Five before Midnight

This site is dedicated to the continuous oversight of the Riverside(CA)Police Department, which was formerly overseen by the state attorney general. This blog will hopefully play that role being free of City Hall's micromanagement.
"The horror of that moment," the King went on, "I shall never, never forget." "You will though," the Queen said, "if you don't make a memorandum of it." --Lewis Carroll

Contact: fivebeforemidnight@yahoo.com

My Photo
Name:
Location: RiverCity, Inland Empire

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Deputy's manslaughter case moved to trial

A San Bernardino County Superior Court judge has decided that a former sheriff deputy will face criminal charges for shooting an unarmed man after a police pursuit.

San Bernardino County Sheriff Deputy Ivory J. Webb, 45 is set to stand trial in the case for attempted manslaughter in the shooting of Air Force airman Elio Carrion. Carrion was shot three times by Webb while trying to comply with his verbal commands. The shooting was videotaped by a pedestrian and aired nationwide. Soon after, the San Bernardino County District Attorney's office filed criminal charges against Webb.

The video tape of the shooting depicted Carrion on the ground and being told to rise by Webb, but when he does, Webb discharges his weapon, striking him several times.

Several parties and witnesses including Carrion and Jose Luis Valdes, the man who videotaped the incident testified during the day-long hearing.

With the preliminary hearing completed, the case is expected to head to a jury trial. It is the first criminal case involving an onduty shooting by a law enforcement officer in San Bernardino county's history. In neighboring Riverside County, only one law enforcement officer has been prosecuted for an onduty shooting. In 2003, Riverside County District Attorney investigator, Daniel Riter was tried on first degree murder charges for the onduty shooting of a man who was trying to leave the scene with a woman and her children in a pick up truck. Riter shot out the truck's front tires and then fired once at close range through the driver's window when the truck passed him. Riter initially claimed that the truck was trying to run him over, but when ballistics evidence contradicted his account, he later claimed that his gun had accidentally discharged. The jury believe him and convicted him of a lessor charge of involuntary manslaughter based on criminal negligence. He is currently serving seven years in state prison.

Riter is White. Webb, African-American. Their victims were both men of color.

The FBI is currently investigating at least two officer-involved shootings in the Inland Empire to determine whether there were any civil rights violations. The Carrion shooting is one of them.

Photo Gallery of Carrion and Webb

Riter and Webb

Deputy to face manslaughter charges

Thursday, August 24, 2006

Rabb: Many questions, fewer answers

CPRA Watch: 31 days with no response


The Community Police Review Commission met on Aug. 23 to approve a public report that it hoped would provide answers in relation to the incustody death of Terry Rabb, a 35-year-old African-American man who suffered from diabetes.

Instead, the often heated meeting raised more questions than answers especially surrounding the use of force tactics used by Officers Camillo Bonome and John Garcia, to restrain Rabb so that he could be medically evaluated and treated by two Riverside City Fire Department employees. Soon after Bonome attempted to apply a carotid restraint on Rabb and both officers had handcuffed him, he stopped breathing and went into cardiac arrest. He died after being transported to a nearby hospital. The Riverside County Sheriff/Coroner's office which performed the autopsy stated that Rabb died from his underlying illnesses, with no mention of the chain of events which had preceded it. Still, for several commissioners doubts remained as to whether or not the officers' actions while restraining him played a role in his death.

"I'm really torn on this case," CPRC Chair Les Davidson said, "My heart tells me there were some things done here that were wrong."

Davidson said that CPRC investigator Butch Warnberg had concluded in his investigation that Rabb had died from cardiac arrest after the physical restraint by the police officers.

"That's a pretty strong statement," he said.

What upset Davidson the most, were comments allegedly made by Bonome that he suspected that Rabb was under the influence of an illegal drug, either crack cocaine or PCP even after being informed by the dispatcher who handled the 911 phone call that Rabb was diabetic and suffering from an insulin reaction. These comments were reported to investigators by family members of Rabb, yet the RPD's own detectives apparently failed to question either Bonome or Garcia about these alleged comments during their interviews, even after they had called in Bonome for a second interview, according to the department's own investigative report.

On the other hand, Davidson said that the officers may not have been trained or even obligated to know about Rabb's medical condition.

"Two sides of this, which really pull," an obviously conflicted Davidson said to the commission.

Commissioner Jack Brewer disagreed with Davidson.

He said that the officers had to restrain Rabb because the emergency medical technicians could not do so. In fact, their department has a policy that forbids them from restraining patients, which was why police officers had been dispatched to the scene to assist them. He called the alleged comments made by Bonome, "unfortunate".

Brian Pearcy, a former Los Angeles Police Department officer, said that while it was unfortunate that Bonome made these comments in front of Rabb's family members, he might have done it to raise the consciousness of his partner about the situation. What it might have done was put both officers in a "heightened" mode and state of alertness.

Jim Ward, the only African-American on the nine-member panel, expressed many concerns about the incident, enough to lead him to decide to release a minority report. He said that he had problems with Bonome's assumption that Rabb was not ill, but under the influence of illegal drugs and whether that perception drove his behavior and determined what actions he took.

"The behavior of the officers are more in line with him being on drugs rather than because of his diabetic condition," Ward said.

Commissioner Ric Garcia said that he felt the comments if they were made, escalated the situation. A statement which mirrored that presented by Warnberg in his report.

"This is a very, very tough case", he said.

Even as commissioners disagreed with each other about the significance of the perceptions held by the officers concerning Rabb, all of them expressed frustration with their combined belief that the department's own investigation conducted by its Officer-Involved-Death Team had failed to adequately address the allegations raised about Bonome's alleged comments. In fact, as Pearcy said at one point, the department did not provide any evidence that provided any insight into the officers' state of mind during the entire incident. That shortfall was a source of great frustration to commissioners left with a difficult decision to make about the case. Without knowing the officers' state of mind during the incident, it would be difficult to determine whether the course of action they took was in line with the department's written policy governing the use of force.

Davidson, a former police officer, said that if he had received knowledge that the situation involved a medical emergency, then the last thing he would have been considering in that situation was using lethal force. A typical officer would have been careful in his attempts to restrain an ill person, he said.

"I don't think a chokehold is what should be used," Davidson said.

The "chokehold" is actually a nickname for the carotid restraint. It is a technique which is used by an officer to restrain or subdue an individual by using his arm to apply pressure to a person's neck region in order to temporarily cut off the blood supply which flows through the two carotid arteries and several veins in the neck to and from the brain. The restraint also impacts the vagus nerve and affects its function as well. This action and its combined effect usually renders a person unconscious for a brief period of time. However, in many documented cases where it has been used, the affected person has not regained consciousness and has died.

Use of force options: Pros and Cons


Different law enforcement agencies have different policies regarding its use. Some agencies including the Los Angeles Police Department have banned it (although this agency still uses the "modified" carotid restraint). Others have policies defining it as a lethal force option, one on par with an officer's firearm. Still other agencies including the RPD state in their use of force policies that the carotid restraint is considered a "less lethal" option, or as Bakersfield(CA) Police Department puts it, to have an "injuring" effect not a lethal one.

The agencies and their officers who support the use of the carotid restraint see it as an option bridging what they view as the wide gap between "control holds" and lethal force. Community leaders, human rights organizations, medical personnel and many law enforcement experts view this restraint as dangerous, even lethal and in many cities have asked for it to be banned.

In Riverside, at least three deaths connected with the deployment of the carotid restraint in the mid-1990s led to large settlements and in one case, a jury's verdict.


Derek Hayward: $1.1 million jury's verdict including legal fees

Adam Williamson: $215,000

Hector Islas: $790,000

Still, the deployment of the carotid restraint in the RPD is on the rise if the statistics quoted in a progress report written by former attorney general consultant Joe Brann in 2006 are any indication. Its use by officers has gradually increased during the past several years, even as the use of several other less lethal options including projectiles has decreased during that same period of time. It has not led to any more deaths, but without further data, it is not clear whether or not those who have been on the receiving end of it have not suffered significant injuries as a result.

Any information on the carotid restraint may be academic in this case, because according to the officers' statements, it was attempted but never completed because Rabb had tucked his chin to his chest and his face was pressed into the sofa cushions while Bonome placed his body weight on his back. The coroner's report showed no signs of bruising or other trauma to Rabb's neck region that could indicate that the restraint had been used. Still, the officers' decision to at least attempt it on an ill man disturbed at least one commissioner.

"Did that chokehold, was that the cause that brought Rabb to become deceased," Davidson said, "I think so."

Also challenged and even criticized by several commissioners was the department's use of force policy, which has been amended about a half-dozen times in the past seven years, reflecting the wide-sweeping reforms that have impacted the agency during that time period.

