What about that 800 Pound Gorilla?

I was talking not too long ago to a police officer who made a point of saying that although he belonged to the department's labor union, the RPOA, he did not agree with the politics of its current board. The funny thing, is that he is not the only officer who has said this, or who has made it a point to separate themselves from the union. Which makes some sense, after all, because the closer you stand to King Kong when he's out wreaking havoc, the better your odds of being stepped on. The RPOA, is often called the 800 pound gorilla in the room that no one wants to talk about....except apparently some disatisifed officers.

Maybe, it's backlash from that hideous campaign the RPOA ran in opposition to Measure II, where it basically stated that if you did not vote the way the union wanted, don't count on the police responding as quickly to save you from criminals, as it might have, well the day before the election. After all, it was about that time that the whispers started.

Several rank-and-file officers even said that they had stepped outside the official party line and voted in favor of the measure which would place the Community Police Review Commission in the city's charter. Not because they supported the CPRC, but in protest of the campaign the union was conducting, with the union dues they had put in the coffer. Hmm, that's an interesting event, to hear of officers protesting through their vote, the action taken which was payed for by their money. However, in a way it's a brave act of defiance against the RPOA to step outside the official stance. After all, if your actions were uncovered by its leadership, you might find out later how traitorous you are, when you call out for an 11-11, and no one comes to your rescue.

But contrast the anti-Measure II campaign and its lackluster response, at least publicly by the masses who are members of the union, with the 1999 parade of officers, with pale shaven heads reflecting the setting sun, marching two-by-two away from the city council meeting they had just unceremoniously crashed. Something has changed. Still, it is those officers who remember that night with perhaps, wistful nostalgia who are running the show, even one that someday might see its audience dwindle in size.

Maybe, it's the fact that this current union board arose from the ashes of the backlash that occurred after five White officers were fired as a result of their actions surrounding the shooting of Tyisha Miller in 1998. A good chunk of the current board of directors consists of former SWAT/METRO team members, which is significant considering that the METRO team was one of the units where its members threatened to resign enmasse to protest the firing of the Riverside 5, as they were called.

Source: Riverside Grand Jury report on RPD under "Findings"

Following the termination, most of the SWAT, Defensive Tactics and Field Training Officer teams offered their resignations to the department. These were not accepted, but many of the officers have requested to be rotated off these duty assignments.

Other members of the current RPOA board were supporters of Sgt. Gregory Preece, including current Vice President Chris Lanzillo, who was quoted in a March 2001 issue of the Press Enterprise newspaper as saying that Preece was the best sergeant he ever had(assuming that meant Preece's supervisory abilities).

Source: March 3, 2001, Press Enterprise

Treasurer Aaron Leigh Perkins(of "road rage" infamy) was once disciplined with a written reprimend for putting a stink bomb in Rene Rodriguez's car.

Source: Roger Sutton v the Riverside Police Department/City of Riverside deposition given by Capt. Richard Dana

Many if not all of the current RPOA board members had been in the forefront of the movement in June 1999 when over 200 officers, mostly patrol officers and detectives, decided to shave their heads bald "in protest" of the firing of the officers in connection with killing Miller. They knowingly, as one former officer-now sergeant said in August 1999, adopted a symbol associated with white supremacism. So much so, that during the officially sanctioned head shaving rally held at Ramona High School on one sunny afternoon in June 1999, some self-identifying racist skinheads were in the area and apparently confused the barbershop session, with a white supremacist revival event.


In contrast, most of the current pool of rank and file officers were hired after that turmoltous time period. Many of them have little to no memory of the Miller shooting and its aftermath. Many only know that they were recruited by a department that had recently entered into a stipulated agreement with the state, as a result, if they knew that much.

Each time, an officer vents about the union that he belongs to, I just say this. I tell him, and it's mostly men who vent, (although you would think it's the women that would feel most excluded from the "He mans women hater club" given their invisibility among its leadership) that he should get either through joining a committee or through running for a position on the board. If you are upset or feel alienated by the current leadership(and let's face it, who wouldn't?), if you don't want to put your career on the line to join a harassment/surveillance exercise against someone that the board members are mad at, especially for something stupid like the color of a police car, if you are partial to your hair and do not consider it a vestige to be sacrificed at the whims of the leadership(who might be worried about their lack of hair):

VOTE THEM OUT

Otherwise, stop complaining because no one really wants to hear about it. Don't play the apathy game and decide not to vote for the leadership of the organization in which your hard-earned money is going, and don't sit on the sidelines looking embarassed if they ever spend your money on another embarassing campaign.

From whence shall come police accountability in Riverside?

The consent decree is set to expire in 192 days, or, six months and 11 days.

With time ticking until the end of the consent decree between the State Attorney General's office and the city of Riverside, this is a question that even after five years still begs an answer...

The answer is, there is no mechanism of accountability in place.

Many people in Riverside, representing all political stripes may disagree with this assessment. But the facts are, is that very little has changed inside the police department since the city entered into a stipulated agreement with the state in 2001.

TO BE CONTINUED....

Then on the Other Hand....

Last night at City Hall, the Executive subcommittee of the Human Relations Commission met to discuss among other things, the recent violence in the Eastside and the police department's response.

Lt. Alex Tortes, who's worked in the Eastside for many years, presented a strategy which he said the department enacted on Aug. 9. That date was in between two speeches given by Acting Chief Andrew Pytlak and Chief Russ Leach, respectively, which presented the "Let's talk tough and get tough" philosophy of policing.

Tortes, who is not a fan of the suppression type of policing that was batted about by some of the department's administrative heads, told the committee that instead of flooding the neighborhood with police officers, the department had put together a task force to cull out the active gang members who participated in the recent shootings, with surgical precision. Take out the scalpal instead of the broad sword, in a matter of speaking.

The task force consists of Tortes, as supervisor, Sgt. Brian Dailey who heads the Police and Corrections Team and Sgt. Frank Assuma, who is in charge of the gang unit. They put together a list of active gang members, including those who were in violation of probation or parole and have active warrants. The shooters involved in 13 out of the 16 most recent shootings were rounded up. Some of them would be prosecuted on weapons charges by federal agencies, so that instead of being sent to serve long prison terms in California's state prison system(inside, are prison gangs calling the shots in the local neighborhoods of many Southern California cities)they will be doing time in federal institutions.

So, why the differences in action plans presented for policing in the Eastside? What was that all about?

Two completely different plans of action, from one department. Does this indicate that there is a struggle within management of how to police in the city of Riverside?



Marchand rally through the Eastside sparks feelings of deja vu

The Latest Round of Occupation in the Eastside

RPD occupation strategy, 2005


It happened in 1997.
It happened in 2002.
It's happening again in the summer of 2005.
The Eastside is being occupied by the forces of the Riverside Police Department.
Chief Russ Leach, at times channeling LAPD Chief William Bratton, told community residents at a recent meeting that it was time to talk tough about crime and the gangsters in the streets.

People agreed. After all, people can not buy gas, pay utility bills, play in their yards, sit in their yards or walk home from a party without getting shot at in Riverside. Violence, including gang violence which plays some role here, is cyclical and it's that time in the biorhythem of life in this city again.

Leach fresh off of his vacation stint in Maui took the reins of the department away from Chief-in-training Andrew Pytlak and appeared before the Eastside Community at a meeting sponsored by current councilman and mayoral candidate Ameal Moore to be blunt, to talk tough. He said his troops were in the Eastside to do arrests, not smile and wave at people.

Smile and wave? Since when have cops done that in the Eastside? That's for functions sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce and the Mission Grove and Orangecrest Neighborhood Watches. Cops come to the Eastside to get tough, or they do not come at all. And it's tough to see them smile and wave if they stay inside their squad cars, windows rolled up, until there is someone to chase and arrest.

