Misogyny in the RPD

I saw this posted comment on my blog one morning by a regular visitor, "B. Fife". He has made comments indicating that he is a Riverside Police Department officer in the past. This latest comment, well second to latest, is no different. Well, except the fact that he dropped the LE title from his moniker this time around.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mary,

I have seen you on your daily strolls around the east side, about five times or so the last couple of weeks. Each time I see you, you are wearing the same purple sweatshirt and blue jeans. Then I think to myself, I wonder if she wears the same pair of skid marked granny panties everyday..... Then following that thought, I throw up a little bit in my mouth.

Instead of spending so much time trying to find negative things about cops, why don't you try taking a shower and changing your clothes at least once a day!

B. Fife

Friday, April 28, 2006 6:25:30 PM

One of the scariest things about this comment, is that "B. Fife" is absolutely correct. I have been walking through the Eastside more than a few times in the past several weeks. I have been wearing blue jeans, albeit not the same pair, and on several occasions, I have been wearing not a purple sweatshirt, but a sweater. It is purple knit, buttoned-down and one of my favorites. Well, at least it used to be. Now, it's just another reminder that I am hated by officers in the Riverside Police Department, both as an individual and as a woman as well. It's just a reminder that at least one of them is watching my movements. No civilian who knew me would so interested in letting me know this and I highly doubt any civilian in the Eastside would be writing comments in defense of Riverside Police Department officers who have made such negative comments about their neighborhood here. They may defend good, hard-working officers but not those of this ilk.

Oh, and I shower once daily, twice after reading comments like this one.

I wondered at first as I always do, who he might be, civilian or law enforcement officer until I realized that here was a person who knew my name, my face, the fact that I had a blog, the blog's address and had a strong animosity towards me that has led him to post under this moniker since March 2 and probably under other nicknames even before that.

Needless to say, I will probably change my route of travel back to what it had been after I received those postings from "Kevin R.P.D." last October. A route that is frequented only rarely by Riverside Police Department officers. Why should I walk through a neighborhood and every time I see a squad car driving by wonder if it is "B. Fife" stripping me inside his head, again? That is a violation that no man can ever understand, let alone feel, but it is an intimate experience for most women, something we swap our experiences with, through stories about facing sexism in contemporary society.

It is an unfortunate reality for any woman, simply for being a woman that she will be harassed by a man simply because she is female. If she is being harassed for being an individual hated by a man, that man will use sexist behavior and imagery to express it, because she is a woman. If she is a woman of color, he will likely use racist behavior and imagery too.

In this case, it is apparently being done by public servants who were hired to protect and serve women(and men) not denigrate them. It is being done by a man who is too cowardly to even sign his own name to his words. Not even to spare other employees in the department a bit of extra scrutiny that one woman has to do in order to feel comfortable in her surroundings because of what one man has done, because this man has no face. However, not only does the internet give him the perfect hiding place, so does law enforcement through its shield laws and its blue code. Every harasser has an audience and from comments made by both "Asti" and "B. Fife", it's clear that there is probably an audience quietly watching their antics. Few people are not aware of the blue brotherhood.

I passed along the comment made by B. Fife to other women, and one word came back to me, over and over. Misogyny. How could someone put so much hate and misogyny, into so few words? In this case, the explanation could fill a book. A simpler explanation is that men engage in this behavior, because they can.

We, as women live in a society where men make the rules that both genders follow and one of the unwritten rules is that women are to be subjected to denigration by the male gender's less emotionally secure individuals on the basis of our gender. That hatred can be expressed through street harassment. It can be expressed through violent crimes, including rape and sexual assault. There is also plenty of ground left over for men who hate women to operate, in between the two extremes.

Misogyny, literally, is the hatred of women or hostility towards them. Whether it is all women, a few women or one woman. From the time we are girls, we have to learn how to cope in a world where often we can not walk down a street without someone yelling something derogatory to us from a car, or trying to pinch or touch us on the street. We may innately realize that men may mentally undress us as we walk past them, but we do not wish to be reminded of that. We do not wish to be reminded that we are not human beings at all, but objects. Unless we are women of color, then apparently we are nonhuman in other ways, a designation based on race

Several women believed that the comment was meant to frighten me as much as it was meant to denigrate me, because this person wanted to make clear to me that he was paying attention to my movements at least through "his" area of town. Where I was going, what I was wearing, is his way of saying, I'm watching you. After all the probability that my travels through the Eastside would have brought me into contact with one police officer this many times, does not suggest they were random encounters. Experts say that men engage in this type of behavior to exert power over women, to control them and I can feel that keenly from those words.

Only about 3% of all the officers hired recently by the police department were female and if "B. Fife's" behavior is in any way indicative of the current working environment, it will have to fight to keep them. Men who engage in this type of behavior tend to target any women who does not fit their narrow definition of what a woman should do, and it is clear to the "B.Fife"s of the world, that women only serve one purpose. Policing the streets is not on that very short list.

That one purpose is sexual gratification, or at least to be graded on a scale that is based on this purpose. That was clearly delineated in "B. Fife's" comment.

First, what "B. Fife" does to each woman he encounters during the day is to strip them naked inside his head. Doing this provides him with a tremendous sense of power over each and every one of them. If they are unlucky, he will tell him how he does this in great detail. If he keeps his actions to himself, he is doing them a small favor. After doing this, he provides his personal evaluation on each women. Since a woman's worth to him is based on her sexual desirability, he assigns them grades on the pass/fail system.

A passing grade for "B. Fife" on his desirability scale would be an erection or perhaps, a smile of approval. A failing grade is a series of derogatory comments followed by a form of regurgitation response. Between the two, I am more than happy to be on the receiving end of an upchuck response.

His comments clearly stated that I was being graded on his scale of whether or not a woman is sexually desirable(and thus has a purpose in this world) and apparently I received a failing grade. Something for which I am very grateful. The "B. Fifes" of the world are not God's gift to this woman or any woman with self-respect.

Humor aside, it is a way that men of "B. Fife's" ilk grade each woman they encounter every day to exert power over them, as men. Law enforcement allows them many opportunities to do this. After all, the police department itself has stated that its officers have hundreds of contacts with members of the public each year.

"B. Fife" continues on this same track in his next post, by offering suggestions for me to follow in order to receive a passing grade next time.

Anonymous said...

Poor Mary.
I suggest a shower, shave and change of underwear.
It is obvious to me and many others that Mary what you need is a good " BANG "! (-:

Saturday, April 29, 2006 3:46:52 PM

This is a typical stock response by an emotionally immature man who has issues in terms of relating to women who exist for reasons not included on his "list". By the time most women enter adulthood, they have heard the adage, "All you need is a good fuck to be able to do this_________ or not be like this________(insert words of choice in the blanks). That is exactly what "B. Fife" is stating here. It is a response meant to embarrass, humiliate and intimidate women who are not acting in ways men like "B. Fife" view as appropriate and men like him try to stop that behavior in its tracks with sexual comments when tactics like cajoling, ultimatums and threats do not work.

Attitudes like those expressed by "B. Fife" here are one of the problems women have had to tackle in to survive as police officers in departments rife with a culture that in most cases, does not want them there. They have invaded turf which had been considered the sole domain of men and have entered into a club where they are not welcome. If men like "B. Fife" are what they have to deal with in the RPD, then it is no wonder their retention rate is so poor. The problem may not be so much that they do not know what they are in for(as has been suggested) but that they know exactly what they are in for.

Attitudes like those expressed by "B. Fife" here present obstacles to women who want to report crimes against them to police officers. When I asked women if they felt like reporting crimes like rape or domestic violence to someone like "B. Fife", all of them answered no, quite adamantly. Historically, women have been reluctant to report violent crimes like rape to police officers because of past and present sexist attitudes about women and rape voiced by law enforcement officers. Police agencies have worked hard to stem that tide and turn it in a more positive direction. Men like "B. Fife" do nothing but hinder those efforts, with their misogyny.

After all, who wants to report a crime of violence to someone who is a misogynist, even if most of the time that attitude is shut away in a closet? It is still in the room with him and the woman.

Finally, the thought of any woman having to turn to someone like "B. Fife" to report a violent crime that happened to her, because she was a woman is enough to make me want to throw up.

First We Did. Now We Don't.

Tyisha Miller had a blood alcohol of 0.13 and her initial toxicology tests showed the presence of cannabis, according to the Riverside County Sheriff-Coroner's office, when she was shot and killed by four police officers in December 1998. As early as Jan. 8, 1999, these toxicology results were printed in articles written in the Press Enterprise.

In that article, Sgt. Chris Manning said that accessing these toxicology results would enable investigators to better assess what had happened in a situation leading up to a critical incident.

Anastacio Munoz had a blood alcohol of 0.20, when he was shot and killed by Officer Melissa Wagner Brazil(who ironically also had a blood alcohol of 0.20 when she was involved in an off-duty vehicle accident in Corona in 2004, according to court records) and Officer Carl Michael Turner in November 2002. Munoz's blood alcohol level was mentioned in several news articles after the shooting.