Ward had tough words for what he called the "serious ambiguities" present in that policy. He said its current language placed too much importance on the perception of the officer engaging in it and treated that perception as "infallible". It then required that the officer engage in the same amount of force in a given situation as a "reasonable" person would while adhering to a set legal standard. He believed the different criteria of what level of force to use in a given situation could conflict with one another and that it pretty much defended whatever action the officer took, whatever its consequences.

The department's use of force policy and its implementation drew attention after the shooting of Tyisha Miller in 1998 and become the focus of investigations by both federal and state law enforcement agencies as well as an investigation conducted by a panel of citizens appointed by Mayor Ron Loveridge in 1999. Consequently, it has undergone several revisions and currently includes a provision which states that officers are to recognize the sanctity and value of human life when considering its implementation. Several outside agencies also addressed the placement of the cartotid restraint in the use of force continuem and whether or not, it constituted lethal or less lethal force. Currently, it is considered a less lethal option for an officer to utilize in different situations.

The quality of the investigation received a lionshare of the criticism from the commission which was similar to what happened while it investigated the Summer Lane shooting.

Pearcy said that most of his criticisms would be directed towards the quality of the department's investigation, most notably the omission of any documentation regarding the officers' state of mind. Without it, it would be difficult to definitively state whether or not the use of force that would be in large part based on those perceptions was in violation of departmental policy. Even though the CPRC's investigator had followed up on the allegations regarding Bonome's comments, the department had failed to do so. This left the commission in an unenviable quandary.

"We don't have definitive answers as to why he died," Pearcy said, "We don't. We can't make that jump."

Not surprisingly, Ward had even more harsh comments regarding the department's investigation.

"They know how to do an investigation. They know what questions to ask," Ward said, " There is a clear effort to avoid the kind of questions that we need to make this transparent to the police department and to the public."

These criticisms mirrored those raised regarding the police department's investigation of the Lane shooting in 2004. At that time, commissioners had been critical of the interrogations detectives conducted with individuals, especially Officer Ryan Wilson. Several commissioners said while discussing the drafting of the public report that they believed that the detectives who interviewed Wilson asked him leading questions and assisted him in his interrogation. Those criticism were included in the CPRC's public report on the Lane shooting.

The Lane shooting was ultimately determined to have violated the department's use of force policy by the CPRC, if not the city or the police department. Whether or not the Rabb incident falls in the same category is uncertain at this point in time. What is certain that whatever finding is decided upon by the panel, it will come with an asterisk attached.

Monday, August 21, 2006

CPRC: Semi-annual Report

Three council members met to be briefed on the Community Police Review Commission's semiannual report presented to them by current full-time executive manager, Pedro Payne.

Committee Chair Andrew Melendrez, Nancy Hart and Steve Adams, along with City Attorney Gregory Priamos and Asst. City Manager Thomas DeSantis, listened as Payne reported the most recent trends noted by the commission in terms of complaints received and disposed. Melendrez told the committee members that he had decided to include periodic briefings from the CPRC to the agenda of the public safety committee.

Payne said that the number of complaints had decreased in comparison to this same time last year, but was unable to explain the reasons behind this shift. The number of complaints sustained stood at around 13%, a rate slightly lower than that of last year.

Geographically, most of the complaints involved alleged incidents that occurred in the downtown area, a trend which has stood since the CPRC started receiving complaints in 2001.

Payne said that one area the CPRC was interested in working on was increasing the efficiency of complaint investigations. The time frame between the initiation of the complaint and when it was finally adjudicated was still a lengthy period of time. The average time a category 1 complaint spent at the police department being investigated and processed by the administrative chain of command was 167 days and for category 2 complaints, it was 136 days, according to information listed in the CPRC's monthly reports. Payne said that establishing dialogues with representatives in the department's Internal Affairs Division had been productive in addressing some of these issues.

Adams lauded his own idea of appointing a department representative, currently Capt. Pete Esquival, to serve as a liaison between the CPRC and the police department as helping in bridging the gap between the two entities. Police officers in the department had more positive feelings about the CPRC's role in their professional lives because its practices were no longer unknown to them, Adams said. Those were interesting comments coming from a council member who had received over $15,000 in campaign contributions from the RPOA's political action committee when he ran for city council in 2003. All of the political candidates except for Mayor Ron Loveridge who had received financial contributions from the RPOA had publicly voiced their opposition to the CPRC either before or after they were elected to office.

Perhaps this is a sign that the tide is turning in favor of the CPRC in civic circles and it has woven itself more permanently into the city's fabric.


CPRC Stats:

(Source: CPRC Semi-annual Report)

Number of complaints:

2005: 58

2006: 38

Disposition of complaints:

Sustained:

2005: 18%

2006: 13%

Not Sustained:

2005: 19%

2006: 28%

Unfounded:

2005: 38%

2006: 42%

Exonerated:

2005: 19%

2006: 13%







RPD investigation and administrative processing:*

(Source: CPRC Monthly Reports)

January 2006:

Category 1(serious allegations including excessive force): 138 days

Category 2(less serious allegations): 102 days

February 2006:

198 days

180 days

March 2006:

N/A

N/A

April 2006:

230 days

143 days

May 2006:

116 days

121 days

June 2006:

154 days

134 days


CPRC processing and review:

January 2006:

Category 1(serious allegations including excessive force): 71 days

Category 2(less serious allegations): 51 days

February 2006:

19 days

42 days

March 2006:

N/A

N/A

April 2006:

77 days

99 days

May 2006:

79 days

99 days

June 2006:

57 days

42 days

*RPD policy 4.12(sections 5,6) state that the established goal time frames for category 1 complaints is 60 days and for category 2 complaints, 30 days. For time extensions, a division commander will seek approval from the Personnel Services/Internal Affairs Commander.

CPRC Special Meeting: Terry Rabb

The Community Police Review Commission has scheduled a special meeting to approve the final draft of its public report on the officer-involved-death case involving Terry Rabb.

Date: Wednesday, Aug. 23, 2006

Time: 5:30pm

Location: Riverside Utility Building, 3901 Orange St.(1/2 block east of City Hall)

The CPRC was briefed on its own investigation of the Rabb incident by its private investigator Butch Warnberg at its last meeting. Then its members began collectively to draft a report to release to the public, detailing its narrative and analysis of the incident.

After the public report is approved by the CPRC, it will meet in closed session to determine whether or not the officers acted within departmental policy during the Rabb incident. That meeting is tentatively scheduled for the second Wednesday in September.

Earlier on Aug. 23, at 4:30pm, the CPRC will meet in closed session to determine whether or not the officer-involved shooting of Todd Argow was within the department's policy regarding the use of lethal force. It is expected that the CPRC will back its investigator's own findings and determine that the shooting was within policy.

CPRC Public Report: Todd Argow

(Adobe Acrobat required)

Other officer-involved death reports
(Adobe Acrobat required)

Summer Lane

Finding: Outside of policy

Volne Lamont Stokes

Finding: Within policy

Rene Guevara

Finding: Within policy

Vanpaseuth Phaisouphanh

Finding: Within policy

Sunday, August 20, 2006

CPRC Watch and Wait

This entry is what is officially referred to as a CPRC request watch for information requested in relation to the shooting of Lee Deante Brown earlier this year.

On July 24, 2006, I submitted a written request under the California Public Records Act to the police department to obtain documents and records in relation to several of the reforms that were to continue after the stipulated judgment was dissolved in March. I also asked for the department's policies and procedures pertaining to both the issuance and usage of tasers by its police officers. In addition to this information, I had requested copies of the training that each officer receives in regards to using tasers as well as statistical information on their usage and how many officers in the department were actually equipped with these devices. Included in the information I had requested with regards to taser training was what measures were taken during this training to avoid the occurrence of "friendly fire" discharges. The department had admitted that there were taser issues arising from the Lee Deante Brown shooting.

Under state law, the department was required to issue a written response either granting the request in full, granting it in part or denying it entirely within 10 days unless it had asked for an extension of time to determine what its response would be.

The CPRA law states:

California Government Code §6256. Any person may receive a copy of any identifiable public record or copy thereof. Upon request, an exact copy shall be provided unless impracticable to do so. Computer data shall be provided in a form determined by the agency.

Each agency, upon any request for a copy of records shall determine within 10 days after the receipt of such request whether to comply with the request and shall immediately notify the person making the request of such determination andthe reasonss thereforeer.


As of Aug. 22, I have not received a response to this written request either in writing or in any other format. Perhaps the written request for public information got lost in the process of its delivery to those who make the decisions of what information is to be released to the public and what information is not. Perhaps it is sitting on a stack of paperwork in an office some where waiting to be addressed. Perhaps it got lost through the mail service on its way back to me.

These possible explanations may be what actually took place in terms of why this CPRA request did not receive a written response. The only problem with them is that this was actually the second request that did not receive a written response from the police department involving several of the same issues.