An interesting idea, proposed by more than one middle-management officer, was to ask police officers to get out of their squad cars, take off their shades and talk to people from one end of a block to the other. Unfortunately, that frightens some of them more than chasing after a suspect. The idea that maybe everyone in a neighborhood isn't a suspect....

Leach continued:

"What are we?," Chief Leach said, "We are an occupying force for a short period of time."

And in between?

"We are going to be here," Chief Leach said, "We are going to stay here."

What he meant was that after the most recent exercise in suppression had ended, the department would go into a maintenance mode. But what is maintenance, a time period when police presense in the Eastside is less, because the troops have been moved to another neighborhood to put out the next fire. Not before scheduling the next return date about two hot summers from now.

This is the state of community policing in Riverside, California, four years, five months and 11 days into the stipulated judgement, with only six months and 25 days remaining until the state cuts our police department's strings loose.
Supression.
Regroup.
Pullout.
Maintenance.
Supression.

For a good definition of Community Oriented Problem Solving Policing(COPS), check out Norm Stamper's book, Breaking Rank:A Top Cop's Expose of the Darker Side of Policing

It makes sense in that it actually involves the community rather than the community standing back while the police come in full force to do their thing, before leaving again to move to the next hot spot. But after spending over $10 million on reforms, and hours spent training officers how to better do their jobs, that concept still has not come to Riverside.

"We are here to make arrests. We are going to get complaints. We are profiling criminals. We have carte blanche within the law."

In other words, accountability be damned. Consent decree be damned. Let's just forget about that now, while we go about and do our business. We never make mistakes. If we do, do not think of telling us so, or we will spend valuable time telling you that you are wrong. And so forth. Read any manual on parimilitary watchman style policing in inner city neighborhoods and these words will start feeling familiar.

It might seem petty, in the face of all the violence, to even talk about the issue of accountability, but it is always an important componant of any police/community interaction, even one that is requested in a moment of desperation. The wise thing to say would have been, our police are coming in, but they are going to be held accountable by their supervisors, watch commanders, everyone up and down the chain, and most importantly, me for what they do. If they do something "over the line" then come to me, come to the area lieutenant(Alex Tortes) and there's the Community Police Review Commission. That would have given evidence that even given the department's decision to send its forces into the Eastside for the umpteenth time, that it at least has learned something in the past five years.

Oh well, maybe by the end of the next consent decree, perhaps...

Interviews involving Norm Stamper and Community Policing

Norm Stamper Q&A on Community Policing

(excerpt)

Does your vision of community policing include a civilian review board?


I am a very strong supporter of civilian review, civilian oversight. In fact, I believe that we need civilian participation in policy making. I have said for twenty years that we are the people's police, that we belong to the communities that we serve. And that means vastly increased citizen participation in virtually everything that we do. That means a review of citizen complaints and allegations of police misconduct. The question is how to structure it.... I am a believer in the need for radical re form, which some would call revolution, and that is not a word that I use lightly. I think it is time for a fundamental, sweeping change in the way that we think about who we are, who we're here to serve, and what we do. For me that means getting out in to the community, talking about community policing and massive community organization and mobilization. I'll take the risk of helping to raise expectations, knowing that if they are not met that the crash, the fall, can be quite damaging. I don't think we have a choice. We have to believe that something can happen in this country. I think we have to believe that police officers and people in the community, including blind-and-loyal supporters, as well as critics and ideological adversaries, can actually find a way to make a difference at the neighborhood level. I believe that people are looking for a method that will allow us to put our best intentions to work. It's absolutely frightening in some neighborhoods to think about what community policing might really mean. Because for me it does mean direct citizen action. And it means a banding together of the disparate and different forces in the neighborhood and the community, all of whom are aligned under a desire for safety and civility and sanity on the streets. I don't care if you are from the far left or the christian right, or any other philosophical orientation, what matters to me is do you reject violence as a way of life. Do you want to make these streets safe for your children and yourself? If you do, let's find a way to work together. Leaders have to be living emblems of what they represent, what they stand for, what they believe in. I have worked very hard in my life to be able to stand in front of a group and say what is in my heart or in my head... I have to believe the same thing about beat cops and detectives, sergeants and captains, and people in the community. If we can create situations in which we can share our visions and not be embarrassed or ashamed of them, and raise expectations in that process, we damn well better get about that business.

Alternet interview with Stamper

Four steps forward, three steps back...

With the chief away, the underling will play, and that is exactly what Deputy Chief Andrew Pytlak has done. Whether it is using the chief's parking spot instead of his own, or rehearsing his role as the future head of the RPD, not a second has been wasted of the last two weeks...

You can have a conversation with people, in the community or from the department, about the future of the department and its next chief, without dropping names most notably Pytlak, quite successfully. Even though Chief Leach has not stepped down, it is already a done deal in City Hall about who will fill his shoes. Someone has spent the past year campaigning for the job very diligently even though no current job opening has officially been announced.

Bad news to the community which has watched and waited for the new, improved police department to emerge from its five-year stipulated judgement.

Bad news for those who were proponants of community orientated problem solving policing, over the older paramilitary style.


For one thing is clear, when it comes to policing, Pytlak is strictly by the book, the dusty worn out guidebook used for years by those in the "Old Guard".

Unpleasant fortune telling aside, it was a busy two-week whirlwind stint for the chief-in-training.

Thrown into his lap has been the strife which has shown itself in the city through a series of shootings, Pytlak appeared at a community meeting at Zacatecas, to present the police department's planned suppression plan. That the Eastside community caught between a rock and a hard place had agreed to enter into, through the Eastside Think Tank's leadership.

His suppression plan included a cop car on every corner, and a combined effort to crack down on the violence, by different divisions including Field Operations, Special Operations, Gang Intelligence and the Police and Corrections Team. The community leaders gave a collective nod, to everything that Ptylak suggested.

Except it turned out that Ptylak had not informed the Eastside Think Tank that there was yet another tool in its arsenal that would be put to use by the department. Not even Lt. Alex Tortes, who has been the area commander of that neighborhood for years.

Instead, it is councilmen Frank Schiavone and Steve Adams who drop this bombshell at the city council meeting on Aug. 9, with the cooperation of City Attorney, Gregory Priamos. The item was placed on the agenda under the emergency exemption of the Brown Act, the one reserved for natural disasters, riots and terrorist attacks.

What was the solution to what everyone can agree on, is a crisis?

SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS

Not just anywhere. Not downtown. Not at the bus terminal(a havin for drug dealers) but University Avenue. Not in Casa Blanca, which has also seen its share of shootings and death recently, which is within Schiavone's ward. It is an election year, and as someone dryly observed, Schiavone would get hung if he tried to push that over there.

Schiavone and Adams however pushed it on University Avenue, long a haven of sex workers, johns, drug dealers and as Chief Leach would put it at a public meeting, "too many pedestrians".

So the city council was about to pass an emergency action to put cameras on University Avenue, when there was no one from the Eastside which University splits in half, to respond on the issue, whether to agree, or disagree.

Several city residents balked, after getting over our initial shock and spoke, urging the council to put the issue to a public forum, in the involved communities. Fortunately, several city council members balked as well, and the body voted instead to create a broader action plan to address the most recent spree of violence within the city's limits. That plan will be put together by the city manager's office.

Pytlak was very disappointed in the vote, and as he stood with Lt. Robert Meier making fun of those who spoke against Schiavone and Adams' motion, he gave a fine example of the philosophy and professionalism he plans to bring to the department when he becomes its next chief.