Rene Guevera was seen drinking out of a beer bottle and tested above the legal limit(0.08) for alcohol, when he was shot and killed by Officer Richard Prince in December 2003. His drinking was mentioned in several news articles, based on accounts provided by the police department.

Summer Marie Lane was under the influence of methamphetamine when she was shot and killed by Officer Ryan Wilson. Her drug use was mentioned at a briefing held by the department in December 2004.

Lee Deante Brown was alleged to have used PCP before he was shot and killed by Officer Terry Ellefson on April 3, 2006. Toxicology results will not be released until the department has completed its investigations, which will take at least six more months.

What?

On one level, it could be considered commendable that the department has declined to release the toxicology results, because it might go along with their statement that they do not wish to "try" the investigation in the press. This decision to do so would deviate from past practice where the police department has either commented on or released toxicology results as soon as they came in. This left many community members feeling as if the department was using those test results to justify the actions of their officers in these shootings, especially when those statements were made in the initial days and weeks after the shootings occurred. This sentiment was most prevalent after the shooting of Miller and led to a lot of complaints and heated discussions on the issue in different circles.

However, one problem with this sudden reversal on protocol is that when it comes to Brown, there has already been this assumption floating around for several weeks that he was on PCP when he was shot by Ellefson. This assumption which was provided on several occasions by representatives from the police department has been used to explain and defend the officers' actions against him. One woman said that when she had asked an officer how Brown could grab a taser out of an officer's hand, she was told that a man on PCP had the strength of three men.

Then there are people like "Asti Spamati"(whomever or whatever he is) who seem to believe that he is not mentally ill at all, just using illegal substances including PCP and rock cocaine, when often the line between the mentally ill and the drug addict can be blurred by the fact that untreated mentally ill people may attempt to self-medicate by using legal substances(alcohol) and illegal substances, according to medical experts.

A lot of the assumptions about Brown first arose when it was revealed that one witness, possibly Kenneth Williams, had told Officer Michael Stucker that Brown was on PCP. The police department acknowledged at its April 12 briefing that a witness had made that initial comment. Also, Brown had been arrested without incident on April 1 at a motel, for being under the influence of an illegal substance, which the department said was PCP.

However, was Brown under the influence of PCP when he was shot by police two days later? Only those who have access to the tests can know for sure and they are not talking, even though they were the ones who first put that word out there.

Those tests could have different possible outcomes. Brown could have been on PCP either alone or with another substance. Brown could have tested negatively for all controlled substances, or he could have tested positively for another drug altogether(i.e marijuana).

Another factor that could explain the disparate treatment by the police department is that the turnaround for laboratories for blood alcohol testing is much faster than it is for drug testing and most of the previous cases involved alcohol intoxication. While initial drug tests might come back several days to several weeks after the samples are drawn, more detailed drug screening may take up to six weeks or longer. Consequently, the information is available to be disseminated earlier.

More detailed drug screening is most often done when the initial tests are positive for controlled substances. Getting an accurate toxicology reading from someone who has died also poses complications including delays as well, although especially in Miller's case it did not prevent positive test results for several substances being made readily available for public dissemination. In Brown's case, his toxicology tests had been expedited in order to learn the truth quickly, the police chief reassured people at one meeting.

With all this aside, it still is curious that the police department has opted not to release the results of its toxicology tests, even as the discussion of Brown's possible PCP use has suddenly died down from its corner. Those who are cynical might think that the department has already received the toxicology results and they did not reveal what had been expected. Hopefully, the department has learned enough in the past five years to not choose to withhold them for that reason.

The department's current position is that it will not release the toxicology results until it has completed its investigation which may take six months or longer. By then, the public's attention will have probably moved on(hopefully, not towards the next shooting).

If Brown did test positive for PCP, then it's a contributing factor to a tragic situation which led to his death. PCP will be the major focus of attention rather than mental illness and it will deter people from tackling the issues of either problem because he will be labeled as a person who deserves what he got.

However, if the reality is instead, that Brown was not on PCP at the time he was shot to death, it will be quietly whispered as a footnote on a piece of paper stacked together with hundreds of other papers in a three-ring binder that defines the department's own investigation. PCP will still be the major focus of attention rather than the issue of mental illness and it will deter people from tackling the issues of either problem because he will be labeled as a person who deserves what he got.

Well, at least until it's the CPRC's turn to evaluate all the evidence and information in addition to what it has gathered on its own. Since its own evaluation takes place in a more public arena, the public will be allowed to participate while it drafts its public report. Once that report becomes public, so will Brown's PCP status. Then whether the answer is positive or negative, it will likely be known why the department withheld this information as well, given that it did put that information out there in the first place.

If the test was positive, then hopefully, by that time the department will have started putting together tactical strategies and training to at least deal with individuals under the influence of PCP so something beneficial can come out of this tragedy. Because the officers were operating at least under the assumption that Brown was on PCP(based on information given to them) this is something that needs to be done. It will probably choose not to tackle the more complex issues of mental illness if it can focus its attention elsewhere, which will then have to wait until the next critical incident involving a mentally ill person. Just like other critical incidents that occurred before the Brown shooting were ignored.

If Brown was not on PCP, nothing will happen or change in the interim. Unless that truth comes out, Brown's legacy will be that he was high on PCP when he died, not that his death became the cornerstone of the RPD's new crisis intervention program on addressing the interactions between police officers and the mentally ill.

The CPRC's Role in All This?

Last week, the CPRC received its briefing on the shooting of Lee Deante Brown. It had already initiated its own investigation into the shooting, the day after it happened. The investigator has interviewed witnesses including several new ones, which is good news at least for the investigation that they were found. It remains to be seen if that is good news for the police department as well.

It will take months before the investigator returns to the CPRC with his completed report in hand to brief the CPRC in much greater detail than the briefing that took place last week. The commissioners will review that information, along with the entire investigative report submitted by the police department's homicide division. Then the CPRC will begin the process of drafting its own report, including holding discussions on how its members viewed the shooting, in relation to its adherence(or lack thereof) to departmental policy. After the report is completed, the commissioners will then access the administrative review conducted by the Internal Affairs Division of the department's own criminal investigation and then meet behind closed doors to discuss, deliberate and ultimately decide whether or not the shooting was within departmental policy.

Six times out of seven, that process has led to the CPRC affirming the department's own investigation. One time, it did not. Before the final decision was made, unidentified correspondents on this site predicted, even boasted that the CPRC ultimately would hold no power in terms of determining the outcome of a fatal officer-involved shooting. Ultimately, they were correct in their assertions. The city manager's office abstained from the decision and left it up to Chief Russ Leach who sided with his department's own investigation to the surprise of no one. The outcome was likely not as spontaneous as it seemed, given the comments written here that prophesied it. Sounds more like a contingency plan was in place.

The relationship between the CPRC and the various factions of the RPD has been a stormy one. For some, it's a public relations tool to bridge the gap(some might say gorge) between the department and the communities in Riverside. Others look at it as if it is the devil's incarnate. Still others look at it as something in between.

Here once again, is Officer Hands Tied to give his perspective on the issue. Some congratulations are in order. Officer Hands Tied has won the prestigious Scoobie award for the best acting performance during a non-winning political campaign.



HOST: Good morning, Officer Hands Tied. I understand that this is an issue that you remain very passionate about. Do you think that this form of oversight is necessary?

HT: Of course not. It's just unnecessary duplication, repetition and replication of what we already have in place. We have the D.A's office, the State AG's office, the U.S. Attorney's office, the FBI and God.

HOST: Well, some might argue that if you are so sure you are always doing the right thing, then you wouldn't be afraid of one more form of oversight.

HT: It's just sooooo unnecessary.

HOST: But it's a young body. It's only been around this century. Wouldn't you say it's a diamond in the rough?

HT: No. I don't like diamonds anyway. They are hard, unforgiving gems whose clarity is dependent on where they came from. One minute you can not see it in front of you, then there it is sits on top of the mantle out of reach. It spends time on Rick's list, located under the palm tree, then ascends up the glass ladder to a place in the meadow already cleared before it. Gold is my thing. Everywhere. I'd bathe in it if I could. Gold is pretty to the eye, uniform in color and pliable. Where I came from, it was very abundant.

HOST: Say what?

HT: If I were Rumplestilskin, I could make it.

HOST: But you are not him. He's a mean little man who wanted something he could never have.

HT: He did pray for people though.

HOST: Don't you think that you might be just a little sensitive about the reality that nine civilians are standing in judgment of how you do your job?

HT: You have to have a thick skin to move up in this place. That's what I learned. It took me a while though, one act of rebellion before I spoke up for the bystander. It's tough to be a diamond in this world. Tougher still to be me.

HOST: I've lost you there.

HT: Remember who I am after all. What I am.

HOST: How much celebrating did you do after the dissolution of the Stipulated Judgment anyway? It sounds like quite a bit.

HT: Oh 40 ounces here, more there. It was a party that was a long time coming after all. Plenty of time left to celebrate.