An earlier request under the CPRA for similar information made last spring pertaining to department issued tasers also failed to elicit any written response from the department. A department representative later said that copies of the requested information including the department's own written policies could not be handed over to me or anyone else until the department had completed its own investigation into the Brown shooting. A shooting investigation by the police department usually takes from about five months to nearly a year to complete so this public information will remain out of the public's hands until after that period of time has passed. Essentially, it could take up to a year to receive even a copy of policies from the police department, pertaining not only to the use of department issued tasers but also addressing how the agency's police officers interface with mentally ill or incapacitated individuals in accordance with any existing policy.

The legal requirement held by the responding agency in terms of denial or delay is also included in this text.

California Government Code §6256.2. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to permit an agency to delay access for purposes of inspecting public records. Any notification of denial of any request for records shall set forth the names and titles or positions of each person responsible for the denial.

What's funny about this situation involving departmental policies is that only several years ago, the department(upon request of the CPRC and several community members) had donated a volume of its policy and procedure manual to the Riverside City Public Library located in downtown Riverside for public access. All a person visiting the library had to do was remove the thick blue manual with the department's emblem off of the reference shelf and read it to find out for themselves what policies and procedures governed the actions and practices of their public servants. This practice worked for nearly a year, until one day the thick blue binder disappeared from the reference shelf of the library, the official explanation being that it had been returned to the police department to be "updated" to include either new policies or policies that had undergone revision. The blue binder has been missing in action from the library for about three years now.

If you were unable to get to the main library to read this binder, you could also submit a request in writing under the CPRA to obtain a copy of any policy that was included in that manual. In fact, I had received copies of numerous policies from the department using this method without experiencing any problems. Until these two times.

It is odd that no written response has been received from the department involving two CPRA requests made since the Brown shooting. Before this incident occurred, this same department had an excellent record of responding to my CPRA requests in a prompt manner whether it granted the request or not. Many of my requests for information were granted at least in part and several in total. Not many governmental agencies have been as cooperative with CPRA requests as the RPD has been in the past several years and the agency deserves credit for that. So where are the current problems coming from?

Some have opinionated that the problems might not be with the police department at all, but instead lie at the door of the city's risk management division. After all, civil litigation in the form of claims for damages and actual law suits have been filed involving three out of the department's last four fatal critical incidents. The family members of Summer Lane have filed civil litigation agains the city and individuals who are related to both Terry Rabb and Brown have also recently filed claims with the City Attorney's office, in relation to those two incidents. Such claims, which are routinely denied, usually serve as precursors for law suits filed in either federal or state district court. Consequently, thousands of dollars will be spent on attorneys' and court's fees for years and down the line, even more money could be potentially paid out in settlements and through jury verdicts if any of the law suits go to trial and returns with unfavorable results for the city. That happened with one law suit that went to trial in U.S. District Court twice in 1999.

However, true or not, that is neither here nor there, when it comes to the public's right under the state's "sunshine" laws to access public documents even those that may not place the department in the best position if they are released. Without "sunshine laws" and the public's right to access information about their governmental agencies, then it is difficult or even impossible for there to be any meaningful accountability inside those agencies in terms of how they serve the public.

If a department said that it can not give out even copies of its policies that are considered public information, until after a shooting investigation is complete as was said earlier this year, then that action is more indicative of a situation where those decisions are being made in accordance with risk management and fiscal liability concerns. Unfortunately, in situations like this if they occur, every other issue, even those pertaining to the safety of community members and departmental employees comes further down the list of priorities because it is difficult for them to compete with the fiscal reality of a department being sued or potentially sued in relation to a critical incident. The department is not an independent agency, but is under the jurisdiction of the city, including its city attorney's office and risk management divisions and thus must abide by decisions coming out of those departments on how it conducts at least this part of its business. In fact, most if not all of my CPRA requests to the police department have included in the written responses, language indicating that a representative of the city attorney's office, most often Asst. City Attorney Jeb Brown, had provided legal advice on the issue and/or had received a copy of the department's response to my requests.

The way to improve a potential risk management situation is to increase the safety of everyone involved, and addressing any serious problems or safety issues especially any arising from critical incidents. Inviting those with a stake in the process, the department, the city and the community, to have a voice in a process that is as transparent as possible is very important. Doing so allows the public to see that the department is committed to addressing issues and solving any actual or potential problems.

The answer is not to simply become reluctant to disclose personal information because you are worried that the truth might put you in a less than positive light in front of a jury.


For more information on the CPRA, here are some links.

California First Amendment Coalition

Web site with information on California's "sunshine" laws including the Brown Act(public meetings access) and the California Public Records Act.

CPRA law text

The nitty gritty of the CPRA.

CPRA letter template

How to write a CPRA request letter.

Saturday, August 05, 2006

Black Men Acting Strangely, Are they on PCP?

Lee Deante Brown.
Terry Rabb.

Two Black men, both acting strangely in two separate incidents six months apart. Both died during or after encounters with Riverside Police Department officers. Both cases under investigation by both the Riverside Police Department and the Community Police Review Commission.

One might have been mentally ill. The other was certainly physically ill. In both cases, there would be allegations that these two men either were under the influence of PCP or that officers had believed that this could be true.

On April 3, Brown was shot and killed by a Riverside Police Department officer.
Three months after his death, his family filed a wrongful death claim against the city of Riverside.

"We think the system broke down on several levels," said Brian Dunn, a Los Angeles-based lawyer who is representing Brown's family. "I have not heard anything that suggested to me that he had to be shot out there."

In fact, not much has been said about the shooting at all by the police department since it briefed the CPRC on the events leading up to and including Brown's death. What's known is that officers were called to respond to reports that Brown was walking down the street, shouting and engaging in strange behavior including lying down in the street and exposing himself to other people. The department's briefing before the CPRC provided the following narrative of the shooting.

Officer Michael Paul Stucker was monitoring his radio and drove his squad car to the Welcome Inn, at the corner of Ottawa and University Avenue. When Stucker arrived, Brown was sitting in a corner of the parking lot, near several motel rooms. Stucker got out of his vehicle and approached him after hearing from a resident that Brown might be under the influence of PCP. Stucker then issued verbal commands and when Brown did not comply, he shocked him with his department issued taser. Officer Terry Ellefson, who had SWAT training, then arrived and assisted Stucker, after telling him not to tase Brown because Ellefson was standing too close to him. Ellefson then tried to handcuff Brown and was able to place the handcuffs on one arm. Brown continued to struggle and he and the two officers moved closer to the middle of the parking lot. Ellefson tased Brown and Stucker hit him several times in the legs with the baton. After he had tased Brown, Ellefson then fired two shots at Brown from his service weapon because he alleged that Brown had grabbed his taser and he was in fear for his safety. Brown fell on the ground and later died from gunshot wounds to the chest after being transported to a local hospital.

No civilian witness who was in the vicinity reported seeing anything in Brown's hand when Ellefson shot him. One recent report came from a woman who was ironically, a mental health expert. She had been driving down University Avenue when the shooting took place. She saw Brown fall to the ground, and like other civilian witnesses, did not see anything in his hands.

Pretty quickly, it became evident that more than one individual's safety might have been endangered that day, before Ellefson fired his gun.

It turned out that Brown was not the only individual who apparently had been shocked by Ellefson's taser. Stucker also had been struck by a taser dart in his hand around the time Ellefson used his taser on Brown. As a result, he briefly lost control of his hand and arm after tens of thousands of volts of electricity ran through his body. An officer who loses his ability to control himself due to being shocked by a taser is thus placed in a dangerous and vulnerable position. He would not be able to defend himself in an altercation and thus could potentially be in fear for his safety, correct?

After all, that's the same argument that was used by the department to explain why Ellefson resorted to using lethal force against Brown. The department stated that if Brown had gained control of Ellefson's taser, then he could have used it against Ellefson, thus potentially incapacitating him and placing his life in danger. Ironically, it might have been Ellefson himself that demonstrated that scenario on his own partner.

Initially, a department representative had said that it was not clear which officer's taser was the source of the dart that had struck Stucker in the hand. However, Stucker had used his taser in the initial few minutes of his encounter with Brown and it is unlikely that he shot himself with his own taser. That only leaves one taser present at the scene that could have been responsible, which would have been Ellefson's, with one dart hitting Stucker and the other dart apparently striking Brown.

At the time Stucker was allegedly hit by one of the darts from Ellefson's taser, he was standing in close proximity to Brown, trying to grab the loose handcuff fastened to one of Brown's arms, according to the department's own version of events. Ellefson fired his taser anyway, despite having warned Stucker earlier not to fire his taser at Brown until Ellefson removed the darts from a prior usage. Ellefson likely said this because he was standing in such close proximity to Brown at the time and recognized the potential danger of that situation. Perhaps this had been part of the training he had received at some point on taser usage. It is not clear that either Stucker or Ellefson were standing at an appropriate safe distance when discharging their tasers from the information provided thus far by the police department. Witnesses said that both officers were fairly close to Brown at all times during the incident including when the tasers were discharged.