After the meeting, I went home and after 10pm, when I walked around the block, I saw in the back, a squad car parked with no one inside it. On closer perusal, I saw a young bald White male officer slouched in his seat, so he could not be seen, perhaps taking a breather on a night where there's an officer on every corner in the Eastside neigbhorhood.


Eastside seige

The other alleged RPD pedophile back to work soon?

First of all, this is not a commentary on former RPD officer Adam Brown who plead guilty to federal charges in relation to his involvement and participation in a child molesation ring in Wisconsin.

Before Brown's outing as a pedophile by the FBI, there was former officer Vince Thomas who had been charged by the San Bernardino County District Attorney's office with 33 counts of "lewd behavior" with a teenage girl, who had been living in his home, over a threee year period. Thomas' case was tried twice, and both times the jury deadlocked after considerable time spent in deliberations.

After the second mistrial, the DA declined to retry Thomas, and dropped the charges. Thomas took that as a sign that it was time to go back to his old job as a Riverside Police Department officer.

Prosecutor Laura Robles remains convinced of his guilt, and expressed some concern about him returning back to his career as a police officer.

The status of Thomas's departure from the RPD has caused some controversy. His attorney Grover Porter said that Thomas had resigned before he could be fired by the department. Deputy Chief Andrew Pytlak said that Thomas had been fired and had planned to contest the department's decision through the arbitration process. Since the criminal case has reached its conclusion, Thomas is free to do just that.

Michael Gardner who chairs the CPRC, was asked his opinion on the matter for unknown reasons. A man of considerable understatement when it comes to questioning the integrity of a police officer, Gardner admitted there could be "some amount of community concern" if Thomas returned to work.

"In reality, it may not be fair if the guy is truly innocent," Gardner said. "If he's not, he probably shouldn't be a police officer anywhere."

So should be be an officer, or not?

It's a question the usual cast of talking heads can not or will not answer, because those who can provide those answers without fear are not usually placed in positions of leadership within this city. But for those who called me to tell me that they had allowed Thomas inside their homes to take police reports with their children in the vicinity, how could or would their fears be alleviated if Thomas returns to work? The truth is, they can not be lessened, simply because two juries were unable to reach a verdict in terms of whether or not Thomas had molested a teenage girl, whose care he was entrusted with as her legal guardian, according to civil court records.

A police officer's character and integrity must be beyond reproach. The standards they must adhere to, should be higher than those of civilians because of the powers they exercise and the responsibilities their positions require them to carry. Can anyone in the community look at Thomas, and not think that he may have molested a child, because while his guilt was not proven, his innocence was not either, and there are always some people on a jury who refuse to convict a police officer even if he clearly committed the crime in question. For some people, the mere idea that a police officer could commit so heinous a crime is too far outside the realm of possibility to even allow them to fairly deliberate on a criminal case where an officer has been accused of such a crime.

Thomas's integrity has been tainted, and that extends to his professional life, so he must never be allowed to return to work in the Riverside Police Department.




DA gives up on trying Officer Vince Thomas on molestation charges

It's Raining in the Bucket

More rain drops continue to fall in the bucket....known as Rivercity, even as the annual monsoons that blow through the county have left the city bone-dry.

There has been a recent upswing in shootings involving African-Americans and Latinos in the Eastside neighborhood, the magnitude of which are as bad as those that occurred in 2002. Remember back that year, when civic leaders and community members broke bread in the vacant lot adjacent to where 13 year old Anthony Sweat, a Black teenager, had died after being shot by Latino gang members? The city broke its promise to that community, plus nearly dropped the ball earlier this year when the fate of the city's only gang intervention program, Project Bridge, was on the chopping block once again. Project Bridge, a favorite bargaining chip, or pawn of both the city council and Police Chief Russ Leach could be one of the solutions to the remerging crisis of violence involving youth in one of Riverside's most economically depressed neighborhoods. Will it be allowed to fulfill its mission, or will it be bled dry and neglected by a city council backed by developers who sees the Eastside simply as an obstacle preventing two of the city's prime locales, Downtown and the University areas, from realizing their full potential as tax revenue generators. Is it true instead that the Eastside neighborhood, populated increasingly by Latinos, less so by African-Americans, is being allowed to die on the vine economically and spiritually, so that the city's redevelopment agency(aka the City Council) can come along and pick up the property cheap, or grab it through eminient domain, citing the ongoing problems with "blight" in the neighborhood?

The police department will throw more men at the problem, and likely at some point, the METRO/SWAT team will revisit the area, but in the long term, will things change or merely set up for the next round of an ongoing situation which has stretched out over 15 years, since the "tough on gang violence" laws catalzed a metamorphis inside the street gangs which has caused them to become mirror images of the gangs operating inside the state prisons that according to the police department, are calling the shots(pun intended) in the Eastside.

Time to revisit the adage, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, certainly it is worth much more than a bad one. Not to mention the adage that all children matter in this world, not just the White middle-class ones.

Project Bridge on the crossroads

Community steps up to save Project Bridge
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CPRC just received the first excessive force case involving a stun gun in its five-year history. Members of an African-American family alleged that they were assaulted by four police officers, and that one of them, a woman was tased in the breasts twice by Officer Rod Anthony W. Fletcher. According to that woman, Fletcher had held her in a chokehold earlier, telling her he was going to put her to sleep now. Then he had told a civilian to get his taser from the squad car. That civilian ironically, was on criminal probation, while none of the members of the family were, although the fact that the young man was a son of a states corrections official no doubt more than balanced that factor out. The other officers allegedly involved to varying degrees were Sancho Lopez, Nicholas Vasquez, Robert Olsen and Sgt. Patrick M. McCarthy.

Attempts to receive copies of the officers' reports were met with a long wait in the lobby of the Orange St. Station and two different excuses as to why only an abbreviated version of ONE report would be available. One civilian employee said that only the first page of a police report was public information, while a case was "open". Her supervisors said that the officers had not completed their reports yet.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Former police officer and convicted child molester Adam Brown is back in the local news again, not too long after he plead guilty to federal charges in relation to his involvement in a child molestation and porn ring in the Midwest....


From the Los Angeles Times

IN BRIEF: THE REGION / RIVERSIDE
D.A. Wants Ex-Officer to Face Sex Abuse Charges
From Times Staff and Wire Reports


The Riverside County district attorney will seek to extradite a former Riverside police officer sentenced Friday in Wisconsin to more than 30 years in federal prison for his involvement in a nationwide child pornography ring.

Adam James Brown, 32, pleaded guilty in March to charges of traveling across state lines with the intent to engage in a sexual act with a minor and producing pornography.

Investigators said Brown also molested four Riverside County boys under the age of 12 during his time as a police officer, leading to a 65-count case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Det. Joe Miera, from the gang unit testified recently in a criminal trial involving a man charged with a possession of a gun while a felon. Apparently, this means that the pesky internal investigation that was done involving him, by the Internal Affairs Division, is a thing of the past. Let's hope if that is true, it is for the right reasons, not for the sake of expedience or the wrong reasons.

The news is not as good for the pack of patrol officers who were investigated by the same division for undisclosed violations. Apparently, when that investigation is concluded, Leach will make some sort of announcement about the situation.

Whatever happened with Officer David Hackman?

Hackman, in trouble again

This is what is happening to former RPD officer David Hackman now. What happened earlier during his stint in Riverside made what followed inevitable.

As mentioned in the article, Hackman was the center of some controversy in Riverside when he made racist slurs after four other RPD officers shot Tyisha Miller to death on Dec. 28, 1998. After an internal investigation, Hackman received a 30 day suspension without pay.