HOST: O-kay. It's not always a pleasure to talk with you, but it's always interesting.

RPD Briefing Before the CPRC

On April 12, representatives from the police department appeared before the Community Police Review Commission to present the department's official version(up to now)of what happened before and during the April 3 shooting of Lee Deante Brown.

According to Capt. Jim Cannon:

At 1:26 pm, the department received a call of a man acting suspiciously near the intersection of Loma Vista and Ottawa. According to the police department, Brown was lying down in the street, jumping on cars, screaming and exposing himself to people. Brown then headed towards University Avenue and walked into traffic, causing cars to stop abruptly to avoid hitting him.

Officer Michael Stucker, who Cannon referred to as "Paul Stucker", was monitoring his police radio and he headed towards The Welcome Inn of America motel at 1910 University Avenue. When he arrived, a man told him that Brown might be on PCP. Stucker then called for backup. At the time, Brown was lying in the parking lot. When he saw Stucker approach him, Brown retreated to the alcove. Stucker gave numerous commands, and Brown did not comply, instead saying "You can't hurt me" and talking to Jesus. He advanced towards Stucker and Stucker tased him, knocking him down on the ground. Brown got up and Stucker tased him again.

At 1:55 pm, Officer Terry Ellefson arrived onscene. He asked Stucker to undo his taser so he could handcuff Brown. Ellefson apprehended Brown on the ground and handcuffed his left wrist. When he tried to put handcuffs on his right wrist, Brown got to his feet. Ellefson tased Brown, but it had no effect. Stucker got closer and tased him directly on his body. At that point, Brown grabbed Stucker's arm and Stucker felt the electricity in his body. At some point, there was prongs from the taser stuck in his hand.

Stucker then took his expandable baton and struck Brown an undisclosed number of times. Ellefson tased Brown on his right shoulder and tried to grab the loose handcuff which was swinging wildly. Ellefson and Brown struggled further. Both Ellefson and Stucker saw Brown with the taser in his hand(but there was no explanation provided by the department in terms of how he got hold of it) and he began advancing towards the officers. They backed up and Ellefson then took his service weapon out and shot Brown twice.

Cannon then said that the two officers were the only two to see the taser in Brown's hand.

"Witnesses somehow were unaware that Brown had grabbed the taser," he said.

This was mentioned at the very end of the presentation almost as an aside. The civilian witnesses either had blinked and missed the struggle over the officer's taser or they are the liars with axes to grind that "Joe Citizen" claimed them to be in his earlier comment. Those are the two possible explanations that the department can possibly come up with to explain the conflicting information provided by the civilian witnesses and the two police officers involved in the fatal shooting. A third possibility is one that it is not really ready for and it is doubtful that it ever will be. Hopefully, evidence not testimony from the department can put this possibility to rest.

Maybe they are right. Maybe they do have all the answers, all the evidence and have opted to withhold both from the public. Because it is early in the investigation of a critical incident, it might be appropriate to do so. One problem with doing this, is that while they are declining to offer evidence of why they have reached the conclusions that they have, they are making judgments themselves in public about a recent event. While doing so might present no problem with the department or the "Joe Citizens" of the world, it might be construed by other people as having made up one's mind from the start or are in a sense, circling the wagons. This might be particularly true for people who live in communities where relations between residents and the police department have been strained for many years. Some of these people might wonder and many have, why does the department even bother to collect their eyewitness accounts of critical incidents at all?

If the civilians had agreed 100% with the version provided by the police department, would there be any comments by anyone about them having "axes to grind"? Would there be any sarcastic comments by anyone about them being upstanding people at a "fine motel establishment" on University Avenue?

Probably not. In that case, they would most likely be viewed as the most truthful, pro-police individuals in the universe, not to mention the best witnesses out there. It's one thing if the "Joe Citizens" of the world practice this dichotomy. Quite another, if the police department practices it too.

Even the police chief referred to civilian witnesses who were quoted about the shooting in the Press Enterprise as "mystery witnesses" at a recent meeting. Words like that while meant to explain or even soothe, can actually fuel further dissent, because the police department has not yet repaired all the bridges which it had spent the last three decades burning. Yet even as the department has written off the accounts of civilian witnesses for reasons still unexplained, it is asking the CPRC's investigator to provide it with contact information for any new witnesses who turn up. Hopefully, this is more than just an exercise. Still, by asking this of the CPRC, it shows that the department is admitting and recognizing the CPRC's power granted to it by the city's charter to conduct its own independent investigation.

Community members who attended the briefing before the CPRC walked away from it shaking their heads. A few asked each other, if they had heard at exactly what point the police department had stated how the taser went from Ellefson's hand to Brown's and then agreed they had heard nothing about that. In a depiction of a shooting that narrated every other action taken by Brown down to the exact detail, why was the most important detail of the entire critical incident still missing?

Hopefully, these questions will be answered in coming weeks.

Columnist Dan Bernstein wrote a very good column on April 14. He has been a regular attendee at recent community meetings on the issue. One point he raised, that even if the version the department has provided of the shooting is the accurate one, it still does not paint a pretty picture.

Bad Day in April

He writes about the LAPD's crisis intervention program, known as SMART which pairs up law enforcement officers with mental health experts. Other cities have created similar programs to address police officers' interactions with the mentally ill populations. Some of these programs were created in response to critical incidents including those where mentally ill people were killed.

LASD MET and other programs

Memphis PD Crisis Intervention program

Portland Police Bureau's CIT program

One community resident in this city offered up information she had learned about a similar program to Riverside's city council.

Their collective response? YAWN. Blink. Blink. Hardly surprising. The Attorney General's office is gone. Hopefully, this is not a sign that the city council's interest in the department's operation has gone with it.

Leach has also voiced his concern on this issue, and said there was a lot more to be done by the department in this area. In response, there were no shortage of community residents offering him assistance addressing this challenge. One hopes that he takes them up on their offers and utilizes their collective expertise on mental health issues to come up with a similar program for the RPD. Community members and the police department working together to grapple with a serious issue as this one, is what community policing in practice is about after all.

And So It Begins

And So it Begins.

Just 31 days after being released from its obligations under the Stipulated Judgment, the Riverside Police Department experienced its first critical incident: The shooting of an unarmed Black man on University Avenue by a police officer. Not an auspicious beginning for the department and those who now run it, coming quickly on the heels of the celebration of the end of one era and the beginning of the next. For others who were concerned about the dissolution of the stipulated judgment in March, not an entirely unexpected one. To them, it seemed more like a nightmare in waiting. What is past is prologue, after all.

Meetings took place almost immediately afterwards in the community. Chief Russ Leach, with RPOA president Kent Tutwiler and Vice-President Brian Smith in tow attended one meeting last Thursday. He chose every word he said carefully in front of his audience. After all, for police chiefs in any agency including this one, the "wrong" words said in the heat of the moment about a critical incident can make or break a career. Just ask Sonny Richardson, Ken Fortier and Jerry Carroll. But, this question in this case was already asked and answered during a pivotal moment last year.

Kent and Brian have to do their part as well, or else over 250 officers will hand them their walking papers, just as surely as they elected them only several months ago. The struggle between union and union leadership and union and management is played on dozens of similar stages each year. There are some dynamics even the Attorney General of the state of California can't touch, let alone change.

Just as with shootings past, a dual process quickly arose in public discussions. There are the whats, whens, wheres, whos and whys of the critical incident itself. Then comes the ifs. If we had done this, would this had happened? If they had this training, this equipment, this toy, that personality profile test, would things have changed in terms of the outcome?

In this case, pushing itself to the forefront are issues pertaining to how the police officer interact or "handle" mentally ill people particularly those in the homeless population. According to a policy and procedure manual that used to be available for the public to read in the public library, there was little if any language in terms of policies addressing the mentally ill, the mentally incapacitated and those engaging in what is called, "suicide by cop"(itself a product of the dismal history which has preceded it). Chief Leach himself admitted the department needed to do far more in this area.

Talk also reemerged on the issue of diversity training, and what struck me was how this Black woman at a April 10 "community healing" meeting just said, "they treat us like animals." Some might(and apparently have) said that this is how they should be treated or have joked about it. After all, considerable language had been used denegrating people of color on this particular area of this particular street of this particular neighborhood here. The police chief had also admitted in December that the department's diversity training was infrequent, inadequate and outdated. Supposedly, the Human Relations Commission's members have been entrusted with assisting in its update. But will it be enough to "teach" officers about the cultural beliefs, communication styles and practices of other ethnic and racial groups? And who should do that teaching?

Officer Involved Shooting

DATE: April 3, 2006 at 1:59 pm

LOCATION: Welcome Inn of America(Ottawa and University)

NAME: Lee Deante Brown, 31

history: 1997 conviction P.C. 459, several arrests for being under the influence of a substance

OFFICER: Terry Ellefson

history: Fatal Officer involved shooting, Nov. 15, 2005

CIVILIAN WITNESSES:

John, a maintenance man:



"He was on his knees. He[an officer] shot him twice at close range. Bam. Bam."



