Inquiries and investigations

Some West Coast Crips passed through Riverside, as they call it, within the past couple of days and marked up a white brick wall on Sedgwick near Pennsylvania on the way to Victoria Golf Course.

Here's a paraphrase of what was written in bright blue.


Eastside Riva, the Latino gang currently under injunction by the Riverside Police Department and the Riverside County District Attorney's office, was crossed out. The West Coast Crips are claiming a territory between First and "1200" and if anyone disagrees, they better be ready to "bang" as they call it.

The police department has been notified of this and Sgt. Val Graham will be looking into it. Not long ago, six individuals were shot and injured at Tremors night club by gang members allegedly from San Bernardino and Los Angeles Counties.

One reason why suppression tactics rarely do anything by themselves but spawn more gang violence. The more that get sent to prison, the more come out of it because the prisons and increasingly the jails have become an extension of their "turf". You throw the law at gangs. They adapt and make it work for them.

If one gang leaves or its members are all sent to prison (essentially run by gangs), other gangs move in and take their places, because the roots which lead to gang violence are still there. Poverty, racism, inequal access to city resources, family breakdowns, domestic violence and the squeezing effect of gentrification being some of them still remain. That's the rule, not the exception.





Riverside's alternative newspaper, Inland Empire Weekly published an article about Election 2007 where the Riverside County District Attorney's office's Public Integrity Unit investigated a local community activist for voting fraud.

What struck me as very interesting is how ironic it is that a unit that is set up mainly to investigate allegations of illegal conduct by public officials within its jurisdiction is investigating activists, using at least two of its investigators and a prosecutor to do the Riverside County Voters' Registrar's office's job for it, which is essentially to determine whether or not a person's stated residence on a voting registration form is accurate and consequently whether or not they can vote.

If a person is doing what you believe is voters' fraud which includes a clear intent to do so, then yes, it is a duty to report it, but after talking with people who've worked at polling sites and supervisors who've had to grapple with these issues, they've all said that the place to complain is the Voters' Registrars office, not a county or city's legal counsel's office. That's a call that most often is and should be left to the Voters' Registrars office to decide which cases to handle administratively and which to forward for further criminal inquiry. In all cases, the person said that what usually happens if there's a question of residency, is that the person votes provisionally and the decision of whether or not the vote is counted and certified, is left to the entity responsible for counting the votes.

There's a lot involved with the voting process that many people don't know about or have questions about and perhaps the voters registrars could do more educational campaigns on issues as vexing as these ones. It's too bad that the head of the Voters' Registrar for Riverside County could not or did not respond to David Silva's inquiries for his news article even if their policy was not to comment on investigations. Instead, there was just silence. That office could have shed light on the process used in situations like these and its silence on the issue is both curious and disappointing. It should have definitely piqued Silva's interest further to look deeper into the issue of voting in Riverside.



Now that we're checking and rechecking the residency of all the city's voters who are activists, why not investigate elected officials, candidates and those who support them who advocate, no even encourage people to move from their ward of residency to move into another ward just to run for office who pretty quickly vacate the ward after they lose or leave political office? After all, Councilman Steve Adams allegedly tried to collect signatures to run for city council in Ward Three four years ago, but then moved to Ward Seven to run for that seat there within the same election cycle, according to residents in the latter ward. Candidates who have run for election in Ward One and even Ward Five had moved into a ward before filing to run. One of those candidates did have a business located in the ward that he moved into before running. Another candidate who had run in Ward One later moved to run in Ward Six living in a house right next door to his rival, Councilwoman Nancy Hart.

There's actually a couple politicians who've made reputations for themselves as "carpet baggers" of sorts as they are defined in these parts. There's also comments made, in jest or perhaps not, from many different corners of finding candidates to move into wards to run for office. Is that an ethical practice and what is the intent there? Shouldn't the candidate running for election to represent a ward have spent time living in that ward before filing papers? If so, how much time should be spent to establish "residency"? Those who support this practice seem to be those who look at elections as city-wide rather than ward-specific. It's a good practice for building voting bloc majorities but not really for ensuring good ward representation. In the midst of all this, it seems a bit ironic that all the legal attention is on one voter in one ward, the fate of whose vote was after all, ultimately decided by the Voters' Registrar's office at the end of the day.