While in the locker room during the early morning hours following the shooting, Hackman saw fit to entertain some of his blue buddies with his rendition of Joan Miller grieving over the death of her granddaughter, Tyisha. He imitated her voice, and said, "Here's big Mama here to do the Watts' death wails". One of the officers present was not laughing. Former Officer Rene Rodriguez instead reported the comments made by Hackman and other officers to the Internal Affairs Division.

Another comment made by Hackman was in response to a comment made by former Sgt. Gregory Preece. He had referred to Miller, an African-American woman, as an "NHI". If you peruse the most recent manual of law enforcement venicular terms, you will find that NHI, means "No Human Involved" and is reserved for incidents where people of color have been beaten or killed by police officers.

Eventually, although the RPD refused to fire this racist cop, it did prod him to leave the agency and Hackman packed up his slogans and headed off for greener pastures, up in Northern California. Like his disgraced blue brother Michael Alagna, Hackman picked a LE agency nestled in a rural town in the central valley of Northern California, where there were relatively few African-Americans in residence to hide. Of course, predictably enough, Hackman got himself into trouble.

Hackman's boss, Sheriff Curtis Hill is defending his man.

Hill said he felt confident hiring Hackman and did a thorough background check before bringing him aboard.

“He did a fine job for us,” Hill said. “It’s unfortunate he got himself into this situation, but we’ll work our way through it.”

Work through it? Are you nuts? You have a deputy who is violent on and off the job and you want to keep him employed? Oh yeah, right it's your ass that's on the line here as well...you hired him, after the (cough)thorough background check. (cough)

The sheriff's boss, a member of the Board of Supervisors is playing it cool...for now.

When Supervisor Ruth Kesler heard the lawsuit was filed she sighed and asked, “Who’s suing us now?” but declined to comment further until she is able to read the suit.

“There’s two sides to every story,” she said. “Until I get the other side of the story I don’t want to make any comments.”

Ruth, the other side of the story is in Riverside. Conducting at least a portion of Hackman's background check in this city could have saved you a lot of grief, two men a few broken bones and a bucketload of cash that the county will have to pay out to make Hackman's victims and Hackman go away.

In Search of...Racial Profiling

There used to be a show by that name hosted by Leonard "Mr. Spock" Nimoy, over 20 years ago. The show tackled different unexplained occurances like crop circles, phantom hitchhikers and the Bermuda Triangle. Were any of these things real, or not? Some evidence would be presented, but those questions would remained unanswered.

That's how the forum on Racial Profiling or in P.C. terms, Pretext traffic stops took place. Filling the shoes of Nimoy, was Human Relations Commission chair A.J. Wilson, and special guests were Dr. Larry Gaines, from Cal. State University, San Bernardino's Criminal Justice Department and in its entirety, the Attorney General Task Force.

Lt. John Wallace did all the talking for the Task Force, while Sgt. Mike Cook, and Officers Phil Hernandez and Cheryl Hayes forming a rainbow of sorts, sat on the sidelines. About 25 people attended the forum, mostly the same people who attend any meeting that has to do with the police department. Hundreds and thousands of other city residents stayed home. Some who did, said that they were used to the police department holding public forums defending its practices, or trying to sell the rightness of them to the public. The PR train to celebrate the winding down of the five-year consent decree had already began rolling, so to speak.

The discussion began with polite words and an academic focus which was where most of the interest appeared to be. Those who don't give a damn about Chi-squares and variances, but just do not want to be singled out by the police for harassment in the department's search for criminal suspects with only a race and a broad age range to go with, stayed at home. The study and how it was conducted became the focus of the discussion rather than the problem of racial profiling in a police department found to have violated the state constitution while its officers had conducted traffic stops on the public.

When the questions began to be asked, Dr. Gaines started becoming more defensive. And it was only at the end when things began to get interesting. The RPD's agenda involving the annual study was revealed further with each word that spilled out of Gaines' mouth. Even HRC Chair A. J. Wilson appeared to notice and jumped into the fray.

Racial Profiling, back beneath the rock

Is it possible(or legal) to discipline a cop?

PORAC, or the Police Officers Research Association of California provides services for law enforcement officers throughout the state, in areas of legal and labor issues. It publishes a monthly magazine filled with articles, about issues faced by law enforcement officers, written by officers. The obvious slant in the articles allows readers to view one side of the story. As far as LE officers are concerned, that is all that is necessary.

Many articles are stored in the archives, regarding officers from the RPD who've been fired or suspended, always unjustly of course, then reinstated back to duty.

WARNING: These articles leave out a whole other side of the story, and because the average citizen is not legally able to determine the truth through examination of the evidence and facts, there is no way to know for sure if the officer really is guilty or not guilty of committing misconduct.

Cliff Mason: mid-1990s, excessive force when using a flashlight. Reason: feared for life.
Received 40 hour suspension. Reinstated in arbitration.
Currently, heads the SWAT/METRO team. Flashlight policy written in 1997.

Benjamin Shafer: fired in connection with handling narcotics seized as evidence.
Reason: the stress of studying for his detective exam combined with the hectic atmosphere of "Narco Bay" caused him to forget to make report corrections
Employment terminated. Reinstated in arbitration.
Currently, works as a motorcop in the traffic division and is a board member of the RPOA.

Richard Prince: Suspended in connection with a finding of excessive force suspension due to use of wrist lock, by Internal Affairs and the CPRC.
Reason: Believed it wasn't excessive
Suspended. Discipline reversed in arbitration
Currently, works in patrol. Shot and killed motorist Rene Guevara in December 2004.

Erich Feimer: Fired in connection with dishonesty about use of force during an arrest on report and to several supervisors
Reason: Memory loss
Fired, Reinstated in arbitration and by Riverside County Superior Court
Currently, works in patrol.

The reversal of Officer Cliff Mason's suspension

Officer Benjamin Shafer is unfired in arbitration

Richard Prince's suspension overturned

Erich Feimer: Did poor memory cause him to be less than honest?

More drops in the bucket

Is Officer Daniel Floyd up to his old tricks in his new assignment at La Sierra already? If so, the honeymoon is over folks. All Latino/as are urged to file complaints with the CPRC if they believe that Floyd has mistreated them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Racial Profiling...oops I mean Traffic Stop Study Forum sponsored by that interesting duo, the Human Relations Commission and the Riverside Police Department. Appearing for the department will be former Lexington Police Department officer and current Chair of the Criminal Justice department at Cal State Univ. San Bernardino, Larry Gaines, accompanied by Police Chief Russ Leach. Directing the production will be Dr. Pedro Paynes, who serves as the director of both the HRC and the Community Police Review Commission. Their combined message to the community is that:

THERE IS NO RACIAL PROFILING BEING DONE BY THE RPD SO SHUT UP ALREADY!

Starring Russ Leach and Dr. Larry Gaines

With Dr. Pedro Paynes, as EMCEE

The Chorus will include members of the HRC....performing a variety of dance numbers.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The forum is supposed to have 45 minutes allotted for Gaines to present his report, then 10 minutes for the representatives from the RPD led by Officer Cheryl Hayes(one of the department's three Black female officers) to respond. Yes, it appears they are going there. An hour has been set aside for the audience to comment and ask questions about Gaines' presentation. We'll see how that goes....

The Racial Profiling Forum, or dog and pony show?

Riverside Police Department

and

Human Relations Commission

PRESENT:

2004 Traffic Stop Study Special Public Forum

Wednesday, July 20

at

6 PM

at

The Main Branch of the Public Library

The intent of this forum is to discuss the 2004 Traffic Stop Study prepared by Larry K. Gaines, PhD at California State University, San Bernardino, Department of Criminal Justice

The report is an analysis of traffic stop data in the City of Riverside. The Riverside Police Department continues to collect and analyze its traffic stop data to determine if any patterns emerge that point to racial profiling.