Kenneth Williams:

(Press Enterprise, 4/6/06)



Williams said Brown only grabbed the electrode-tipped wires that shot out of the Taser at him. When Brown jerked the wires, the cartridge tip of the Taser broke off, Williams said, but the weapon remained in the officer's hand. Williams said Brown flung the wires away.

Williams said Ellefson then shocked Brown by holding the prongs of a Taser against him, but it had no effect.

At that point, Williams said, Ellefson shot Brown in the shoulder.

Williams said Brown spun around from the shot and said, " 'You can't kill me (expletive). I'm God!' " Then the officer shot him in the chest, Williams said.

Racheal Bacon:

(Press Enterprise, 4/4)

Bacon said she was in her room when she heard someone yell, "Get down! Get down on the ground!" and "Stay on the ground, or I'll Taser you again!"

Bacon said she stepped out of her room and saw a police officer and a tall, thin man with jeans and no shirt sitting on the ground in front of the door to a nearby room. The officers shocked the man several times, she said, and one officer hit him with a nightstick.

Bacon said one of the officers had managed to get one handcuff on the man, but he was pulling away from the officer.

Then, Bacon said, the police shot the man twice.

"You could tell he had no idea what was going on," she said. "You could tell that he was really scared."

Bacon said she did not see Brown grab the Taser.

When Brown was shot, she said, "He was basically injured and on the ground."

James Bell:

(Press Enterprise, 4/4, 4/5)

James Bell, a passerby who said he watched the confrontation unfold from the sidewalk, wondered why the officers used Tasers on Brown in the first place.

"He wasn't hurting anybody," Bell said.

THE POLICE DEPARTMENT:



Press Release written by Sgt. Leon Phillips, Homicide Unit:



"Ellefson lost control of his taser, which was grabbed by the
subject. Officer Ellefson feared the taser would be used against him
because of their close proximity and fired his weapon at the subject, striking him twice."



Sgt. Mike Cook, Audit and Compliance Panel:

(Press Enterprise, April 5)



Cook said he was not sure whether Ellefson dropped the Taser or Brown took it from him.

COMMUNITY MEMBERS:

African-American woman, Eastside(4/10)

"They treat us like animals"

Woodie Rucker-Hughes, NAACP Riverside Chapter president(4/10)

"There are a lot of questions that need to be answered."

Suzy Medina, longtime resident, Eastside

"This is 2006. Every time we want something in the community, somebody has to die."

Medina also spoke about the blood soaked pavement which still marked the spot where Brown died. In other areas that had experienced officer-involved shootings the sidewalk had been washed clean.

"So what, it's just the Eastside," Medina said.

CPRC Briefing:



April 12, 2006 at 6pm, City Hall





Articles:

RPD officer shoots man

RPD officer loses taser, shoots man

Witnesses contradict police department's narrative

And so the marriage ends

Last week, as was reported by an anonymous field correspondant on this site, the State Attorney General's office quietly dissolved its marriage to the city of Riverside, inside the courtroom of Riverside County Superior Court judge Sharon Waters.

Soon after Officer B. Fife and his friends uncorked the cyber champagne and celebrated the noteworthy event, which brought to an end the relentless supervision that they had been forced to endure for the past five years. By the time, the last drop of cyber liquor had been consumed, their behavioral expert Dr. Lawman was urging people to forget about the consent decree because it was over and to go off and read a book some place. In other words, to not look behind the curtain.

If that was not strange enough, the next day a series of opinion articles appeared in the Press Enterprise from the various parties in the marriage that had lasted longer than many more traditional ones. Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who engineered the shotgun marriage and Chief Russ Leach, who carried it out. They urged the city's residents to take heart in the fact that the police department had improved greatly and was most certainly not the same department it had been in 1998, when four officers fired 25 bullets that were heard around the world. But their combined efforts seemed to be geared more towards addressing that other partner in both the marriage and its aftermath, the City Council.

In past years, the city council has neglected its duties of overseeing the operations of the police department, including the funding provided necessary for it to be a viable law enforcement agency operating both within state law and the state and federal constitutions. That trend had to change, both Lockyer and Leach in tandem admonished.

A third voice joined them in the campaign, abeit one who was more cautious in his choice of words. Jack Clarke, jr. who had chaired the original task force that had preceded the more formal marriage carefully mixed praise with caution in his piece.

First on the pulpit is Lockyer or as one former RPD officer not so affectionately called him in a letter to the Press Enterprise, "The Carpetbagger from the North".

The Job's Still unfinished

Lockyer was pretty positive that the police department had changed both its attitude and its operations. However, he did urge the reform process to continue forward to ensure that this time the reforms would stick.

It's crucial that the city continue to implement the policies and procedures required by the stipulated judgment. And it's imperative that the city provide the resources to implement the Police Department's strategic plan for community policing. That plan should be a driving force in the continuing effort to maintain a safer community and more responsive Police Department that continues to respect the law while it enforces it.

Leach was on deck next and he was just as effusive.

The new accountable RPD

Riverside overcame early feelings of resentment and resistance, and embraced the challenge of the consent decree as a rare opportunity to make substantive change and create a more transparent, "new" RPD. An effective partnership was forged between the department, the city and the community -- as "co-producers of public safety" -- to oversee and drive reforms.

Leach acknowleged the massive financial investment, which was over $22 million and touches on the more personal investment which has exacted a cost more difficult to measure.

Last, comes Clarke, jr. with his words of caution regarding the past practice of the city council of putting its toys on the shelf when it gets tired of playing with them.
Too Soon to Close the Book

If history is a predictor of the future, the city administration will want to move on to new projects and close the book on a job well done.

I hope that doesn't happen. If it does, we will have made a conscious decision to play the odds, assuming nothing like that could happen again. I hope not. But if the unthinkable does occur, I pray Riverside will be able to rely on the reservoir of goodwill that will result if community/police relations are cultivated rather than ignored.

Wise words, because too often what is past is prologue in the city of Riverside.


And before the chapter is closed on the marriage of convenience between the State of California and the city of Riverside, here's another viewpoint on this contentious issue. Oft-columnist and talk show guest, Officer "Hands Tied" is here to give his spin on the landmark event last week.




**Officer Hands Tied's words in his interview are a compilation of what this site's visitors have posted here on various topics. In a sense, he symbolizes the police culture that still maintains a hold on the department. Even his image and the campaign that surrounded the use of his image speaks to that police culture by saying hey do what we say, or we won't be there when you need us. Ignore him at your peril, because before you know it, he'll be back in charge again. **


HOST: The Stipulated Judgement went in like a lion and departed like a lamb. What do you think of the state's decision to dissolve the judgement?

HT: (puts down champagne glass) I think it's really great. Yeah, it's been a long and difficult five years, but we held up just fine. There's no way some outside agitator is going to tell us what to do. That has never happened and it never will.

HOST: So, what ahem, are your plans now?

HT: Why to take our department back of course. We'll take it back from the communists, the radicals, the hippies and the agitators. We'll make sure all our field training officers are proactive so they don't pass in these new lazy cowardly officers that we've got now. We will also not allow anyone to put the department in danger by hiring more women. Even though they're hired b/c like Leach says, they are the "best of the best", it's clear that's not true if they keep having to be rephased until they can find a weak FTO to pass them through. After we do all this to get back to the good old days, I think we'll be going to Disneyland.

HOST: What about the community?

HT: Well, the ones with people in them, they're happy as long as they can hold their soccer matches on time and they don't get cancelled by the referees on the account of rain. They don't care what we do because they never really see us. As for the others who know who they are, they don't matter because they're not people anyway. And if they don't like us, we'll just hand them off to that other agency.

HOST: Aren't you worried that management will be concerned?

HT: Not really. You see we're like those apples in the barrel. As soon as we ripen, all the apples in the vicinity will ripen as well. Our numbers may be small now, but they are not as small as management thinks and they will grow. City Council members will be concerned for a while, but then they will go back to being wrapped up in development projects and housing growth and they will soon forget all about us.

HOST: Are you sure about that?

HT: Oh yeah, management will try to shut us up because they don't want to hear the truth, but we'll always be the ones who will tell what's really going down. So if you really want to know what's going on, let's do lunch some time.

HOST: The truth?

HT: Oh yeah. Well this is been fun but I've got to go shave my head in a few...See you later!

Rolo Tomasi, Riverside Style: A Lesson in Three Acts

Rolo Tomasi, Riverside Style: A Play in Three Acts


A Lesson in Police Culture



*Cast of characters: TBA



Setting: Rivercity, 2006


Plot: This is the story about a group of police officers who decided to be themselves on a Web site and how they got away with it...and laughed about it and at their management.


To be Continued.....



***due to the difficulty of negotiating through the labyrinth that goes with the process of obtaining permission to use the names of several of the trade-marked television characters used on this site for this play, some name substitutions may have to be made.***

Sutton: The City Strikes Back

On Oct. 20, a Riverside County Superior Court jury awarded Officer Roger Sutton with a $1.64 million verdict, after finding that the Riverside Police Department had engaged in a pattern of racial discrimination and retaliation against him.