The departmental representative who provided the briefing to the CPRC never actually said that Stucker had been struck by "friendly fire" but mentioned that at some point, Stucker had felt an intense electrical shock running through his body and that there was a taser dart fastened to one of his hands. There was no explanation as to how the taser dart became attached to an officer who was not its intended target. The department representative initially attributed the electric shock felt by Stucker to Brown had grabbing his arm while he was being tased by Ellefson, during that same briefing. However, it was fairly clear to anyone who listened to the briefing what had really happened. If you feel an electric shock passing through your body and you have a taser dart sticking to any part of your body, then you probably have been tased, whether it was intentional or not.

Toxicology issues also reared their heads, with the issue of PCP intoxication in the case of Brown.

As is standard for an officer-involved death, the police department performed a toxicology screening on Brown, for alcohol and controlled substances. In this case, the test was expedited by Chief Russ Leach, a fact he relayed at a community meeting that took place two days after the shooting.

The department ran its screenings on Brown, but remain mum about the results, even though departmental representatives had brought up PCP intoxication at several community meetings as a possible reason for Brown's erratic behavior. Most likely, this conclusion had been drawn because Brown had been arrested by police officers for being under the influence of a controlled substance several days before his fatal shooting. In fact, one unidentified correspondent here claimed that it had taken seven RPD officers to get Brown inside the squad car. On the day of the shooting, one of the witnesses had allegedly told Stucker that Brown might be under the influence of PCP. Stucker's reaction to that news was to approach Brown and issue verbal commands, without waiting for any backup assistance. This, despite oft-repeated stories about individuals on PCP displaying super human strength and being nearly impervious to pain or other external stimuli. However, PCP usage has decreased markedly since the 1980s so maybe that has impacted the training the newer officers have received on apprehending individuals on PCP. At the time Stucker approached him, Brown was on the ground, behaving fairly quietly.

Despite the initial attention given to PCP, the issue of mental illness soon entered into the discussions of the shooting as well, beginning on the day that it took place. Concerned city residents and community leaders wondered out loud if it was time for the department to examine how its officers were interfacing with the mentally ill population which has grown tremendously thanks to policies and procedures put into place for deinstitutionalization of the facilities provided for the mentally ill by former President Ronald Reagan. At least, one out of every nine hospital beds is being used by a patient suffering from schizophrenia, one of several different mental illnesses and about 1/3 of the homeless population suffers from a mental illness. Increasingly, police officers are placed in the position of being the primary responders in terms of interacting with the mentally ill population.

Some of these community leaders including those with backgrounds in mental health issues took their concerns to several community forums that were held to address the shooting soon after it happened. The response from the police department's management appeared to be cautiously receptive. If the department's leadership is intelligent and visionary, then it has already taken the initial steps needed to address this serious issue that will only increase in importance over time.

However, some of the unidentified correspondents here were not buying that mental illness of any kind played a role in the Brown shooting. Last April, one "Anonymous" stated:

"Did a little more, Mary, and I'm sure you'll find out what Mr. Brown's real legacy will be - and it has nothing to do with mental illness awareness."

Correspondent "Asti Spamanti" put in his two cents on the issue of mental illness and law enforcement response as well. In prior statements, "Asti Spamanti" had identified himself as a RPD officer.

"Now as for the mentally ill, can you define that please? Does the mentally ill include those that put illegal substances into their bodies like PCP and rock cocaine-sorry Sandalou, I know you get a little peeved when people start making fun of those who use rock cocaine---Mary, I hearby proclaim that all mentally ill people should be allowed to do whatever they want including imposing threats against cops because they are mentally ill!!!!"

Disturbingly, race entered into the fray.

During the past eight months, unidentified correspondents including "Asti Spamanti", "Starksy" and others had made numerous comments about the relationship between African-Americans and illegal drug use especially crack or rock cocaine. Some unidentified individuals went further and appropriated stereotypes in their comments.

"RPD does a good job. They took the crack right out of my ass and put me in jail. Now, I'm an upstanding citizen. Mary...leave those RPD guys alone. Come see me on the corner of Douglas/University and i'll take care of your underlying problem. You need some dick.....

Sincerly Huggy Bear"

They also fabricated quotes and attributed them to famous African-Americans involving drug use to *prove* their points.

"He who smoketh the fattest rock will get the biggest high."---Rick James...

Then there are the numerous comments made by unidentified individuals about how Hispanics were "gangsters", African-Americans were "drug addicts or dealers" and the crime victims unless they were White, did not have any racial identity at all.

"Starsky"'s statement that he provided last December provided this portrait of how these individuals viewed society in a succinct fashion.

"Afterall, with all of the time spent trying to rehabilitate our youth (particularly on the East side) and all of the stipulations and politics that have created a reactive police force instead of a pro-active one, there are still a number of black males with big afros selling rock cocaine and pimpin hookers; and there are still Hispanic gangters claiming turf and shooting innocent citizens; and there are still a large number of blacks pointing guns at the faces of innocent shop owners and employees and tying them up and taking things that don't belong to them while devestating these inncocent victims for life. Yup, the more things change,the more they stay the same!!!"

"Starsky" clearly is correct in that there are indeed Hispanics in gangs and African-Americans committing crimes. However, no where in his comments does "Starsky"(or any of the other commentators, for that matter) ever talk about African-Americans in any other context besides that of being criminals. These attitudes regarding African-Americans even extended to discussion of several officers employed by the RPD. Roger "Charlie 211" Sutton and the two Black officers involved in the 1997 Lake Evans incident appeared to represent the epitome of Black officers in the RPD to several of these unidentified correspondents.

Equally apparent is how "Starsky" and others view victims of crimes as being without race. None of these commentators ever depict African-Americans or Hispanics as being crime victims, even when discussing crime in communities where members of these two racial groups make up the vast majority of the crime victims. The "innocent shop victims" and the "vendors" are not assigned racial identities, like those who victimize them are so readily in comments made here. The 10-year-old boy who was shot last Christmas also does not have a racial identity, even though he was Hispanic, although his suspected killers did.

If these individuals are indeed police officers like they have claimed to be, then how they view both perpetrators and victims along racial lines can affect how they deal with not only individuals comprising both groups, but individuals who belong to different racial groups. If an African-American man can be so readily labeled as a drug dealer or crack cocaine addict but can not just as easily be referred to as a victim or at least a person in need of assistance, how is that going to impact how an African-American man is viewed by police officers if he is suffering from a physical or mental illness that manifests itself in ways that makes him appear "crazy" or "hostile"?

After all, the fatal shooting of Tyisha Miller in 1998 originated as a 911 call for emergency medical assistance and ended with 12 bullets in her body and many more passing through her vehicle.

How many officers would look at a Black man experiencing symptoms similar to those shown by Brown or Rabb and think that he might be under the influence of an illegal drug? How many of them would still think this even after informed that he was suffering from a medical condition or a mental illness?

In November 2004, police officers fired dozens of rounds of less lethal munitions at a Black man suffering from mental illness who was trespassing on someone's roof. Fire fighters sprayed the man with their fire hoses, adding to his injuries. A version of this incident was related on this blog last November by an unidentified individual who called himself "Starsky" and claimed to be a RPD officer. Perhaps, if that incident had not been complicated by its own investigation and what it apparently uncovered, it could have been the watershed incident in terms of addressing the issue of mental illness. Unfortunately, for Rabb and Brown that would have to wait.

However, "Asti Spamanti"'s concerns about African-Americans and their drugs of choice became moot because it's still not clear whether or not Brown was even under the influence of PCP when he was shot. The police department is not making any claims either way while it conducts its own criminal investigation as well as its administrative review of that investigation. Likely, any toxicological test results(probably negative for PCP) will first be made public when the CPRC receives its briefing from its own investigator on the shooting in the upcoming months.

Unfortunately, that will make it appear as if the CPRC is detailing the facts and the department is keeping them under wraps. This is due in large part to the fact that after the department appears before the CPRC and gives the initial briefing on an officer-involved death, it closes its mouth on the matter in terms of public disclosure. In the past, it has stated that state law and the police officers' bill of rights require it to be circumspect about its inhouse investigations including officer involved deaths.

There has also been silence from the department in the public arena on whether or not it plans to implement a program geared towards dealing with individuals who are mentally ill or medically incapacitated. Some community leaders had expressed hopes that the department would adopt a program similar to DMH/SMART in Los Angeles or the renowned Memphis Police Department's program.