------------------------------------------------------------

Is it racial profiling, or Criminal profiling?

Okay, this is an age-old question in my town, when it comes to defining the reasons behind the tendacies of police officers to focus their attention on Black and Hispanic motorists. And this latest "special forum" by our city's buffer commission is supposed to put this complex issue into terms of black and white for all of us

I'm asking the above question, because according to Gates who is mentioned in this flier as the author of the RPD's traffic stop studies, RPD cops only perform pretext stops on criminals. But if the release rates are well over 50% for Black motorists, and the hits from searches on Black motorists is so low(<10%),>Some like former city councilman Alex Clifford say, that there is no such thing as "driving while Black" because actually it's "driving while criminal". Ameal Moore, the only Black council member became really upset at Clifford's words. He wasn't the only one.

Also appearing will be Chief Russ Leach, who will represent his department, and will most likely back up whatever Gates says.

Absent from the podium will be the professor who conducted the OTHER research study on the RPD, in 2000. Dr. Robert Nash Parker, from UCR's Robert Presley Center, though he has been invited to come as a member of the public.

TO BE CONTINUED...

What exactly is an internal investigation?

Lt. John Wallace, who heads the Attorney General's Task Force said it.
Lt. John De La Rosa who heads the department's Internal Affairs Division said it.
Chief Russ Leach who heads the department has said it.

There's a whole lot of internal investigations going on!

Civilian complaints are down!
Internal Investigations are up!
Accountability reigns!
Knock out some champagne.

When De La Rosa appeared before the Community Police Review Commission during a training session, he said that things were very busy in Internal Affairs. Buried in the police department's 2005-06 budget in the middle of a footnote, is the addition of a fifth sergeant to the Internal Affairs' Division.

So what exactly is an internal investigation?

In official terms, an internal investigation is one initiated against an officer by another officer. Statistically, these investigations tend to take longer to complete, and are also more likely to have their allegations of misconduct sustained. Why, should be obvious. Since they are initiated by police officers who never lie while the general public is comprised of liars, then there really needs to be no explanation for the higher sustain rate.

By their nature and because of state laws passed to protect the reputations of law enforcement officers, internal investigations are considered, top secret. Hence, the reaction of both De La Rosa and Leach to my attempts to obtain more information about an investigation conducted involving Det. Joseph Miera.

Miera has worked for the RPD for about 14 years, and has spent two separate stints totalling six years inside the department's gang intelligence unit. Last January, the Internal Affairs Division was conducting an internal investigation of Miera for undisclosed reasons. It is not clear whether this investigation has been completed. It is not clear what allegations involving Miera the department investigated.

Internal investigation aside, Miera continues to work in the police department, and continues to testify as a gang expert on criminal cases. He continues to testify in cases involving the seizure of narcotics. On April 14 and April 28, Miera testified in the preliminary hearing of an alleged 1200 Blocc Crip who was arrested last December on drug charges related to selling cocaine. Mark Roberts was arrested on Dec. 8, 2004 and had been an associate of another alleged gang member, Dione Mckinnon who had been arrested on July 14, 2004 on drugs and weapon charges, also by Miera.

McKinnon's lawyer said that his client had made allegations of the contraband being planted in his vehicle, said that he was being set up. In Miera's police report that he wrote detailing the events which led up to McKinnon's arrest, he states that McKinnon had said "that's not mine" after he pulled the change purse out of the secret compartment inside the dashboard of McKinnon's car, with the packets of cocaine still out of sight.

Miera's deduction on his report was that McKinnon was proclaiming his innocence, knowing that the change purse contained drugs, which could very well be true. Or perhaps, McKinnon did not recognize the change purse being removed from inside his car. The fact that the detective on this case is under investigation by his own department for alleged misconduct complicates the issue greatly when it comes to who is telling the truth and who is lying. The additional problems faced when it is not known what the alleged misconduct is, and what the investigative findings were create a situation which can not be anything but tainted with doubt and suspicion. That is the legacy of "top secret" internal investigations of police officers.

Business as usual, for a detective in the gang unit to testify at preliminary hearings and criminal trials. But does this mean that Miera has been investigated and cleared of wrong-doing? Does it mean he is being investigated and has not been notified, because supposedly when internal investigations are conducted by the RPD, the subject officer is the last to know.

How much damage an officer under investigation for allegations of misconduct does to his unit, and those in it, can not be estimated easily, but it is there.

Or does it just mean that internal investigations are just two words strung together that really have no meaning at all.

Steroid Abuse and the RPD: Did 'roid rage kill Hector Islas?

Last week, I had a run in in the parking lot at the Orange St. Station with a bald, bearded plain-clothed officer who got out of his vehicle, walked around the back of it glared at me, then walked away. After walking several yards, he turned his head at me and glared at me again, before walking into the station.

When I first saw him, I had no idea who he was. I just assumed it was a skinhead who was on an anger trip, even before I realized it was an RPD cop. After he turned around and glared at me the second time, it dawned on me who he was. I also realized that despite the fact that this particular officer had been a source of harassment for several years, I had not recognized his appearance because in the several months since I had last seen him, he had put on an enormous amount of bulk, mostly on his upper frame. He also had swelling in his face, and unlike most cops who get pissed off at a drop of the hat, he was unable to hide his anger.

For some reason, warranted or not, I thought of steroids. If you've been to a gym, you've seen them. Men and sometimes women who bulk up seemingly overnight. Men who shave their heads to compensate for acceleration of male-pattern baldness. Bad facial and back acne where there was none. Swelling in the cheeks and lower face because of edema, from kidneys working overtime. And of course, 'roid rage which manifests as explosive anger, aggression, paranoia and depression.

And most of these folks are probably lay people, who do not carry a gun and have the enforcement powers of a police officer.

Steroids are a serious, if under discussed problem in law enforcement agencies. And how do you know if the officer who pulls you over for a traffic stop, or responds to a call for service, is a steroid junkie?

You have the new short, skinny officers who develop wrists the size of tree trunks in a matter of weeks. There is the former sergeant of Special Operations who had triceps the size of most people's thighs, again developing in a short period of time. His body dutifully shrunk down to human size when he left that division, and eyebrows raised at that among more than a few civilians.

When people think about steroids and the RPD, they talk about the Hector Islas case. Perhaps if both the RPOA and the department had been honest about the issue of drugs and drug testing of officers in this case, Islas and steroid abuse or more specifically 'roid rage would not be used in the same sentence. We will never know for sure now if they should be.

In January 1997, six RPD officers chased and beat to death a Hispanic man with a small frame, and who, while alive, had stood 5'6 and weighed about 135 pounds. Officers Larry Gonzalez, Bob Williams, Jim Simons, Marco Quesada, Vernon Bryant(ret) and probational officer Mark Hake pursued Islas back and forth across the 91 freeway, to Sherman Indian High School, the spot where Islas died. The offical cause of death was Asphyxiation caused by exertion and metamphetamine use, which is a common explanation for cause of death in chokehold cases. However, Islas' family did an independent autopsy and found injuries including broken and dislocated cervical vertebrae, broken facial bones, broken upper and lower jaws and teeth.

Islas' wife had to go to the morgue to identify the face of a man she no longer recognized.

The pictures of Islas after his killing were the subject of a motion filed by the city of Riverside to suppress them, and hide them from any civil jury listening to the case, because they were deemed inflammatory and misleading in nature. Some of the injuries appeared worse than they really were, the motion stated. The case settled on the eve of trial for $790,000 including payouts of $150,000 a piece to each one of Islas's children.