Only two months later, the city of Riverside struck back by filing a motion in court, asking for a new trial.

In response, presiding Commissioner Joan F. Burgess denied the city's motion and said that while she believed that the city's allegation that the verdict was excessive was its strongest argument in its motion, the jury's award was still within the legal boundaries of what was reasonable.

"I think it's high," Burgess said, "It doesn't shock my sense of justice."

Attorney Eugene Ramirez, who represented the police department, had argued in his motion and in court that the verdict, particularly the $1.5 million set aside for noneconomic damages, was excessive.

In addition to noneconomic damages, the jury had awarded $140,945 in economic damages. The jury's decision had been unaminous on the issues of racial discrimination and retaliation, but was split 10-2 on whether or not Sutton was harassed by other officers on the basis of his race. The jury also split 11-1 on the size of the noneconomic damages, according to court records. The jury reached its verdict after hearing evidence from dozens of witnesses in a trial which lasted over a month.

Ramirez said that he believed that the the fact that the noneconomic damages were more than 10 times higher than the economic damages meant that the jury used emotion in making its decision. He also criticized comments made by one juror to a Press Enterprise reporter that the verdict was meant to send a message to the city, as indication that the damages awarded were punitive in nature.

"You experience a verdict that is so out of whack you have to sit down and ask yourself, why," Ramirez said.

Burgess strongly disagreed.

"It was on the high side, "Burgess said, " I just can't say it was done in a punitive nature."

Burgess also said that the jury's award was probably greater than she would have awarded if she were a tryer of the facts, but she repeatedly said that it was not offensive to a person's sense of justice, which was the legal standard.

Ramirez still insisted that the jury had erred in its decision.

He said that he had reviewed all the trial transcripts but still could not find a reason why the jury made the decision it did against his client.

"Look at all this evidence and you wonder, what was this jury thinking," Ramirez said, "Was it emotional or was it prejudice against the city?"

Both Burgess and Sutton's attorneys provided some explanations as to why the jury had reached its decision.

Attorney Samantha Goodman who represented Sutton said that there was no evidence that the size of the verdict was "out of bounds" based on what was at trial. She added that the emotional damages suffered by Sutton were much more severe than the economic damages. The jury saw that and made its decision, accordingly.

"Their argument is that it is too high and they can't point to any reason, " Goodman said.

Sutton's other attorney, Scott Silverman, said that the jury foreman had said in a Press Enterprise news article that Sutton's attorneys had made a good case presenting the disparate treatment Sutton had received in comparison to White officers under similar circumstances.

In 1999, Sutton was removed from the canine division after his dog, Bor, had accidently bitten another officer, causing injuries which led to her retirement. During the trial, his attorneys had presented evidence through witness testimony that White canine officers including Tim Bacon, Steve Sdringola, Ed Blevins and Dave Taylor had handled dogs who were also involved in accidental bites, but none of these men were disciplined by the department. In fact, several of them were promoted at least once after their dogs were involved in accidental bites, including Bacon, who was involved in an incident which also led to the retirement of another officer. Bacon never received any discipline in relation to his incident which also left him seriously injured and he was promoted twice since then, including most recently to lieutenant.

Blevins's dog was also involved in two incidents, including one where the dog ran off and was lost for several hours. Blevins was not disciplined and he remained in the canine unit until he was promoted to sergeant. Now, he is a lieutenant.

Testimony was also presented by other police officers including Lt. Alex Tortes about hostile and unfair treatment against minority officers who were promoted to the command staff. Tortes had testified that he and another minority officer were subjected to the "exclusionary rule" and not included in discussions that involved decision making processes among management personnel who were White. Tortes and former Lt. Ron Orrantia, who was Hispanic, were also referred to as "Jerry's Kids", a term they found to be derogatory and offensive.

Burgess said that both sides had presented a lot of evidence to the jury that supported their respective positions. She added that she believed that the evidence presented by Sutton's attorney regarding retaliatory behavior by the department was "key to why they came up with that type of decision".

Retaliatory incidents that allegedly occurred after Sutton complained about racism in the department included an incident where his car was keyed, the placement of an offensive poster in his workplace, ostracization by other officers and an incident in April 2005 when the lieutenant watch commander allegedly moved the hands of the clock forward to set him up for discipline for being late to work. Sutton had said that a sergeant alerted him to what had happened and he arrived on time. When Sutton and a representative from the Riverside Police Officers Association addressed the incident, no discipline was imposed against Sutton and the matter was dropped, he testified at trial.

Burgess said that the presentation of the Home Boy flier may have been particularly influencial in the jury's decision. That flier spoofed a gun product, using racial stereotypes and had created controversy in other cities across the nation, in part because it was viewed as racially offensive. According to court records, the flier had been displayed on a bulletin board at the Orange Street Station for several months in 2001 at the time the city entered into its stipulated agreement with the State Attorney General's office to reform the department. In 2004, it was displayed in the breakroom at Lincoln Field Operations Station, according to Silverman.

"Someone on the jury may have been offended by that poster," Burgess said.

In the motion filed on Dec. 2, the city had stated that it would seek either a new trial or a reduction in the jury's verdict to $420,000. The city stated that the jury awarded excessive damages and its verdict was not supported by evidence. The motion also alleged that presiding commissioner Joan Burgess failed to properly instruct the jury and improperly excluded relevent evidence which was prejudiced against the city.
Sutton's attorneys had stated in their response to the motion that the evidence at trial clearly proved Sutton's allegations that he suffered racial discrimination, harassment and retaliation from the police department, after he complained about disparate treatment.

The jury's verdict favoring Sutton was the second decision made during a legal proceeding which awarded him financial compensation, since he filed his law suit in August 2000.

In March 2004, Sutton was forced to take his case to arbitration after the civil court system was shut down to handle a backload of criminal trials. After hearing the evidence presented by both parties, an arbitrator awarded Sutton $200,000 in June 2004. The city council decided in closed session to take the case to trial.

In an interview in 2004, Silverman had welcomed the opportunity to try the case in front of a jury.

"They want to roll the dice again. I think Roger if anything will do better in front of a jury than a judge," Silverman said in May 2004.

That turned out to be the case. It is not clear at this point, whether the city will decide to appeal the jury's decision at the Court of Appeals. Past history has shown that the city has been reluctant to pay out money on racial discrimination cases involving Black employees, while at the same time, it has settled at least one prior law suit alleging reverse racial and gender discrimination filed by six White male sergeants in 2000.

Ramirez appeared as unconvinced in the validity of the jury's decision, as the city often appears unconvinced that there is racism within its own workplace, even as it had battled another racial discrimination and harassment law suit originally filed by 17 Black city employees in U.S. District Court nearly 10 years ago. Burgess, however, remained steadfast in her decision.

"I don't know what the cutoff level is, but this is not it," Burgess said, just before she denied the city's motion.

Blowing off steam....in San Francisco

While the LAPD is trying to extricate itself from its consent decree with the Department of Justice by promising to equip its entire fleet of squad cars with video cameras, another law enforcement agency is trying to deal with a controversy that has erupted from the department's use of video equipment for entertainment purposes.

Over 30 San Francisco Police Department officers face suspensions for videos made while onduty, depicting stereotypes that city officials and community members have said are racist, sexist and homophobic.

Amazingly, or not, the only people who appear unsurprised by the content of these videos, are the community members of Bayview. But then again, the videos have just been depicting what they knew to be there all along. It may be(or not) news to the politicians, but not to them.



EXCERPTS

Mayor Gavin Newsome criticized the videos as being racist, sexist and homophobic. Not surprisingly, the predominantly African-American neighborhood of Bayview were outraged by them, including one scene where a Black homeless woman was run over by a squad car. Outraged, but again not surprised.

Bayview residents reacted angrily to the videos. Newsom has promised widespread department reforms.

On Friday, after learning that other insensitive videos had been made public, Newsom renewed his criticism of officers who, he says, "just fail to get it."

No, Mayor Newsom, it is you who doesn't "get it".

"A small group of officers made a video on city time when they should have been out fighting crime. They used city resources to make a parody they insist is benign, but which at worst is racist and sexist and outrageously offensive to this community.

--- Mayor Newsome

The police union president apologized for the scandal, abeit with the usual caveat attached: The neighborhood made us do it.

Gary Delagnes, president of the 2,200-member San Francisco Police Officers Assn., said the videos should never have been made. "It's an embarrassment to the department and the officers involved," he said. "We're wrong, and we have to take our medicine."

Before you get too excited by that "apology", here comes the caveat:

But Delagnes said that the videos were made by officers in stressful jobs who wanted to blow off steam.

"The precinct where they work is the Iraq of the city of San Francisco," he said. "They are outgunned and outmanned, and just a year ago one of their numbers was murdered.