Is that practice of ward hopping illegal? Apparently not, not if the individual is actually using this residence as their primary residence when he or she runs for office. And whether it's ethical or not, moral or not, proper election etiquette or not, are questions that are to be answered outside a prosecuting agency. Questions perhaps to be asked and answered at the polls.



The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Public Integrity Unit does handle investigations of voters' fraud allegations mostly forwarded from the Voters Registrar Agency in that county. Its mission statement is the following.


(excerpt)


The District Attorney's Public Integrity Division ensures that public and appointed officials - and their subordinates - fulfill their legally mandated duties. To this end, the District Attorney’s Office will use all resources at its disposal to detect, investigate and prosecute criminal misconduct at all levels of public service.

The Public Integrity Division’s ultimate goal is to increase the public’s level of confidence in its elected and appointed officials.



The San Bernardino County District Attorney's Public Integrity Unit provides an online means to file complaints. It's mission statement is here.


(excerpt)


San Bernardino County District Attorney Michael A. Ramos campaigned on the issue of restoring public integrity to San Bernardino County. Within the first four months after being elected, Mr. Ramos fulfilled his promise to the electorate and created the Public Integrity Unit.
The unit, which is comprised of two attorneys, three investigators and a secretary, handles complaints involving those people holding public office. Some types of issues might involve: The illegal use of campaign funds; residency violations; and, open meeting/Brown Act violations. The Unit will be responsible for monitoring City Councils, elected Boards and Commissions.

The Unit will take anonymous complaints and all complaints must be submitted in writing.

Please mail your complaint to:

Frank Vanella/Public Integrity Unit
District Attorney
316 N Mt View Ave
San Bernardino, CA 92415-0004




And if it's true that investigators were going into a person's house, in this case Paul Odekirk's, opening his cabinets, refrigerators and looking through his drawers without a search warrant, then it's hard to believe how that type of behavior is in line with an honest, ethical and non-corrupt policy. The District Attorney's office should inquire into these allegations involving its own employees, of course having an established process in place to do so. In fact, I'm sure that's exactly what this tax-supported agency did as soon as the allegations came to light including those where Odekirk said he was threatened with arrest if he did vote.

Is this why Riverside County District Attorney Rod Pacheco wanted to expand this unit? It would be interesting if his office provided any statistics breakdown on what kind of prosecutions this special unit actually addressed. It would also be helpful if it could also educate individuals on the purpose and goals of this office, because there's not much information provided about it on its Web site, especially considering that one of Pacheco's goals, which appears to be both daring and innovative, was to expand it.

There's been some interesting forums sponsored by this office including one providing people a much needed education on the Brown Act that was taught by former District Attorney and current Best, Best and Krieger attorney, Grover Trask. The important work and mission of the Public Integrity Unit would be just the topic for a future public forum. I'm sure it would play to a full house.




Little "b" has got his or her knickers in a knot over at Craigslist and responded to yesterday's post here with one of his or her own. Apparently, he or she is claiming to be behaving in his or her chosen fashion and defending the conduct of others on behalf of the local politicians. What's strange about that, is that he or she harassed me before the election and used a different excuse then.





In the Los Angeles Times, is an article where Special Counsel Merrick Bobb who oversees the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department said that the agency's internal investigations of its onduty shootings aren't thorough.


(excerpt)


Special Counsel Merrick Bobb, who monitors the Sheriff's Department under a contract with the county, said he was concerned that internal affairs investigators didn't interview several deputies who fired weapons at suspects. Instead, the investigators relied on previous interviews of the deputies by homicide detectives.

Bobb, whose staff reviewed dozens of deputies' use of force from 2004 and 2005, also concluded that some of the department's internal affairs detectives appeared to side with deputies while interviewing them.

For example, while investigating the shooting of a juvenile in Compton in 2004, an investigator said, "very good," or "perfect," when a deputy answered questions in a manner that appeared to justify the shooting, according to Bobb's report.

The report found some things to commend, however. It said the Office of Independent Review, which monitors sheriff's internal affairs investigations, had provided useful oversight and improved the thoroughness of the investigations. It also noted that the department's internal affairs process has become a model for agencies across the country.

Sheriff's Division Chief Roberta Abner said the department, in response to Bobb's concerns, recently adopted a policy that requires internal affairs investigators to interview all deputies who shoot suspects, even if homicide detectives already had spoken with the deputies.