The photographs remained unseen by a jury, so the city got its wish. However, Islas' widow showed people what her husband had looked like when he died, and what lay on the morgue table was no longer human.

The focus of this case became former officer Vernon Bryant who in the initial hours after Islas's death decided to go out and get drunk, presumably to flush his system out by taking advantage of the diuretic effects of alcohol. Quesada had initially balked at submitting a blood sample for 30 minutes, according to court documents, because he didn't like needles. He gave a urine sample instead. Bryant however evaded drug testing for a longer period, after telling people that he was afraid what his test would reveal. Finally, according to a sworn affidavit by Williams submitted in the city's opposition to a preliminary injunction filed by the RPOA in civil court, Williams had gone to persuade Bryant to provide a sample. Williams was chosen for this job because he had been involved in a fatal shooting in 1991 so he knew the drill. Bryant asked Williams if the drugs tested for included steroids and ephedrine. Williams answered, yes.

Well, to most people, it does not take common sense to understand that if someone being tested for drug use without prior warning asks if certain drugs will be detected than you have better than even odds that this person has or is currently taking these illegal substances. If you have one dead man, with crushed cervical vertabrae and injuries in bones that require over 300 pounds of force to fracture, and one officer who is asking about steroid detection, then you have a serious problem with determining if steroid abuse played any role in that homicide.

This is not to say that steroids played a role in Islas's death, but questions were raised, and then covered up, because too often in controversial situations, the truth is trumped by damage control.

Eventually Bryant gave a sample, the results of which would never be revealed because the RPOA rushed off to get a TRO in Riverside County Superior Court, because after all, the privacy of police officers when it comes to drug testing is only paramount when there might actually be a positive drug test involved. Did Bryant have either steroids or ephedrine in his urine? Did he have either or both in his urine when he was involved in the killing of Islas? It would be ironic indeed if a man who allegedly was under the influence of drugs had his life ended in part by an officer under the influence of drugs.

Ever heard of 'roid rage? Did it play a role in Islas's death, and the decision of the city to eventually settle the case?

Thanks to the RPOA, we, the public will never know what drugs our officers are taking, and what substances they inject into their bodies. Bryant retired eventually, having already survived a firing and reinstatement in the RPD before Islas's death and with him, went the truth.

Islas case law:

Islas v the city of Riverside(RIC305968)

The Riverside Police Officers Assn v the City of Riverside(RIC292595)

RPOA successfully covers up urine tests

Anyway, I heard my first rumor about the RPD and steroid use from someone who posted at some site that the trainer at his gym in Riverside had customers in the RPD who bought steroids from him. That was it. No names, no further information. He did not know if the trainer was being truthful or trying to draw him into steroid use by saying that if the cops do it, it must be good stuff. If it's just idle boasting, then there is no steroid problem. But if it's the truth, then what?

Larry Gaines, PhD of Cal State San Bernadino who writes those superficially analyzed reports on RPD traffic stops each year, co-wrote a rather interesting article on steroid abuse in law enforcement, and he urged law enforcement administrators to give a damn about what their officers were injecting into themselves to become "bad ass" street cops.

(excerpt)

Unknown, or less well-known, to anabolic steroid abusers
are certain detrimental emotional and psychological symptoms.
Indeed, it is maintained that "aggressive behavior is almost
universal among anabolic steroid users." (9) There are
documented case histories of severe depression, visual and
auditory hallucinations, sleep disorders, thoughts of suicide,
outbursts of anger, anorexia, psychomotor retardation, and
irritability. (10)

Behaviors that go along great with being a police officer, naturally.

RESPONSE TO ANABOLIC STEROIDS

Though departments may find steroid abuse issues difficult
to deal with now, they must become aware that developments in
the legal environment (17) signal strong social apprehension
about the use of anabolic steroids. Administrators should share
this concern, given the consequences that may result from police
anabolic steroid abuse. Increased citizen complaints against
officers, unprovoked off-and on-duty violence, a negative impact
on abusers bodies, increased damage to police-community
relations, officer involvement in illegal activity, civil
litigation, and adverse media coverage are problems that may
likely arise from officer abuse of steroids.

The first step toward confronting steroid abuse must be a
desire on the police department's part to know more about police
anabolic steroid use. The reasons why officers become involved
in taking steroids and to what extent they use them is unclear.
Is it a matter of ignorance or lack of information that officers
simply don't know the risks they are taking? Is it because they
believe that not only are they "out-gunned," but also
"out-muscled" by criminals? Does it have little to do with work
and more to do with a narcissistic involvement with one's own
body? These questions and many others must be addressed as
departments cope with steroid issues.

Food for thought for administrators, but unlike Gaines' "there aint no racial profiling by the RPD, no siree!" annual reports, this research paper of his will likely be ignored, which would be a tragic error on the part of any law enforcement agency, especially one which pays thousands of dollars annually for those racial profiling reports. After all, this paper is available online for free.


Steroid Abuse by Cops

Some Quick Drops in the Bucket

RPD Officer Roger Sutton will have to wait another two months to go to trial, after presiding Judge Edward D. Webster formally recused himself from a case he had been presiding over for several months as it continued to twist and turn its way through the labyrinth known as Riverside County Superior Court.

Webster admitted to both parties that he had married former Deputy Chief Audrey Wilson to her current husband retired Sergeant Mike Wilson. He also said that he was friends with both of them and Audrey Wilson's parents. He also was friendly with most of the other defendants in the case who were employed with the Riverside Police Department.

Before Webster chose the eve of trial to drop his bombshell, both sides argued over the pile of motion de limines the city had filed in court to expunge even the mere scent of racism from the trial. Ten motions, some of them clearly connected with the allegations of racial harassment made by Sutton in his original complaint filed in August 2000.

Eugene Ramirez, the attorney for the city, said that if the motions are not granted, then the trial will not take three weeks as scheduled but between five and six weeks.

Three weeks to try the facts, and three more to try the plaintiff. That is what Riverside has come to during the first five years of the new millenium.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The department has remained steadfast in its silence involving the internal investigation of Gang and narco detective Joseph Miera. When asked about the status of the investigation, Lt. John De La Rosa who heads Internal Affairs cited confidentiality to every question asked, then finally said, "You know it's confidential." Then he advised me to talk to the city attorney.

So basically, yes there is an investigation and it is currently ongoing otherwise, De La Rosa would have said that one had been completed as he had in the DUI case involving Officer Melissa Brazil.

Been there, done that in writing. A supervisor of civilian front desk employees at the Riverside Police Department's Orange St. Station refused to forward a Freedom of Information Act request sent to Chief Leach, and opened it up, reading it, then referring it to the Record's Division where no doubt, it still sits.

Fortunately, the city attorney's office emailed the FOI request to Chief Leach's office and Leach responded, in writing in a letter received on July 5. He said that Miera is still employed by the department but cited confidentiality and threw out a bunch of penal codes preventing the public from knowing what its own public servants have been up to, during their time out serving the public.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The city plans to appeal the decision of Riverside County Superior Court judge Stephen Cunnison to reinstate former Det. Al Kennedy back to the police department. Chief Russ Leach also has stated that he will not allow Kennedy back into the department.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To the unidentified plain-clothed, bearded bald anger-management case in the Orange St. Station Parking lot this past week....get off the steroids, they're bad for you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How to utilize the complaint process

Let's say that you wish to file a complaint against an RPD officer and you want to know the procedure. Well, here it is:

BEFORE YOU FILE:

DURING THE INCIDENT:

The following information is provided by the ACLU:

What to do if police stop you

Identifying the subject officer(s):

Things to help you ID the officer if he or she is not helpful at self-identification or refuses to provide names and badge numbers:

Name tag Not easily read, either at night or in bright sunlight, that is if the officer's even wearing it.