"And so a bunch of officers, white, black, Asian, women and gay, got together and made a video they thought was going to be shown at their captain's retirement dinner. It was their way of dealing with the futility of their jobs."

By engaging in racist, sexist and homophobic stereotyping for entertainment purposes? The officers chose to engage in this behavior because of who they are, not what they do. After all, the majority of SFPD officers had nothing to do with making these particular videos.


The Bayview community's response:

On Friday, Milton Williams, head pastor at Bayview Baptist Church for 23 years, met at City Hall with other religious leaders to discuss how to handle rising anger over the videos. He said he was stumped about the sermon he would deliver Sunday.

"There is an incredible amount of anger out there," Williams said. "Some people are surprised and outraged. But I've heard from people who say, 'I'm not shocked at all. This is the kind of behavior I've seen for years.' "

At the meeting, which included priests, ministers, rabbis, Franciscan friars and Buddhist monks, one cleric said the city "cannot stomach a bunch of cops gone wild." Another called for the officers involved to be fired.

But Williams said he was going to call for calm from the pulpit. "We shouldn't be about pointing fingers."

San Francisco PD films videos to "blow off steam"
***registered site***

Wanted: Assistant Police Chief

This just in from the International Assn of Police Chiefs Web site:

Position: Assistant Police Chief
Deadline: 12/23/2005
Agency: City of Riverside, California
Location: Riverside, CA USA
Salary: $115,460-$151,021

Qualifications:

Successful candidates should possess a minimum of fifteen years of increasingly progressive municipal law enforcement experience including attaining rank of Captain or above. If you have a proven track record of managerial effectiveness, a demonstrated ability to lead a complex police organization to achieve critical goals, possess a BA/BS degree and are committed to Community Oriented Policing, you are encouraged to apply. Completion of a recognized advanced law enforcement leadership program or comparable advanced management training program with a Master’s Degree in law enforcement, business or public administration is highly desirable.

Responsibilities: The City of Riverside, California (pop 300,000), the 13th largest City in California and recently named as “America’s Most Livable Community” is seeking an energetic, self-driven and results oriented municipal law enforcement professional to serve as its Assistant Police Chief. Riverside is centrally located in southern California approximately 60 miles east of Los Angeles and 100 miles north of San Diego. The City’s total budget of 555.7 million reflects a staff of approximately 2,600 including 394 sworn personnel and 185 civilian employees in the Police Department. The position serves as the Chief of Staff and is the Acting Police Chief in the Chief’s absence. The position assumes full management responsibilities for the overall operations of a large, modern and data-driven metropolitan Police Department.
Special Conditions: Out of State candidates will be expected to acquire California POST certification within one year of employment.

For more information, contact:Teresa McAllister3780 Market StreetRiverside,CA 92501USAPhone: (951)826-5239Fax: (951)826-5922Email: tmcallis@riversideca.govWebsite: http://www.riversideca.gov

How To Apply: Interested candidates should submit a completed application and supplemental with your resume by December 23, 2005. Recruitment package is available on-line or by contacting the: City of Riverside Human Resources Department, 3780 Market Street, Riverside, Ca 92501 (951) 826-5808 FAX (951) 826-2552 www.riversideca.gov

Hiding in Plain Sight: The women in the RPD

At a recent city council meeting, over 40 representatives from both the RPD's management and the RPOA's Board of Directors filled the city council chambers, to listen to and in some cases speak on several issues on the meeting agenda.

What was most notable about this gathering, was the absolute absense of female officers sitting in the audience. Where were they? They are not holding positions of leadership either in the department's management or in the union that is set up to represent them. That is why none were present in the audience.

Statistically, about 9% of all officers in the RPD are female. This number has remained fairly stagnant since 2000. While the numbers of female officers slowly climb, they lag behind the hiring of male officers, which is why the percentage of women in the department remains so low. There are three female sergeants, five female detectives and two female lieutenants, according to the 2004 EEO report issued by the Human Resources Department.

Nation-wide, about 17% of all law enforcement personnel are women. Why are the numbers in the RPD, the state's newest "model" agency so low? And why when the RPD does recruit women into its ranks, is their retention relatively poor?

One person I knew reported the following assertion by an officer she had been talking to, about female officers.

"I don't think women should be in law enforcement. I don't like them and they could never be as good as men"-- RPD cop(2002)

Why indeed.

In 1998, the city of Riverside paid out a handsome settlement well into the six-figures on a sexual discrimination, harassment and retaliation law suit filed by former Sgt. Christine Keers. Keers filed the complaint alleging that she faced a hostile work environment, a rather thick glass ceiling and retaliation under two police chiefs when she complained about unfair treatment.

Keers alleged that the mistreatment started when she joined the agency as a probational officer on May 15, 1981. She stated in her law suit she was subjected to many sexist and sexual comments on the job including the following:

"Women cops are like snails, when they get up, you can see the wet marks"

"Come and scoot across my face."

On one occasion, Keers alleged that former Det. Ron Adams saw her yawning and said:

"Her mouth is open. She must want to get promoted."

In 1993, an investigation was launched by the department when a unit secretary accidently heard through an open phone line sexist comments made by male detectives, including one that referred to a female officer as a "brood mare". Another was that "women did not know their place." Instead of disciplining the officers involved, the administration told Keers not to talk to the secretary because it would just upset her.

If two female officers were assigned to the same squad car, it was called the "lesbian" car.

Many of these comments were allegedly said in roll call sessions, the same roll call room which would later be placed by State Attorney General Bill Lockyer under video surveillance as part of the stipulated agreement. One would think this agency would have had a professional environment of professionals, but Keers in her suit against the city alleged otherwise.

When Keers tried to get promoted to sergeant, the situation really heated up, according to her law suit. Former Chief Linford "Sonny" Richardson promoted men who were less qualified, less experienced and who had disciplinary histoires, according to Keers' complaint. When asked why he promoted one male individual, Richardson said:

"I owed it to him for his faithfulness."

Richardson was eventually cycled out of the department's revolving door and Ken Fortier replaced him. As history would soon show, his stay at the helm of the top administrative position in the department would be relatively short. Still, Keers had to wait for her promotion, despite Fortier's assurances that she would be promoted if she dropped her grievance.

But she would not, and eventually was promoted to sergeant although her stint in that position was even briefer than Fortier's stint with the department. Soon after, Internal Affairs began investigating her and a criminal case was filed against her for knowingly buying stolen goods at a store.

The Riverside County District Attorney's office took the case but presented three conditions to the Police Department before it would be allowed to make an arrest. Those being that the department could not utilize informants for information who were working off cases, that officers who Keers had complained against not be involved and that an arrest not be done until the D.A.'s office authorized it. According to Keers' law suit, the department violated all three conditions.

Keers was arrested on Aug. 17, 1994 by three of the officers named in her past and present grievances: Sgt. Al Brown, Det. Ron Adams and former Capt. Michael Smith. Her case went to trial and she was acquitted after an hour of deliberation. A defense fund was initiated by officers within the department to raise money for court costs, until Fortier tried to thwart that fund raising effort.

The timing of the arrest and prosecution in relation to Keers' grievance filings, not to mention the parties involved in both processes are disturbing, but hardly novel in terms of how the department treats its "whistle blowers". Former Officer Rene Rodriguez was mirandized during his interview with Internal Affairs in relation to his discrimination and harassment complaint against the department after the division decided to reopen a closed out complaint against him involving an off-duty arrest.


Keers reported other retaliation in her law suit, which worsened as she navigated through the promotional process.

Graffiti in the men's bathroom at one facilty referred to Keers as a "bitch" and a "whore". Threatening and hang up phone call messages were left on her machine including one at the workplace which the caller said, "bitch, you are going to die." Fliers of sexual cartoons appeared on her desk and elsewhere in the department.

The city spent the relatively miniscule amount of $19,000 in court costs before it settled the case for considerably higher than that and eventually gave Keers a paid retirement at tax payer expense.

Today, the department like others has in place a policy governing sexual discrimination and harassment in the workplace, but former police chief Penny Harrington testified during the Roger Sutton law suit trial that although she found that policy adequate, she did not believe the enforcement and implementation of it was satisfactory.

The number of female officers in the department took a serious dip after 1999, which it only recently has begun to recover from, but the number of women promoted to higher positions especially those in management continues to lag. Women also traditionally have not served on their own union's board of directors, a glass ceiling of a different kind not likely to break soon. It is not clear whether there are any female officers serving as grievance representatives in the labor union, which means that if any sexual discrimination or harassment is taking place inside the department, it is much less likely to be reported to either the labor union or management.

During the state attorney general's investigation, evidence emerged that sexist and sexual jokes and comments were being told alongside their racist counterparts during roll call sessions. Hence, the decision to put video cameras in the roll call room, during its sessions to as, Bill Lockyer said, break the racist and sexist culture of the police department.