What's interesting is that there are several "concerns" stated by Bobb in his report that could also apply to how the Riverside Police Department investigates its onduty shootings. One of those was the statement that several deputies weren't interviewed about their shootings but instead investigators relied on voluntary interviews given in the officer-involved-shooting investigations which are forwarded to the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office for review.

It's not clear what the policy is involving internal investigations for shootings in the Sheriff's Department, but policy #4.8 utilized by Riverside's police department states that the Internal Affairs Division is supposed to do an independent and separate investigation from the department's officer-involved shooting team. However, what happens likely most of the time, is that the internal investigation consists of an administrative review of the other investigation. The Community Police Review Commission submitted a recommendation to either have the investigation done by the Internal Affairs Division adhere to the written policy or to amend the policy to fit the current practice but it was rejected.


What was the Sheriff's Department's response to this issue? To redraft its investigation policy.


(excerpt)


Sheriff's Division Chief Roberta Abner said the department, in response to Bobb's concerns, recently adopted a policy that requires internal affairs investigators to interview all deputies who shoot suspects, even if homicide detectives already had spoken with the deputies.

By policy, homicide detectives review deputy shootings to help determine whether the deputies were justified. Deputies now will be interviewed first by homicide detectives conducting a criminal investigation and then by internal affairs investigators to determine whether a shooting was within department policy.




How do law enforcement officers handle allegations that their colleagues engage in domestic violence?


The Daily Journal tries to take a look at this issue which impacts those who work in law enforcement agencies than the general public according to several studies released addressing this issue.


(excerpt)


According to the National Center for Women and Policing, two studies have shown that at least 40 percent of law enforcement families experience domestic violence, while studies on the general population show domestic violence occurs in anywhere between 10 percent to 30 percent of American families.

Those numbers are probably not accurate. Chief Deputy Ken McCabe, who leads internal affairs investigations for the Kankakee County Sheriff's Police, believes domestic violence cases are "probably way underreported" among police officers and the public. He is not alone in his assessment. Most domestic violence advocates believe that women do not feel safe enough to report the crime.

Bradley Deputy Chief Steve Coy believes that the daily grind of on-the-job stress contributes to the high incidence of domestic violence within police families nationwide.

"Police officers see the worst of the worst in people," Coy said.

But when domestic violence is committed by a police officer, the situation becomes even more dangerous for a woman, according to the National Center for Women and Policing, because the offender carries a gun, knows the sites of shelters for battered women, and knows "how to manipulate the system" in order to avoid legal repercussions and to shift blame to the victim.



From a recent International Law Enforcement Educators & Trainers Association that was held, comes a two-part series on the "Dos and Don'ts" of what's been called by law enforcement experts, "excited delirium". There's a lot of controversy of whether or not this condition exists.

Here's part one which mostly provides a definition and symptomology of excited delirium.

Part two of the series discusses what to do and also what not to do.



(excerpt)



The natural outcome of ED may prove to be highly negative, regardless of your best efforts. Don’t help the Monday-morning quarterbacks make things look even worse by taking inappropriate actions that you should avoid. According to the Lawrences:

1. Don’t Taser the subject in the stun mode. In ED, he’s impervious to pain, so he won’t feel it and won’t be controlled by it. You’ll only end up connecting the Taser to his death (if he dies) without winning any benefit.

2. Don’t deliver more than one cycle of Taser barbs if you decide to try that control option. Use the Taser to create a window of opportunity during which you can try to restrain him. Multiple Taser cycles are not recommended where you believe the subject may be experiencing ED.

3. Don’t deploy pepper spray. Again, no pain for him…no gain for you. Even the pain of baton strikes may not stop his aggressive behavior, and repeated forceful strikes may cause injuries that increase the risk of an adverse outcome.

4. Try not to cause any impairment to the suspect taking full breaths. That means avoid spit hoods, towels over his face—anything that lessens fresh air coming in or retains exhaled air. The subject needs to take in oxygen and to get rid of carbon dioxide. Use of a neck restraint may lead to a misperception by the suspect that you are shutting off his breathing. If he thinks he can’t breathe, this becomes his reality in his psychotic state.

5. Avoid transporting the subject in a police car unless no other option is available. The average adult is longer than the car is wide. An ED subject is not likely to sit quietly on the seat for you. Laying him on his belly is not recommended, and laying him on his side will often result in windows being kicked out. Transport to a hospital via ambulance whenever reasonably possible.