Southern California LE agencies' mental illness intervention programs

Memphis Police Department's CIT program

Several fatal incidents involving RPD officers and civilians in recent years have had either mental or medical conditions involved as contributory factors in terms of the behavior they exhibited that officers said left them with no alternative but to shoot them.

In November 2005, Todd Argow, a White man and a former city manager who suffered from depression, was shot and killed by Officer Terry Ellefson after he came outside of his house with an unloaded shotgun. Earlier, Argow had told one of his neighbors during a phone call that he had planned to commit "suicide by cop". The shooting was found to be in policy by the police department, a finding which will most likely be seconded by the CPRC in the next several weeks.

Mental illnesses like depression can greatly impact behavior. So can other types of medical conditions, which was apparent when examining the events leading up to the incustody death of Rabb.

Currently, the CPRC is drafting its public report for the incustody death involving Rabb. Its investigator Butch Warnberg presented his findings to the commission last week.

In October 2005, Rabb, who was a diabetic, died at a local hospital soon after he allegedly struggled with police officers who were called to assist paramedics in dealing with a "hostile" man. According to a briefing given by the police department on this incident, Rabb had been exhibiting symptoms of a diabetic episode throughout that day, culminating in the incident that led to his contact with both law enforcement and medical personnel.

Fire fighters onscene said that Rabb appeared to be in an "altered" state. They recognized his symptoms as being similar to what is seen in diabetics suffering from severe hypoglycemia, based on their statements to the CPRC's investigators. Hypoglycemic attacks can affect various bodily organs including the brain where it induces a mental state known as "hypoglycemic unawareness". Non-epileptic seizures and convulsions which can lead to unconsciousness may also occur with a severe hypoglycemic attack. Other symptoms include tremors, irritability, impaired judgment, anxiety, glassy looks, combativeness and slurred speech, all of which were exhibited by Rabb.

However, according to several witnesses, Officer Camillo Bonome made statements that indicated that he had a different theory that explained Rabb's behavior. Cathy Jones said in her interview with Warnberg that Bonome had said that he thought Rabb was on some sort of illegal drug, either crack cocaine or PCP. Hearing him say these words made her very angry with him, Jones admitted. Warnberg stated in his report that if these allegations were true, then it could have escalated the situation.

"If such statements were indeed made, they would have only served to inflame and disrupt an already chaotic scene and would have been a tactical error," Warnberg stated.

Rabb had exhibited signs that were similar to those exhibited by a person under the influence of a stimulant. However, in this particular situation, family members had informed the 911 dispatcher about Rabb's extensive medical problems, as related on the incident's CAD sheet. Fire fighters were able to identify the signs of severe hypoglycemia and were acting accordingly. Warnberg stated in his report that it appeared that the officers did not recognize Rabb's behavior as being indicative of any medical condition. In fact, he believed that the opposite might have occurred. That they may have believed that he was manifesting symptoms that were not related to any medical illness. If this is true, then it might have impacted how both officers acted in the situation. To them, was Rabb a seriously ill man or a relatively healthy drug addict?

That question is one that needed to be answered. The only problem is that apparently it was not even asked because these alleged statements made by Bonome apparently went uninvestigated.
Warnberg stated that there was no evidence whether the alleged statements were actually made by Bonome or not. What he was able to conclude is that the alleged statements were not investigated by the police department's homicide investigators assigned to the Rabb case. Even though in these cases the officers are often the last parties to be interviewed, it appeared that the detectives never asked either Bonome or Officer John Garcia about allegations that these statements had been heard by several witnesses. They never allowed them the opportunity to admit or deny making these statements, instead leaving the issue open to question. A situation which simply raises more questions.

Because the officers were dispatched to the call, current RPD policy did not require them to activate their department-issued digital audio recorders and it is not clear whether or not either officer did. The fire fighters said in their statements that they were too busy tending to Rabb to have overheard any conversations between the police officers and civilian witnesses.

Bonome did turn on his digital audio recorder after Rabb had gone into cardiac arrest, according to statement he gave to investigators. This information was provided in Warnberg's report. The reason Bonome gave for doing so was because he believed that the civilians present were upset about the incident and he wanted to protect himself from false allegations. About his use of force, Bonome stated that he and Garcia had shown a "tremendous amount of restraint" in the midst of Rabb's actions and threats, according to Warnberg's report.

The police investigators did ask both police officers about another allegation made by three civilian witnesses that one of them had hit Rabb in the face or neck with a closed fist while attempting to perform the carotid restraint. Bonome said he did not do it. Garcia said he had not done it either and that he had not seen Bonome do it, although he admitted that at one point in the altercation, he had been too busy handcuffing Rabb to see what Bonome was doing. Fire fighter Patrick Hopkins said he did not see either officer hit Rabb. At one point, Hopkins was assisting the officers in handcuffing Rabb by holding one of his arms steady, according to his interview with the CPRC's investigators.

The autopsy report for Rabb stated that there did not appear to be any bruising on his face consistent with a strike to it nor were there any obvious bruiseds or marks on his neck indicating that the cartoid restraint had been used.

According to an autopsy report submitted by the Riverside County Sheriff's/Coroner's Department, Rabb died of heart disease complicated by his diabetes and related kidney problems. Warnberg stated that Rabb's death was by cardiac arrest following his restraint by the police officer. His toxicology tests were negative for both crack and PCP, showing only the presence of THC, an ingredient found in marijuana.

Two members of Rabb's family filed claims with the city of Riverside alleging that excessive force was used against Rabb by members of both the RPD and the fire department. Claims filed in the cases of Brown and Rabb join at least one law suit filed last year involving the 2004 shooting death of Summer Lane.

The city routinely denies claims, which are often precursors to civil law suits.

Family Files Claim in Officer-Involved Shooting Death
Family files claims in Terry Rabb OID

Friday, July 07, 2006

State of the Unions

As the new fiscal year has begun for the city of Riverside, so continues one of its most contentious showdowns between the various bargaining units of city employees and city management.

The SEIU, which represents a large proportion of city employees in many different departments has been shut out of its own negotiation talks at least once since it started. The reason given by the office of City Manager Brad Hudson was that that unit's negotiators had brought two individuals with them to sit in on the talks. Hundreds of members of the SEIU led by their leader, Gregory Hagans appeared at city council meetings to protest this unfair treatment.

The city of Riverside is not the county, they told former Riverside County employee Brad Hudson, who as usual was chatting with City Attorney Gregory Priamos, with the microphones off. It is doubtful that he heard them.

Both the RPOA and the administrators' association have also been negotiating for salary hikes, but it is not clear what if any raises lie at the end of the arduous process that takes place usually once every two years.

If you want good, ethical professionals to become and remain police officers in this department, then they must be paid well. You do get what you pay for, in this area. A better adage might be, pay now or pay out a much greater sum later. Hopefully, the city management will remember this, each time it sits at the table. After all, as Hudson and others have said, the city is flush with money at this time. The city leadership had created 25 new police officer positions last year, and promised to repeat that performance this year.

One anonymous correspondent here predicted that the city would offer the police officers a huge pay raise to stem off the alleged flow of younger officers leaving the police department.

"city hall doesnt understand why so many officers want to leave and department heads are hoping that a hefty pay increase in July will stop the bleeding and stop young officers from leaving."

This was based on the statistic they offered up that eight officers had left the department to head off to greener pastures during a fairly short period. However, seven officers including six from the beleaguered Rialto Police Department have lateraled out of that agency and took positions in this department.

At the RPD's job fair held at Bordwell Park, Capt. Pete Esquival who heads the Personnel and Training Division appeared to send a different message. He said that Chief Russ Leach had ordered him to reduce the department's vacancy rate to zero, by the end of June. By mid-June, that was close to being done, he said. While he spoke, over 150 applicants including 30 women were inside the Stratton Center taking their first steps down the road of becoming RPD officers. Most will not make it and of those that do, Esquival said they will be placed on an eligibility list until positions open up.

Of course, there is a difference between recruiting officers and retaining them, and paying them well is one way to improve retention. However, if serious problems exist, it can never be a solution. You can not throw money at a problem and make it go away. Any problems that exist must be identified and addressed, before they take root and become crises. Too often, in Riverside's case, that had not been done.

In the meantime, various factions of the police department were busy at work trying to plump up the carrot needed to attract qualified applicants, which is the hopes of receiving a healthy pay check and good benefits including pensions.

Heading the negotiation efforts for the majority of the RPD's officers was its bargaining unit from the RPOA, which came fresh off its biennial elections with brand new leadership. The elections appeared to have been a contentious process, according to an earlier conversation that took place on this blog last October.