Recruitment of women continues to be difficult. At a departmental recruiting forum held in May 2004, there were few female officers present and only one, Det. Rita Cobb, participated in a demonstration involving police skills and tactics. Representatives from male-dominated divisions including Aviation, canine, motorcycle, bicycle, narcotics and SWAT/METRO were on display in front of the public but no female officers were present. During the SWAT/METRO question and answer session, one potential female officer candidate asked Sgt. Kendall Banks if there were any women on the SWAT Team. He answered, no because none of the women were strong enough.

The recruitment tables inside the boathouse had applications for both sworn positions and for nonsworn positions in the dispatch unit. The "officer" table was manned by a man. The "dispatcher" table was manned by a woman, which sent a message to women who attended the forum that they were hireable as dispatchers, rather than officers.

The Use of Force training Team has one female officer who recently was present at a training session given by the CPRC. However, except for a brief display of her considerable baton welding skills, she functioned mainly as the "suspect" to be searched, handcuffed and apprehended by the other male officers on the team who were allowed to display their defense skills. As a fully trained officer in the department, she would be required to be just as skilled in defense tactics as her male counterparts yet her skills were not put on display as theirs were during the demonstrations.

The RPD continues to do most of its local officer recruitment at ball parks, air shows and military installations, locations where they are likely to find far more men than women. Before the latest Iraqi war dried up the prospective pool, nearly 2/3 of its recruitment time and energy was spent at local military institutions including Camp Pendleton Marine Station.

Retention of women in the department and others like it continue to be a problem, particularly during the probational period when women are dropped for poor evaluations for being "too slow", lacking in "gusto" and other similar reasons. Experts in women and policing state that such terms are code words to promote the idea that female officers are simply inferior to their male counterparts. EEO reports for the past several years show a net gain of two female officers over a four year period.

Promotions for female officers remain few and far between. Women comprise less than 6% of all sergeants and less than 5% of all lieutenants. There are no female captains and there has only been one female deputy chief in the department's history. That situation is unlikely to change in the next five to ten years.

Which is a shame, because many studies done comparing female officers to male officers have favored the women, including those done on the issue of excessive force. In statistics provided for many larger law enforcement agencies, women comprise about 5% of complaints involving excessive force, 5% of citizen complaints and 2% of sustained complaints. Women engage in as many arrests as their male counterparts and do not hesitate to use force when necessary, but their rates of excessive force are far exceeded by male officers.

Financially, women are more cost-effective when it comes to civil litigation paid out by cities and counties in relation to excessive force, sexual assaults and domestic violence. Although nationally, women are outnumbered by about 6.5 to 1, in terms of law suits paid out, men outnumber women, anywhere from 20 to 40 to 1.

So the logical thing to do would be to hire more female officers, particularly as the department moves away from parimilitary style policing and continues to embrace Community Oriented Problem Solving policing. Yet, the numbers of female officers in the RPD will continue to lag behind those of men for a long time.

Legal Cases:

The People of the State of California vs Christine Keers(criminal)

Christine Keers vs the City of Riverside(Civil)

Links:

National Center of Women and Policing

Publications:

Excessive Force: A Tale of Two Genders

Recruiting and Retaining women: 2003 update (Adobe Acrobat Reader required)

Effect of Content Decrees on Hiring Women: During and After (Adobe Acrobat Reader required)

Police Officers and Domestic Violence: a study

Can you say, doh?!

It's also an election year all around in Riverside. Inside City Hall, and inside the RPOA. And elections have ways of making involved parties engage in rather interesting behavior, to win them.

TO BE CONTINUED...

CPRC: Summer Lane shooting was excessive force

During a closed session held on Nov. 9, the Community Police Review Commission determined that Officer Ryan Wilson violated the department's use of force policy when he shot and killed Summer Lane on Dec. 6, 2004. Hardly a shock considering the circumstances of the shooting, as well as actions taken by departmental management and other employees from day one. It is very difficult to read the investigation and not believe that those involved knew what was coming down the pike, early on.

Consent decree or not, the department's management will always resort to its favorite defense mechanism when trouble is brewing, which is to deny that there are any problems or any misconduct. After all, they are working from a very old script. A script that many, including most recently Attorney General Bill Lockyer, took a crack at rewriting but which remains etched in stone as much today as it was on Dec. 28, 1998.

The mood was somber as the eight commissioners departed from the session to begin the public meeting. No decision was announced that evening, pursuant to legal advice given to the commissioners by City Attorney Gregory Priamos. That announcement was in a sense, the city attorney's inadvertant way of revealing the CPRC's decision. Why else would Priamos even attend a CPRC closed session, if this shooting was going to follow on the heels of the previous six reviewed by the commission?

The finding was however, published at the CPRC Web Site
--------------------------------------------------

CPRC

click "findings"
click "2005"
click "November 9" (document is in pdf format)
--------------------------------------------------

Before the closed session began, Interim Executive Director Pedro Payne and CPRC Chair Michael Gardner had engaged in a discussion in the hallway with Capt. Richard Dana, from the chief's office, and Priamos. Priamos then went in closed session before the deliberations began, to brief the commission on how the finding was going to be disseminated to the public...which of course would be through the medium every city resident of course had access to: The internet.

The Lane shooting is the first of seven incustody deaths investigated by the CPRC to be found in violation of departmental policy. It is also the first shooting to have found by any committee inside or outside the police department to have involved excessive force in the department's history.

The CPRC will forward its finding to City Manager Brad Hudson who will make the final disposition on the shooting. The department completed its own administrative review months earlier and has forwarded its own findings. Deputy Chief David Dominguez and other department representatives from its management team have declined to comment on the Lane shooting, except to protest weakly that the Riverside County District Attorney's office declined to file criminal charges against Wilson as if that decision has anything to do with the department's administrative review. It does not and it should not.

But then strong leadership during turbulent times has never been this department's strongpoint. Five years spent spinning its reluctant participation in court-mandated reforms into the image of the "model agency", the new, improved RPD, has left the agency ill-prepared to face another controversal shooting, involving a woman inside a motor vehicle. The startling, if daunting aspect of this mess is that were it not for the CPRC and its power to investigate officer-involved deaths, the city's residents would be none the wiser.

From the beginning, the department's stance has been that Wilson shot and killed Lane because he was in fear for his life. However, at a briefing by its investigator held on Sept. 28, commissioners listened in shock as details from the shooting emerged which differed from those they had heard at an earlier briefing by the department held on Dec. 22, 2004. As the commissioners drafted their public report, it became clear through their statements that none of them believed that Wilson was in danger when he shot Lane. That conclusion was included in the public report released on Nov. 2.

The shooting has elicited a lot of discussion in City Hall in the sense that it is seen as a very bad shooting, but everyone is waiting to see what Hudson will decide to do.

Some see Hudson as a person who will take a strong stance and back the decision of the CPRC. Others, realize that he was hired by a city council, with a majority of its members financially backed by the Riverside Police Officers' Association. He is well aware what happens behind closed doors, twice a year.

It's also an election year all around in Riverside. Inside City Hall, and inside the RPOA. And elections have ways of making involved parties engage in rather interesting behavior, to win them. Toss in the stipulated agreement which people have announced plans to move on from already...before the ink on the signatures has even been written, let alone dried.

Once again, past is prologue and the future is unwritten in River City.

Elections: To Be Continued

The semifinals round of the 2005 municipal elections were completed in Riverside, with two candidates from wards 2 and 4 heading into the final round to be held on Jan. 17, 2006.

Winning the first round in the second ward, which includes the Eastside, University neighborhood south of Blaine St, as well as portions of Canyoncrest and Sycamore Hights, was retired Riverside County Sheriff's Deputy Ruben Rasso, with 43% of the votes. He will be joined in the ward 2 final by Businessman Andrew Melendrez, who managed to secure 31% of the votes. Traditionally, the winner of the semifinal round of the election race loses in the finals, because the vote is no longer split among different candidates. It is anticipated that the majority of Deen Teer's voters(comprising 12% of the total votes) will jump onboard the Melendrez train straight to City Hall.

However, one can never underestimate the tenacity of campaigns done by candidates supported by the status quo. What Rasso lacks in experience and polish, he more than makes up in the zeal of those who back him with large financial contributions, exhaustive phone banks and door-to-door campaign. The sight all over his ward of members of the Fire Fighters union Political Action Committee waving signs as if they were trying to land Boing 747 jets on University Avenue and also in the "Four Corners" could be enough to sway the tide against semi final winners. Abeit, a wardrobe change for those who man the streets with signs, may be useful because most of the motorists at least in the "Four Corners" intersection were more concerned with the traffic logjam aggravated in part by our current incumbants from several wards, than in voting to give them four more years to create even more traffic congestion on the beleagured city streets.

The battle among the five candidates in Ward 4 is now down to only two, and weary voters can anticipate twice the mudslinging that occurred in the contentious first round between incumbant Frank Schiavone and retired trash collector, Sam Cardelucci. More colorful, entertaining advertisements and brochures detailing the evil acts committed by one candidate against the other are sure to fill the mail boxes of those residing and working in the city's largest ward. Cardelucci, riding on a wave of anti-DHL and unchecked housing development, tails Schiavone in the first round votes, but is anticipated to pick up crucial votes from those who supported the other three candidates in the race.