Badge: The number imprinted on it is the officer's identifying number, more easily read than an ID tag.

Physical Description: Race, gender, height, build, hair color(if there's hair), eye color, type and model of sunglasses, facial hair, scars, facial marks, tattoos(triceps, calves, ankles)

Vocal: Tone, Volume, speech impediments, regional or national accents, word usage.

Time/location of incident:The officer is required to give his location to the dispatcher, when on break, making a stop or at a call. However, the more inappropriate the incident, the less likely the officer would have recorded his or her location.

Squad Car: Look for the four digit number, on the rear, and one side of the vehicle. The first digit is always a "3". Also, the license plate, the presense or absense of a siren and whether there is an insigna or writing on the outside that indicates whether it is being driven by a member of the canine unit, or the METRO team.

If you can not get identifying information on officers in cases where multiple officers are involved, then try to focus on the officer who you have the most contact with, and is the subject of your complaint. Also, try to find the identity of the sergeant assigned to supervise the involved officers and whether or not he or she was onscene during the incident, if you do not know this information. This is important to know now, because you may discover that this sergeant has been assigned to do the personnel complaint investigation.

Audiorecorders:

Under departmental policy, all patrol officers and their supervisors are required to carry digital audiorecorders. Under this departmental policy, they are required to activate their recorders at ALL officer-initiated professional contacts whether traffic stops or pedestrian stops. Failure to do so constitutes violation of said policy(wink, wink) but it is unknown whether any officer has ever been disciplined for failure to activate his or her recorder for the duration of the encounter.

There are currently 13 vehicles equipped with digital video recorders. These are activated during pursuits and when the officer leaves the vehicle. They can also provide audio recording for a certain distance away from the officer's vehicle.

AFTER THE INCIDENT:

As soon as you are able to, write down the details of your experience or dictate them into an audio or video recorder while your memory is fresh. When new information surfaces in your mind, add that information to your detailed account. If you have any injuries, i.e. bruises, red marks from handcuffs, scrapes, etc. document them by taking photographs. Even if the department takes photographs of your injuries, take your own independent photographs when you are able to do so.

FILING THE COMPLAINT:


You can go to the following locations to pick up a complaint form:

1) CPRC office, Sixth Floor at City Hall, 3900 Main st. (near 10th st.)

2) RPD administrative headquarters, 4102 Orange St. (1 block east of courthouses)

3) Lincoln Field Operations Station, Lincoln st. near Adams(just look for the building without windows)

4) Internal Affairs Division, 3400 Central, adjacent to 91 freeway overpass, 2nd floor

OR you can file a complaint over the phone, call:

1)CPRC office: (951)826-5509

2) Police Russ Leach: (901) 826-5940

OR you can file a complaint online:

online complaint form

You should have little difficulty obtaining a complaint form from any of these locations, as the department is in the final year of its stipulated agreement with the state and eager to make a good impression on those who are auditing their systems including the citizen complaint process. If anyone refuses, obstructs or applies conditions to you regarding access to a complaint form or the process for any reason, then they are in violation of departmental policy and the department could be in violation of state law and this person can be reported to the consultant who is in charge of overseeing the stipulated agreement.

A separate complaint form is required for each officer listed as a subject of the complaint. The form is on carbon paper and makes copies which will be sent to the involved officer(s), the supervisor of the officers and the Internal Affairs Division.

Provide names and contact information of witnesses. File your paperwork at the location which feels most comfortable to you. Ask for a copy to be stamped with the time and date the complaint has been received by either the police department or the CPRC office.

WARNING: the officers who are the subject of the complaint will be able to access your personal information including date of birth, address and contact phone number so think carefully about whether or not you want to include your personal contact information. If you do not, then ask an uninvolved friend or family member to provide that information for your use. The inclusion of the complaintant's personal information on forms accessible by the involved officers has been challenged in policy recommendation form by the Community Police Review Commission but the police department rejected this recommendation, finding no compelling reason to not release this information to these officers.

If you disagree with this decision to continue to release personal information on complainants to involved officers:

Contact: Chief Russ Leach and tell him so, at:

(951) 826-5940 or email him at: rleach@riversideca.gov

Officers usually do not harass or attempt to contact complainants because most of them want to be on their best behavior while being investigated. Other officers have no interest in harassing complainants. Unfortunately, occasionally there are exceptions. In the past, officers have even taken people who have filed complaints against them to jail as punishment. If an officer does try to harass, intimidate or contact you during the complaint process, initiate a separate complaint against him for this misconduct and go to the civil court and file a restraining order against this officer. It will of course never be granted by a judge in Riverside County Superior Court but it will send a message to the department that you are not to be harassed because you filed a complaint against an officer.


<

AFTER YOU FILE:


After you file your complaint, you will receive a letter in the mail from the Internal Affairs Division acknowleging that they have received your complaint and have assigned it to be investigated. The letter will start out, with text that states how many contacts the department's officers have had with members of the public and how overwhelmingly, these contacts have been positive. Well, this might be true, but it has nothing to do with what has happened to you. Do not be distracted by this attempt to make it appear as if there must be a problem with you, if the overwhelming number of contacts by police with the public are positive. This is the first of what may be several attempts by the department to dissuade you or discourage you from filing your complaint, but just remained focused in terms of your complaint.

You may be asked to sign paperwork which is optional in relation to the civil or criminal penalties that can be levied against you if you knowingly file a false complaint. No one should ever file a complaint that is false. If you are standing with truth on your side, then you will be fine if you sign these documents.

The complaint will be assigned to a sergeant, who either works in the Internal Affairs Division or more likely, to a field sergeant or watchcommander who works in the Field Operations Division, where the vast majority of complaints arise. The Internal Affairs Division investigates internal investigations initiated by other officers and also performs administrative reviews of incustody use of force incidents, including shootings. Its representatives actually handle very few citizen complaints, even though the department has been strongly encouraged to increase the proportion of its personnel complaints investigated by the Internal Affairs Division. Chief Leach has responded by saying that the department does not have enough sergeants to assign to all the personnel complaints. That may very well be true, but that is not the complainant's problem.

The other option is if the CPRC chose to independently investigate citizen complaints. It has this power according to the city's charter, but statistically, the private investigating firm retained by the CPRC is only assigned to look into about 1% of all complaints.

At any rate, you will be contacted by the investigator to set up an interview most of the time. Your witnesses may or may not be interviewed. According to policy, ALL witnesses listed on a personnel complaint form are to be interviewed, but in actuality this does not occur. The reason why, is because the complaint process is built to help the officer who is being complained about, NOT the person who is filing the complaint. If you remember one thing during the entire process, this needs to be it.

Interview tips

When you set up your interview with the investigator, there are some things that you need to do, and one thing you need to remember. The RPD complaint process is an adversarial system, and you are considered the adversary to all parties involved in the complaint including the investigator.

What you need to do is set up the interview in a location of your choosing Do NOT agree to meet the investigator at the Internal Affairs Division. Agree on a location that feels most familiar to you, and one where you feel comfortable. The investigator should agree to this, but if he does not, then call Lt. John De La Rosa at (951)751-3500 and tell him to set the supervisor straight. There is no policy that states that the investigator has the right to state the location of the complaint interview, but do not be surprised if one will try on your case. Be prepared.

Bring at least one witness to your interview, both to be an independent set of eyes and ears, and to be moral support for you. An investigator is less likely to intimidate you, or try to do so, if there is someone else present. This is especially important if two investigators tag-team your interview, which happens in complaints involving major allegations or those which are politicially sensitive for the department and the city.

