the shooting, Ellefson had inadvertently fired a taser probe into Stucker's hand.
Questions about whether or not the department "arrests under power" when using tasers remained unanswered until an expert in taser training can provide more information on both the topic and the answer to these questions.
Two commissioners have dropped out of the decision making process, feeling that they are unable to do so. One of them, Arthur Santore, the Ward Six representative, asked what training and qualifications he needed to serve on the CPRC. During one critical vote, the commission hit an impasse with three voting for the motion, three against and two abstentions.
In the beginning of his minority report, Ward stated its purpose or what he hoped it would accomplish.
(excerpt, minority report)
"The general purpose of this minority report is to promote effective, efficient, trustworthy and just law enforcement in the City of Riverside, and to bring to the attention of the citizens, policy makers, and Riverside Police Department my finding regarding the law enforcement policies and practices as they relate to the Lee Deante Brown shooting."
The community gets it including those who walked out of last night's meeting disgusted when they couldn't sit through it any longer. The problem is that the CPRC doesn't belong to the community, it's the city's tool now under the current (micro)management of Asst. City Manager Tom DeSantis and company.
Kind of like the police department. The public library. The Human Resources Department. Here, there and everywhere or so people say.
What is past is prologue.
The city did finally hire an executive manager for the CPRC. Former Pomona Police Department commander, Kevin Rogan was hired by the city and will be formally presented to the city at an upcoming city council meeting. He's also a part-time attorney.
DeSantis bristled a bit under some discussion regarding statistical information that was requested to be included in the annual report that hopefully will be finalized and released before the end of the year. What were these statistics and which commissioners actually put DeSantis(and his kind-of employee, Commissioner Peter Hubbard who manages American Medical Response) on the spot?
The answer might surprise you.
Anyone who wants to comment on the Riverside Police Department's new Bear Cat vehicle can do so here. It's the Press Enterprise's question of the week.
posted by Five Before Midnight | 10:29 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home