Although compared to other types of high-risk calls ED incidents are rare, training for them is vital, the speakers stressed. “The time to do training is not after you have an ED death,” Sharon declared. She advised also to let your community know that you are working to prepare your troops to deal with this problem. “It shows you are proactive, anticipating and addressing problems before they strike.”



Coverage of what's been going on in New Orleans after city residents denied access to a city council meeting to learn the fates of their homes were pepper sprayed and even tased by police officers.


It's not clear why New Orleans elected officials were limiting the number of people into the meeting. If it was an issue of not enough space or fire safety codes, then surely the city government could have held the meeting in a larger meeting facility. It should have been anticipated that an agenda item like this would draw out a large crowd.

People about to lose their homes or who have lost them because of actions taken by a city government deserve the right to redress about these actions to their elected officials.


(excerpt, New Orleans Indymedia)


Locked out of the council chambers the protestors were quickly surrounded with dozens of police. Behind them stood eight horse-mounted police, and behind the gate keeping them out of the hall were many more heavily armed officers. Right in front of City Hall, behind the protesters is Duncan Plaza, which has been turned into an enormous homeless camp. Many Duncan Plaza residents came over to show their support for the cause. There are more than 12,000 homeless in the city today. Inside the chambers, the City Council proceeded.

First locked out of their homes for more than 2 years, and now locked out of the very City Council meeting in which the city’s politicians are set to vote for tearing down their homes, many of the residents began pleading with the officers to be allowed in. Pleading turned quickly to outrage as it was clear that the process would move forward without their voices or even witness. Receiving phone calls from their allies inside the chambers, the protesters were told that the Council meeting was being held up by chants and clapping until everyone was allowed inside. The Council members refused and called on their security forces to clear out the chambers.

In the desperation the group outside began shaking the large metal gates locking them out. The gate was easily broken open. Police moved in with pepper spray and batons, quickly beating back anyone near the entrance. Chants of “housing is a human right,” and “justice!” filled the air along with the putrid smell of the chemical weapons used by the NOPD. The gate was re-secured with handcuffs this time. Again the protesters chanted and demanded entrance. Some called into question the legitimacy of a “public” meeting in which the public was excluded.

As they pushed against the gates it suddenly became clear that something was happening inside the chambers. Dozens of police quickly sprinted into the building with their hands on their weapons. Outside this sparked concern among those gathered who began to slam against the gate once more. An ambulance arrived in the compound and a stretcher was taken into the building. Police would not communicate with those outside as to what was happening in the chambers. Protesters in the building began calling their allies and reporting that the police were forcefully clearing the room. It is confirmed by housing advocate Jay Arena that he, Malcolm Suber, Sess 4-5, and Endesha Jukali were arrested along with others. It is reported but not yet confirmed that Sess was tazered.



CNN as usual takes a different spin on it.

(excerpt)


At about 11 a.m., several protesters were dragged out of council chambers after scuffles broke out among people who packed the room, and members of the crowd booed council members and shouted insults at them. Watch protesters grapple with police »

About 30 minutes later, hundreds more protesters angry that they weren't allowed into the meeting began rattling an iron gate outside City Hall.

"They were pulling the gate open, trying to come in," said Superintendent Warren J. Riley of the New Orleans Police Department. "They were allowed to stand there and protest peacefully. Then they began to try and tear the gate down. They punched a couple of civil sheriffs in the face. They broke the gate open. So, some of those officers did use Mace to defend themselves and also to regain control of the gate and close the gate."

Riley said that after the council chamber's maximum capacity of 278 was reached, no one else was allowed inside.


Moments later, a woman could be seen crying and screaming on the ground before several other protesters picked her up and carried her away.

Peter O'Connell, who described himself as a student living in New Orleans, told the station he was hit by pepper spray and narrowly avoided being shocked by a police stun gun, which hit his jacket but not his body.

"We were just trying to gain access to the City Council meeting, which we all feel and know that we have a right to attend," he said. "We were denied access and, in the process, brutalized by the police."



Expect the situation to only worsen as city officials working with development firms hoping to make money in the "New" Orleans continue with their reduction of an estimated 80% loss in low-income housing. Using a human tragedy that cost lives and broke hearts like Katrina to redraw the city's map for gentrification.