One unidentified individual started it off by expressing his displeasure with the then-current administration. He apparently believed that it was time for a change at the helm. Pat McCarthy was the current president at that time and had been for nearly four years. He had taken over the presidency from former Sgt. Jay Theuer as an officer and as is customary, was eventually promoted to sergeant. David Martin was apparently one of his challengers for the top spot.
Perhaps, this individual believed that this blog was as good place as any to put out a campaign pitch for his favorite candidate.

"Pat McCarthy is a company man with the company plan..Worthless...Dave Martin For RPOA President."

Another unidentified individual took serious objection to this criticism and responded back with the following harsh words.

Dave Martin is a disgruntled Long Beach PD washout who thinks all things are wrong....Pat McCarthy for Re-election!

Well, one member of the David Martin camp was not going to take this slam against their candidate sitting down so they responded in kind.

Why would we re-elect Pat? He has let the Admin walk all over us so he could get his Sgt Stripes. He continues to let them walk over us because he is on Sgt probation. Pat...you got what you wanted. Now let someone who really cares about troop wellfare, not his golf handycap step in and fix all this BS. Pat...what have you done as RPOA Pres? You'll say "I got you two raises"...BFD...You suck Pat.DAVE MARTIN for RPOA Pres...He's the only choice..Tut wants to be a Sgt too.

This would not be the last comment we would read from this particular unidentified individual. He did not elaborate what he meant by "BS". That would have to wait for another day.

"Tut" by the way, was Det. Kent Tutwiler, who wound up winning the election when the votes were tallied. He promised in a Press Enterprise article published after the election that he would not try to be promoted to sergeant while he was in office. So far he has kept his promise, serving on a board which has seen a lot of officers promoted while on it especially in the first couple of years after the city entered into its consent decree with the State Attorney General's office. If McCarthy had gotten promoted while he served on the RPOA board, he was hardly the first one to have been so, yet his promotion apparently brought on some criticism by at least one individual. Tutwiler's promise to his charges seemed to reflect that the issue may have been a bone of contention during the process.

Tutwiler also promised to concentrate on issues pertaining to increasing officer position, salary negotiations and officer safety. He reactivated the Safety subcommittee, currently helmed by Officer Richard Aceves and even met with the CPRC director, Pedro Payne. But still there were hearts, minds and an election to win.

Clearly, the groundwork had been laid out for the upcoming election, in that the lines had been drawn between individuals who were dissatisfied with the current leadership and others who believed that the status quo was the way to go. Somehow, both perspectives managed to find their way here, though those who were dissatisfied would soon dominate. Perhaps that was because in the real world, they could not get their message out. Perhaps they felt shut off from both the RPOA leadership and department management.

One unidentified individual who called himself "A Lighter Shade of Brown" lamented over this in a comment made last autumn, while expressing his concern over an officer who he alleged was a bank robber called "Charles 211".

"As for officers going to the union or complaining to the admin, it usually does not work and that's probably why it did not happen (can't say for sure but just a guess). "

Issues arose including whether or not it was a conflict of interest to be promoted by departmental management while at the helm of the RPOA. McCarthy's promotion had clearly created a reaction of some form and galvanized a response. Did it cost him the election, or was it simply that there was a growing faction in the RPOA that was becoming more resistant to pressures put upon it by a management that had itself felt pressure from an outside agency for the past five years?

Perhaps, the newer officers, in a department that had turned over approximately 80% of its rank and file were making their presence known. Even wrestling two pay raises out of the city's management during more economically difficult times did not ensure a longer tenure at the helm for the current president. The newer officers hold the bulk of the votes unless apathy towards the process muted their participation, a state which would mirror that of the nation's voting population.

From the outside, some individuals look at the RPOA as a mixture of the most militant politically-motivated officers in the department and with some boards, that has clearly been apparent. But if this true, then it is not much different from the politics that have shaped other employment unions. Ultimately, it is the members that shape their union's leadership through the votes they cast in its elections and through the meetings they attend or the committees they participate on. They alone can extend the period of their leadership's tenure or hand it a pink slip and send it packing.

After the dust from the election had settled, police officers both representing the RPOA's leadership and the department's management congregated at City Hall to support Leach who was there, awaiting a vote which would determine whether or not he would be given a five-year contract to continue as head of the department. An interesting development considering it had been placed on the consent calendar and unless pulled, would not be discussed or voted upon separately. The consent calendar was approved en masse without fanfare by the city council, and the chief's contract remained on that list. A huge sigh of relief appeared to fill the chambers after the vote took place, as if there had been any doubt.

Whether that action was taken in anticipation of the upcoming dissolution of the marriage of convenience between the city of Riverside and the State Attorney General's office was a topic of speculation. After all, the RPD had gone through its fair share of police chiefs during the past decade or so. At least three were sent packing by the RPOA, after relatively short stints. Leach has served as chief almost six years, with five of them spent in a police department that was under the thumb of the State Attorney General's office. But, that tether was set to be untied on March 6, 2006 and the department would be heading off into the great unknown.

Still on that road, there are those who remain critical of the department, including several unidentified individuals who posted here like "Kevin, RPD".

"People in our department who voice there opinions, or speak out against incompetent administration suffer professionally...You want to talk about oppression?"

And "Asti Spamanti", who appeared to be pondering his future options in a department where although White male officers remain its majority, they have become victims of racism and sexism within the ranks in his opinion.

"They have created an atmosphere where it's every man for himself. No entity practices racism and discrimination more than the highest members of management in the department-fortunately for the public, you don't have to worry because it's not against you-it's against their own officers. But, hey, we make a lot of money. It's no longer about saving lives and protecting the public, it's about promoting to the next level at all costs. "

Yet, it is not clear how many officers in the department share these same sentiments. It is not clear on which road this department will travel as it implements its court-mandated Strategic Plan. The history can either be learned from, or it will be repeated until its lessons take root.

Monday, June 19, 2006

Drops in the Bucket

As the mercury hit over 100 degrees several weeks ago, there were no rain drops in sight. There were however, drops in the bucket.

On May 31, Presiding Judge Richard Fields dismissed murder charges against two defendants standing trial for the 2002 fatal shooting of Black teenager, Anthony Sweat and ordered them to be released from custody. Riverside County District Attorney's Office prosecutor, John Molloy asked for the dismissal after he had turned over new discovery to the men's defense attorneys.

This discovery allegedly pertained to DNA tests that were taken on evidence obtained from clothing discarded with a gun near the crime scene. According to their attorneys, the two defendants tested negative and Molloy presented this exculpatory evidence to the defense attorneys, before asking that the charges be dismissed. Molloy said that the charges may be refiled against the defendants later on or that the investigation may be headed in a different direction altogether.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The city met recently in closed session to receive legal advice from the City Attorney's office on its appeal of the reinstatement of former Det. Al Kennedy.

Kennedy was fired by Chief Russ Leach in 2001 after an internal investigation revealed that he had sexual relations with an alleged rape victim from a case under his investigation. Initially, a divisional captain recommended that he be served with a written reprimand for his misconduct. Former Deputy Chief Audrey Wilson then recommended that he receive a brief suspension, according to court documents.

Former Lt. Jay Theuer in a scathing memo, had blamed Kennedy's transgressions on staffing problems in the department's Sexual Assault and Child Abuse Division, according to court records.

Kennedy appealed his suspension in arbitration and it was overturned, although he was not awarded any back pay for the three years that had passed since his termination. That action left all involved parties scratching their heads and heading off to court. The city quickly appealed the arbitrator's finding in Riverside County Superior Court. The Court, as it usually does, upheld the arbitrator's decision, so the city appealed that ruling in the Court of Appeals last year.

The city council also voted in closed session to appeal the reinstatement of former officer Vince Thomas who was fired for allegedly molesting a teenaged girl who lived in his household. In its appeal, the city argued that the arbitrator had applied a standard of guilt used in criminal trials to an administrative proceeding.

The San Bernardino County District Attorney's office declined to continue its prosecution of Thomas after two trials resulted in hung juries.

Because in many cases, the courts back the arbitrator's decision, it is very likely that these cases will ultimately return back to the city council for final disposition, meaning that either the officers will be reinstated to the department or more likely, provided with financial incentives in the form of retirements to go away.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

No ruling has been issued thus far in the city's appeal against the $1.64 million jury verdict awarded to Officer Roger Sutton in his racial discrimination, harassment and retaliation law suit.

Last year, a jury had determined that Sutton had been racially discriminated against when he was removed from the department's canine unit after his dog accidentally bit a former police officer. Jury members apparently accepted the argument that Sutton had received disparate treatment in the form of discipline than White officers in the unit had received when their dogs were involved in accidental bites. A half-dozen White canine officers, past and present, had testified at trial about losing control of their dogs and having them either run off or bite other individuals nearby. In their cases, the department treated them as "training issues" rather than as a disciplinary one.