In less contested contests, Mayor Ron Loveridge won enough votes to avoid the final round all together and will be mayor for another 16 years, with Terry Frizzel coming in second, in the tally.

Nancy Hart who picked up some GASS Quartet money this time around, won a relatively uncontested race in ward 6.


County and state election results

CPRC issues public report on Summer Lane shooting

The CPRC voted 8-0 to approve its public report on the Summer Lane shooting. It will be available online by the end of today, Oct. 3.

CPRC Public Report

Click link.

(Adobe Acrobat Reader required)

Over 15 community members and members of Lane's family attended the special CPRC meeting on Oct. 2 at City Hall. Also in attendance and sitting in their own corner, were RPD Robbery-Homicide Sgt. Steve Johnson and Commander Richard Dana, who works in the Chief's office and supervises the Internal Affairs Division.

Summer Lane: The Interrogation

The interrogation of the Riverside Police Department officer who shot and killed Summer Lane last December came under fire, by members of the Community Police Review Commission during a special meeting held to draft its public report on the incident.



"The detectives appear to be giving answers to the officer to their own questions," Commissioner Brian Pearcy said.



Pearcy, a former Los Angeles Police Department officer, made his comments while he was drafting the section of the report which critiqued the investigation conducted by members of the Officer-Involved Shooting Team.



Pearcy also said that the detectives appeared to have been coaching Wilson on what to say, rather than asking him objective questions designated to elicit information which would have presented a clear picture of the events that occurred before and during the shooting. Most impacted by the investigators' line of questioning were portions of the interrogation which addressed what was going through Wilson's mind when he walked up to Lane's car and pulled the trigger four times.



"In their questions, detectives were leading the officer away from responses that would subject the officer to possible violations of law and policy," Pearcy said.



Pearcy in his comments gave higher marks to other portions of the investigation, which he said had been done more thoroughly than others had been in the past. For one thing, more eyewitnesses to the shooting had been located and interviewed by department investigators. For the most part, the department's investigation matched what had been uncovered by the CPRC's private investigator Norm Wright in his own investigation, Pearcy said. The interrogation of Wilson, was its main problem, in his opinion.



"That's where the investigation broke down, " Pearcy said.




Other commissioners including Les Davidson, Sheri Corral and Jim Ward sharply disagreed that the interrogation of Wilson was the investigation's only downside.




"I just have a problem saying this is a good investigation," Davidson, another former Los Angeles Police Department officer, said, repeatedly.



Ward said that it is not just the quality of investigation that is important but how it is interpreted by those who make the decisions. That was where the department and the CPRC parted ways.



"We came up with a whole different conclusion than they did," Ward said.



Indeed, the department has already concluded both its criminal investigation and its administrative review done by its Internal Affairs Division, but has yielded no information on its findings citing state laws pertaining to the confidentiality of peace officer personnel files. However, Wilson is still working as a patrol officer nearly 10 months after the shooting, which has allowed people to draw their own conclusions.



Wright, on the other hand, told commissioners at a Sept. 28 meeting that he did not believe that Wilson was in imminent danger when he shot Lane. None of the commissioners believe that Wilson was in danger or shooting at a fleeing felon, according to statements they gave at two meetings since they had first listened in stunned silence to Wright's presentation of his investigation's findings.



From the beginning of its investigation, the department stated in documents that Wilson shot Lane because he was in danger.



Wilson shot Lane to eliminate a threat to his life, according to a memo submitted by Det. Jay Greenstein of the Robbery-Homicide Unit to his supervisor, Sgt. Steve Johnson on Dec. 21, 2004. In that same memo, and even in an earlier one written by Johnson to Chief Russ Leach on Dec. 7, 2004, were statements that Wilson had left suspect Christopher Grotness on the ground and approached Lane as she sat in the driver's side of her stationary vehicle and shot four times into her window.



These earlier accounts contrasted with a briefing the police department gave to the CPRC on Dec. 22, 2004 that stated that Wilson had shot at Lane from some location behind the car, and that he was probably on the ground with Grotness at the time. The department has not publicly explained the discrepancies between the two accounts. In the current draft of the its report, members of the CPRC were careful not to include possible explanations as to why the information put out by the department verbally, and later in writing was contradictory. But several of them had harsh words in response.



"The department lied," Ward said at a meeting held on Oct. 12, adding that he did not feel mistakes were made.



The interrogation of Wilson in question, took place at the department's general investigation bureau on Dec. 7, 2004, the day after the shooting. Detectives Greenstein and Ron Sanfilippo, from the Robbery-Homicide unit met with Wilson and his attorney, Anthony Snograss. At the beginning of the interview, the detectives ask Wilson to relate the events that led up to the shooting and listen to his account. However, further into the interview process, they begin to ask him questions, interjected with their own opinions.



During several portions of the interview where Wilson's account differed from those of other eyewitnesses, the detectives appeared to use their experience as officers to give Wilson the benefit of the doubt, according to a transcript of the interview. At one point, Sanfilippo questions Wilson about whether or not he gave verbal commands to suspect Christopher Grotness at any point during the process of trying to arrest him.



Det. Sanfilippo: When we talked to him[Grotness] last night, he said, you know, 'the officer didn't say nothing to me the whole time. You know he didn't make any statements. He didn't make any commands. We both neither of us talked,' which is kind of unusual in a fight. I mean, I was an officer.

Wilson: Right.

Sanfilippo: I know you're probably at all times giving commands. That's part of the whole thing.

Wilson: Right.

Sanfilippo: So you were giving commands telling him to stop and he just wasn't complying?

Wilson: Yeah.



The CPRC had expressed concern in several of its annual reports about investigations of citizen complaints where the assigned investigators asked leading questions and engaging in questioning that was not objective.



"All too often, the investigations read like a defense brief as opposed to an objective investigation," the 2003 annual report stated, "The Commission has found that the investigator provides his or her opinion as opposed to simply gathering evidence and interviewing witnesses. This needs to stop."



The department's Conduct and Performance Manual on administrative investigations also states that investigators are to avoid asking leading questions or refresh the witness's memory of events. Although the Officer-Involved-Shooting team concentrates mainly on the criminal investigation of a shooting, it also asks questions pertaining to administrative issues to assist the Internal Affairs Division in its own administrative review of a shooting.



Wilson's interrogation continued with Sanfilippo asking him questions about his state of mind before the shooting. Again, it appeared as if the detectives were providing possible answers to their own questions, while Wilson simply agrees.



Sanfilippo: --what were you thinking at that point. Because that's what it, you know, comes down to. What were you thinking? Why did you make those decisions?

Wilson: right.

Sanfilippo: Because you were the one involved in that fight for five minutes. You were the one that had somebody trying to run you over. And you're the one that makes that ultimate decision to do what you did.

Wilson: right.



Sanfilippo also questions Wilson further about whether or not Wilson was in fear for his life, when he shot Lane. Wilson says little, except in agreement.



Wilson: --If he[Grotness] pins me down again with his girlfriend trying to run me over, then, you know, I'm in trouble. So I figured, you know, I can't deal with this guy--he's so strong. He's aggressive--and have her running over me at the same time So--

Sanfilippo: Like a will to survive.

Wilson: Right.

Sanfilippo: I mean, you basically are out there. You don't know when your backup is coming.

Wilson: Right.

Sanfilippo: And all of this is coming on, and you've got to take care of each issue. And you just chose the more violent issue at the time to deal with and go back to the other one. Is that basically what you're saying?

Wilson: Right.



At several points in the interview, Wilson laughs in response to the detectives' questions including a statement by one detective about how emotional he appears to be.



Greenstein: Good. I could tell that it was a pretty emotional situation because I can see like right now you're--I don't know if you're just tired or still fatigued but you're shaking(unintelligible)

Wilson: (laughs)

Greenstein: I can tell that it's a --that you survived a huge ordeal. How are you feeling now? Are you okay?

Wilson: Yeah, I'm good now. Thanks.



Initially, Lt. Jeffrey Collapy had said that Wilson had suffered a broken ankle during the incident, which the department said had occurred when his left leg being run over by Lane's car at least once. However, according to Greenstein's later memo, Wilson had suffered a minor sprain to his left ankle.



Several commissioners expressed doubts about whether or not his leg had actually been run over by the car because there was scant evidence of visible injuries on photographs taken of Wilson's legs after the incident. Others argued that the lack of visible injuries did not mean that Wilson had not been hit by the car. A short discussion of whether or not the commission should subpoena Wilson's medical records took place, but Chair Michael Gardner said that before the commission took a vote, it would have to ask for those records and be denied first.



The CPRC planned to meet on Nov. 2 at 3pm to discuss the public report and possibly vote on whether or not it was ready to be released to the public. After its release, the CPRC will then access the department's administrative review and then discuss the case in closed session before deciding whethr or not the shooting was within policy. Until then, it remains to be seen whether the difference in opinions between the CPRC and the department which it oversees continue to part way.