One example cited by Sutton's attorneys was that involving then-Officer Tim Bacon whose dog was involved in an incident that led to the retirement of another officer and severe injuries to himself. Bacon did not receive any discipline for his incident according to trial testimony, has been promoted twice since and currently serves as a lieutenant.

An (as always) unidentified correspondent here had this to say in response, on an earlier thread about the Sutton case:

"In case you haven't heard Lt. Bacon is the departments biggest buffon and Roger Sutton is still one of the worst officers they have."

The jury also decided that Sutton had faced harassment and retaliation after he had sought an examination and redress of his grievances from the police department. The city quickly appealed the jury's decision by filing a motion for a new trial, which Judge Joan Burgess nipped in the bud last January. The city then filed a motion of appeal at the Court of Appeals where it awaits a decision. Although Sutton's case was filed at about the same time as the reverse race and gender discrimination claims filed by a group of White male sergeants, his case still remains unresolved over three years after the other case was settled by the city.

Before the case went to trial, an arbitrator had awarded Sutton $200,000, but the city quickly decided to appeal that. In retrospect, that award might have been a bargain in comparison to the money spent on the proceedings from that date forward.
---------------------------------------------------------------

The police department held a job fair at Bordwell Park in the Eastside this Saturday, June 17. Candidates interested in applying as officers, cadets, crossing guards or dispatchers were encouraged to attend. Hopefully, the fair will have proven to be a success especially if it is indeed true, as at least one unidentified correspondent stated, that there is an exodus of younger officers fleeing from the police department. However, representatives from the police department said that 150 candidates had shown up to take the written exam, with about 20% being women. Since all the department's sworn positions had been filled, those who are qualified to be hired will most likely be placed on an eligibility list.

Tuesday, May 23, 2006

Is the CPRC facing fallout from Summer Lane?

The Community Police Review Commission played to an audience of city residents several weeks ago, but a ghost of two Decembers past dominated the conversation without ever saying a word.


That ghost was Summer Lane, a woman shot and killed by Riverside Police Department officer Ryan Wilson in December 2004.


In December 2004, the police department had briefed the CPRC on the shooting and provided a preliminary narrative of the incident. That night, there was no way to anticipate the fire storm which would erupt the following year. In part that was due to inaccurate information provided at the preliminary briefing, which clashed with that provided in interdepartmental memos written by members of the Officer-Involved Shooting Team before the briefing took place.


In November 2005, the CPRC released a finding that it had found the shooting to be out of departmental policy, the first decision of this kind since the panel began investigating officer-involved deaths in 2001. After reaching that decision in closed session, the CPRC then forwarded it to City Manager Brad Hudson. Many community members believed that the decision would lie in his hands, because the police department had submitted a finding of its own, which was that the shooting was within policy.


Their belief in a process which put the two entities and their findings on equal footing, was misplaced. Hudson opted out of the decision making process altogether and handed it off to Police Chief Russ Leach for a final disposition. Leach backed his department's own finding. Through his decision not to make a decision, Hudson showed clearly just how much, or more accurately, how little importance the commission had inside City Hall.


It appeared that the commissioners who released that finding received that message clearly too.


CPRC Chair Les Davidson told members of the public that the commission's hands were tied


"We are bound by that Charter, " Davidson said, "Our feelings may be different but we have to stay within it."


The Charter, Davidson was referring to, was the city's own Constitution that was first established and ratified in 1907. In it, are the rules and regulations which govern the city's operation including its boards and commissions. Several of these bodies comprised of city residents are included in the city's Charter. In 2005, the CPRC joined this select group.


Ironically, the inclusion of the CPRC in the city's Charter was intended to liberate it. The Charter Review Committee drafted a proposed amendment which would place the CPRC safely away from any political interference by the city council. Many community members believed this step became necessary after the existence of the CPRC was challenged by city council members who opposed it and had received considerable campaign contributions from the Riverside Police Officers Association during their election campaigns. The voters echoed their concerns and passed ballot measure Measure II in every precinct in the city, during the November 2004 election. Even the city council members who had opposed the CPRC were impressed and several said that they would honor the wishes of the voters.


Once it became included in the Charter, only another ballot initiative passed by a majority of the city's voters could abolish or make substantial changes in the operation of the CPRC. Or so members of the public believed.


Now, one year later, the inclusion of the CPRC in the city's Charter was being looked at with new eyes, as just another obstacle in its path toward realizing its full potential. Although it had been once been viewed as a mechanism to preserve the once vulnerable CPRC, now it was seen as a means of restricting its powers even further.


Borrowing a line from the RPOA's infamous anti-Measure II campaign in 2004, Davidson told the other commissioners that their hands were tied. He implored members of the public to petition their elected officials including Mayor Ron Loveridge and the city council to take steps to strengthen the commission.


"It's not that we don't want to do the job," Davidson said, "We can't do the job."


As usual, Commissioner James Ward did not mince words.


"The more I sit on this Commission," Ward said, "The more I'm convinced the city has been sold a bag of goods."


Ward said that the city government was micro managing the CPRC and that through the Lane decision it had shown that the CPRC's role was intended to be solely advisory. He added that not much had changed inside City Hall since the shooting of Tyisha Miller in 1998.


At the beginning of the meeting, Davidson said that he had placed the item on the meeting agenda after he and Vice-Chair Ward met with Leach, Hudson and City Attorney Gregory Priamos. They had discussed key issues but there was not total agreement among all involved parties.


About 20 people attended the CPRC meeting on April 27 and listened to commissioners expressing their frustrations at the apparent limitations of their powers, before walking up to the podium and adding a few of their own.


Rudy Morales, a former member of the Human Relations Commission, took the body to task.


"Get off the chair and do it yourself," he said.


Morales added that when he had served on the HRC's Law Enforcement Policy Advisory Committee years ago, there had been similar problems. But commissioners were in a much better position to push for changes than members of the public.


"Listening to what I heard today, it doesn't sound like we've made much strides, " Morales said.


Morales' words were echoed by other concerned city residents who attended the meeting including other people who had sat on LEPAC before the committee was disbanded in 2000 to make way for the CPRC. Even its prior members had publicly defined LEPAC as a toothless tiger. Was the CPRC ultimately going to follow down its predecessor's path?


The crux of this latest concern centers around the issue of the CPRC's right to investigate officer-involved deaths. According to its own bylaws, the CPRC has the power and right to do the following:


Review and investigate the death of any individual arising out of or in connection with actions of a sworn police officer, regardless of whether a complaint regarding such death has been filed.


This power grew out of a ground swelling of concern that arose from the shooting of Tyisha Miller in 1998. It is no accident that the bylaws, the ordinance which created the CPRC and the charter that gave it a future all state that the CPRC is to investigate in custody deaths. One of the legacies of the Miller incident was how little faith and trust many community members particularly African-Americans had in the ability of a law enforcement agency to investigate its own officers' alleged misconduct. Both the creation of the CPRC and the inclusion of this power were a response to this concern.


"Asti Spamanti", who claimed to be a RPD officer, said the following before storming off.


"Oh, I've got an answer for you. How about this---"Mr. Asti, I do not know when officers should use deadly force because I have not the training or experience to answer that question or make those types of decisions and therefore, I probably should not be condemning these officers for making a decision that people like me, Sandalou, and others who so freuqently speak out against the police, are either afraid to do or incapabale of doing."


His or her words serve as a reminder to why people do not have faith in a police agency's ability to self-investigate. What is really being said here is that no member of the public even has the right to question the actions of any officer, let alone one who has shot and killed a person. These words have been used to refute the need for everything from state-sanctioned oversight of the police department to the creation of the CPRC. These words are still being said today, seven years after the shooting of Miller.


One problem is, that these words also extend to other employees in the police department including its management. To be reminded of this, one needs only to look at what happened during the only known RPD shooting to be determined to be out of policy in its recent history. After the police department decided that the four officers who shot and killed Miller had violated departmental policies, the decision was made by then Chief Jerry Carroll to fire them and their supervisor.


So what happened to Carroll soon after that fateful decision? His fate and his future was essentially decided on the date he made the decision to fire them. Most likely, he even knew it at the time.


The vote to oust him was not one cast by paper ballots, but by razor. Hundreds of razors taken to hundreds of heads, removing every vestige of human hair, as if by doing so, they could exorcise the chief who had betrayed the rank and file with his decision to fire five of its members. Carroll had fired five of their group's members so they were going to fire him in response. That was his first strike against him.


Carroll's "retirement" did not become official until early 2000 amidst a firestorm that erupted after his decision to promote two men of color and a White woman to the position of lieutenant. This action elicited howls of reverse discrimination against White male police officers. He had just committed his second strike.


The city soothed the howls of reverse discrimination by trying to reverse Carroll's promotions with as much vigor as they would later fight against a claim of racial discrimination, harassment and retaliation filed by a Black male officer. Carroll soon accepted a retirement and left the department.


If the tenure of a police chief in the RPD could not survive a decision to fire four officers involved in a shooting determined to be in violation of departmental policy, then it should surprise no one that if a panel of civilians come out with a similar decision on another shooting, its decision would also elicit an angry and passionate response by the same parties.


Given the predicable outcomes of the situation involving the split findings on the Lane shooting, was such a response by those parties even necessary?


The fallout from the Lane shooting is apparent, as the recent pleas by the CPRC's commissioners for the public to appeal to its elected government to strengthen the body's powers have shown. Unfortunately, given the current political climate at City Hall, this is not likely to happen any time soon.


With the already controversial shooting of Lee Deante Brown on the horizon, these questions will again be asked and answered and these concerns will once again be raised by commissioners and members of the public alike.

Monday, May 08, 2006

Will What Goes Up, Come Down?

In the April 22 edition of the Press Enterprise, ran an article asking why the number of citizen complaints received by the Community Police Review Commission had increased 42% in 2005. During 2004, the CPRC had received only 90 complaints, compared to 128 in 2005.


Commission members including former chair, Michael Gardner appeared mystified as to why the CPRC received the highest number of complaints in a single year, since 2002.


One possible reason mentioned by some individuals is that the CPRC had increased its public outreach in 2005, in terms of educating city residents on its roles, responsibilities and most of all, its existence. That makes some sense, because that might indicate that a bigger pool of potential complainants might have been tapped into by the extended outreach.


Gardner appeared to reject that contention in the news article.


"The outreach effort is not intended to fish for complaints," he said.


Okay, that might not have been its intent but that might be its result.


Another possible factor could have been the increased publicity the CPRC received in 2004 which resulted from the passage of Measure II. This measure was created by members of the Charter Review Committee to place the beleaguered commission in the city's charter safely out of the reach of city council members financially backed by the Riverside Police Officers Association's Political Action Committee. In November 2004, 60% of the city's voters spoke loudly and passed Measure II in every precinct in every ward in the city. After that, the city council members backed off and pledged to support it as long as it existed in order to respect the wishes of their voting constituents.


These two explanations are possibilities. There is also another that no one seems eager to suggest, at least not out loud.


That possible explanation to offer up is that allegations of misconduct increased for 2005, because there are continued problems in a police department that has struggled to recreate itself since the shooting of Tyisha Miller in 1998. The fact that sustain rates at least on the CPRC side have increased as well suggests that the department continues to struggle with issues. It will become more apparent if this is indeed the cause if the trend continues in 2006 and beyond. If it does not, then this past year may have been an aberration


The new RPD is a much younger work force with an average age of 24 and three years of experience. Even the sergeants who supervise these officers skew on the young side, due largely to retirements at this level and higher in the past year or so, according to department representatives. Less experienced officers may be more likely to make mistakes involving policies. It is critical that they are properly supervised by experienced sergeants out in the field. It is also important that the department's field training officers are experienced and teach them the new way to do business rather than relying on old patterns.


The racial trends involving those who file complaints continues as it has in past years.


Over 20% of complaints were filed by African-Americans, which is over twice their representation in the city's population. Latino complainants filed 23% of all complaints, Whites, 30 % and Asian-Americans, less than 1%. About 23% of all complaints were filed by people of unknown ethnicity.


An area that continues to concern community members involves the use of excessive force. After all, that is one of the main issues that brought the commission into existence.


The CPRC received 20 allegations of excessive force, a number also nearly double that received in previous years. None of these allegations were sustained, but seven of them received a "not sustained" finding which is assigned when there is not enough evidence presented to make a decision one way or another. It is not clear how many of these allegations were sustained or given a "not sustained" finding from the police department, because it does not circulate its own statistics to members of the public, despite provisions in PC 832.7 that allow it to do so.


The CPRC last sustained an excessive force allegation in October 2004, involving the case of a young Black man who was approached by an officer while he was in his car at Bordwell Park. Both the police department and the city manager's office decided that the allegation was unfounded.


A report submitted to the State Attorney General's office stated that there was one excessive force incident in 2005 and one in 2004, but that there were still investigations pending for incidents in 2005.


In 2005, complaints spiked up higher earlier in the year, leveled off and slightly decreased in the summer, then spiked up again in the autumn to the levels it had hit earlier in the year. This trend caught the attention of many community members off guard especially because it occurred at the tail end of the police department's five year stipulated judgment with the state attorney general's office. Still, only the CPRC commissioners publicly questioned it.


Rising up with the number of complaints was the number of those sustained by the CPRC. Without statistics from the department's Internal Affairs Division, it is unclear whether its trend in this area matched that of the CPRC.


The sustain rate for complaints hit an all-time high of 19%. That was nearly double the rate calculated for 2004, which was 10%. It had hovered between 10% and 13% the last three years.


Interestingly enough, for the first time, there were allegations of criminal conduct sustained by the CPRC. In 2005, the CPRC sustained six allegations of criminal conduct and also sustained two allegations of false reporting(if it involves falsifying a police report, that's a felony under the penal code in most jurisdictions).


The article stated that criminal allegations involving two officers who allegedly planted evidence in the same case were sustained. It is not clear whether or not the department sustained the allegations as well, but the involved officers are no longer with the police department. The Riverside County District Attorney's office declined to file criminal charges against them, which reveals very little about the veracity of the charges because they rarely file criminal charges of any kind against RPD officers.


It is also not clear whether the officers were fired, pressured to resign in lieu of termination or they simply lateraled to other agencies. It appears clear that they are longer at this department.


What is disturbing about this incident besides the obvious is whether these allegations of evidence planting would have ever come to light if a citizen possibly the victim had not filed a complaint with the CPRC. One would think that if there were officers possibly engaged in such egregious misconduct that a supervising sergeant would have caught it, or a lieutenant, or either the field operations or investigations captain. However, if that had been the case, then one of these individuals would have initiated an internal investigation of the alleged misconduct. Did this happen? Or did it take a citizen filing a complaint before something was done about a very serious situation?


More importantly, if any evidence did emerge to sustain the complaint, did the Internal Affairs Division initiate its own inquiry into prior cases these officers were involved with to ensure that there was no evidence planting or tampering in those cases? Fruit from a tainted tree would be bad enough, but perhaps they should check all of it, perhaps even check the whole orchard. Due to this state's stringent confidentiality laws pertaining to peace officers' records, these questions can never be answered, publicly, which does little to alleviate concern. Any incident of evidence planting or tampering has the potential to taint the entire department.


The answer to the above questions must only be one thing. Of course they did, immediately! Any ethical, responsible law enforcement agency would take this mandatory and precautionary step without hesitation. After all, it's one thing for one officer to plant evidence on his own which is abhorrent enough, but for two of them to apparently collude and conspire together on the same case? How did they ever find each other?


"Traffic" violations constituted two other criminal inquiries launched by the department. One of them involved an unidentified officer who was charged by another LE agency, for drinking and driving, which is a much more serious charge than true traffic violations such as running a stop sign.


There was an officer, Melissa Wagner Brazil, who was arrested and charged with drunk driving and hit and run, both misdemeanors, after she was involved in an accident in Corona in 2004. She plead guilty in February 2005 and was sentenced to several years probation and ordered to enroll in a "first time offenders" drunk driving program. Ironically, Brazil had been given an award from M.A.D.D. for her record of arresting people driving drunk.


It is not clear if she is the DUI case that was included in the 2005 caseload.


A former officer, Chris Gaspard, was arrested by the Riverside Police Department for reckless driving in 2004 and charged by the D.A.'s office for that offense as well as evading a police officer. No doubt, Gaspard has arrested and perhaps even used force against individuals who have evaded arrest in his presence on the job. He eventually plead guilty a year after he was charged to the reckless driving charge, and received one year probation and agreed not to drive with a license, a fairly light sentence.


Two other unidentified officers apparently had used a police database which tracks criminal and driving records, for their own personal use. According to many newspaper accounts, this is a nationwide problem faced by numerous LE agencies.


Top 10 Abuses of Police Databases


Police Abuse of Databases A Problem


One officer was allegedly running a search on his own name, the reason why was not disclosed by the police department, which meant the other officer was probably doing a search on someone else's name. It was not clear whether these officers also "left" the department, stayed or were terminated. Certainly, in the case of the officer looking up another person's name, termination is the only responsible action. Ethical, honest and professional officers do not commit violations involving professional databases and officers who lack these qualities display these deficiencies in other areas of the job. This could be a sign of trouble elsewhere on the job.


The department declined to pursue criminal charges in either case, deciding the incidents were not serious enough to merit them. Most likely, it was not other employees in the agency whose names were entered into a search in the police database.


Complaints against police rise

Newer›  ‹Older