Record the interview. The investigator will be recording it, for professional purposes. You need to do like, so that at least one unabridged copy of your interview exists. This protects you.

Request that the investigator conduct the interview in plain-clothes. If you do not do this, he or she will show up in uniform for the interview. According to departmental policy, a uniformed officer is the first level of force used against a civilian. That is usually its purpose during the interview as well.

Always be calm, polite and even-tempered. This won't be easy, because these interviews can be stressful enough, because by relating the officer(s)misconduct, it causes you physiologically and emotionally to relive it. That's normal. If the officer behaves inappropriately and baits you with questions, remarks or asks leading questions, remain polite, and remember you have it on tape. If you feel the investigator behaved inappropriately or exercised bias against you during the interview or defended the officer, then file a separate complaint against him with Internal Affairs, with a copy of the recording as evidence.

If possible, contact your witnesses on the complaint to ensure that they have been contacted by the department for their interviews. Often, the complaint investigators fail to interview all the witnesses on a complaint despite the fact that departmental policy 4.12 requires them to do so. If your witnesses have not been contacted, then call Lt. John De La Rosa at (951)751-3500 and tell him to set the supervisor straight.

After your interview is conducted, you will not hear from the investigator again in most cases. You should however call him or De La Rosa from time to time to check on the progress of your complaint.

Investigation:
Once you have been interviewed, then the witnesses on your side will be interviewed, along with the witnesses on their side(usually other officers) before the final witness is interviewed, which is the officer(s) who are the subject of the complaint. Your statement will be accessible to that officer(s) ONLY if the allegations on the complaint are sustained against him, her or them.

Upon completion of the investigation, the complaint will go up the chain of command within the police department for evaluation and review. The material in the investigation will also go to the CPRC office for processing before it is presented to the CPRC for discussion. The executive director of the CPCR and the commissioners are able to send the complaint back for further investigation or research if they have questions or find problems with the process. After this is done, you will receive a letter from the CPRC giving you a date when your complaint will be discussed in closed sessions which are held the second and fourth Wednesdays of each month. This gives you an opportunity to appear before the CPRC to comment on your complaint before the closed session.

CPRC PROCESS:

The CPRC will meet at least once to decide the findings for the allegations on your complaint. Then those findings will be sent to the City Manager's office, along with the department's findings and the city will make the final decision. If both sides come up with similar findings, which they do about 99% of the time, then the city will usually side with both entities. If there's a split decision which has occurred less than 25 times in four years, then the city will probably choose to side with the department.

Actually, although the CPRC is a process where decisions are made by a civilian body, abeit one that is top-heavy with people coming from law enforcement backgrounds, do not be surprised if you receive a sustained allegation from the city based on what the department decided, rather than what the CPRC decided. Most civilian forms of oversight have sustain rates that are lower than those of the departments they oversee.

When the city makes its decision, they will send you a letter in the mail with the allegations and findings. They will of course, not tell you which officer received which finding on which allegation, if multiple officers are involved. You need to use your own powers of deduction to sort it all out.

DISPOSITION:

Each finding will have one of four dispositions. Here they are, and what they mean, in order of frequency.

Unfounded: The most common finding, unfortunately. It means that after perusing all the evidence, it is determined that the incident did not occur. Remember, you are dealing with two entities, the department and the CPRC, who want to give "good" officers the benefit of the doubt. If two of the officers deny something happened, and both of them failed to turn on their recorders to back them up(oops) then that means it did not happen. According to CPRC Chair Michael Gardner, most of the complaints fall in this category.

This finding will be kept not in an officer's personnel file but a separate storage area for posterity sake.

Exonerated: It happened, but the action was legal, justified and proper. In the words of CPRC Chair, Michael Gardner, it means that the complainant experienced something legally done to them, but just didn't like what is happening. What it also means, but no one tells you, is that although the action might be wrong, the departmental policies are so poorly written that there are none that cover this type of behavior so the officer who does it can not be held accountable for his or her actions.

This finding will be kept not in an officer's personnel file but a separate storage area for posterity sake.

Not sustained: After perusing the evidence, no determination of guilt on an allegation can be made. With the advent of the digital audiorecorders, this finding has increased greatly. This probably means that they are not being used as often as they are required to be.

This finding will be written down and placed in an officer's personnel records for a period of five years in accordance to state law.

Sustained: The officer committed the misconduct. This is the rarest finding and basically only happens if the officer admits the behavior. Of course, there are instances where the officer can admit to the misconduct and still receive a finding of "unfounded" particularly on discourtesy complaints.

This finding will be written down and placed in an officer's personnel records for a period of five years in accordance to state law.

Another possible finding is Misconduct Noted which is given when a policy violation is uncovered which was not originally part of the complaint. It is treated the same as a sustained finding.


AFTER THE FACT:

Discipline:

if the officer receives a sustained finding, then the chief of police has the option of disciplining that officer. The officer then receives a copy of the entire investigation and prepares for the disciplinary process. He or she can receive the following forms of discipline either individually or in combination:

Written Reprimend This is the most common and consists either of a written memo outlining the misconduct and the reason why the reprimend is written. It can also simply be a fill-in-the-blank sheet with a check list where "written reprimend" is checked off.

Training For some sustained allegations including policy violations, discourtesy or excessive force, the officer might be sent to receive more training. When Chief Leach first came on board, he said that training was the most common form of discipline he handed out. However, statistics did not back him up, showing that he actually handed out very little training, and lots of written reprimends. His reaction was to stop allowing the public to access this statistical data.

suspension Time off from work without pay, from one work-day to three years of work-days as occurred in the case involving disgraced Det. Al Kennedy.

transfer The officer is transferred to another assignment or if in patrol, another location

termination of employment The officer is fired...at least for a couple of years before an arbitrator reinstates him. Then he either comes back to work or wins a free retirement.

demotion The officer is demoted as part of his discipline to a lower rank.

And last but not least....

Promotion This may seem contraindicated to most folks who are sane and possess common sense, but certain officers are above being disciplined even if they commit gross misconduct. These officers quite naturally, are promoted instead. It happens. I know.


If you think this process is grossly ineffective or unfair, it just means that you are smart and you are definitely not alone. Fortunately, there are other options...

Additional Tools:

Small Claims Court: People have successfully sued the Riverside Police Department in Small Claims Court, in relation to incidents involving excessive force. In one case involving officer Dave Ruddy, the plaintiff was awarded $500 by the judge who ruled that the officer had used excessive force against him after he had been handcuffed.

Citation:Jerome Burrel v the city of Riverside(MVS136950)

Minute order:

COURT'S SUBSEQUENT RULING RE: SMALL CLAIMS MADE ON 11/12/99 @ 08:30 FOR DEPARTMENT 07.
11/24/1999 - 8:00 AM DEPT. 07

HONORABLE GARY TRANBARGER, PRESIDING
CLERK: E. GUEVARA
COURT REPORTER: NONE
NO APPEARANCE MADE BY ANY PARTY
COURT HAVING TAKEN SMALL CLAIMS UNDER SUBMISSION ON 11/12/99 RULES AS FOLLOWS: SEE BELOW
ON THE ISSUE OF UNLAWFUL DETENTION, COURT FINDS FOR THE DEFENDANT.
ON THE ISSUE OF FALSE ARREST, COURT FINDS FOR THE DEFENDANT.
ON THE ISSUE OF UNLAWFUL TAKING OF A BLOOD SAMPLE, COURT FINDS FOR THE DEFENDANT.
ON THE ISSUE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE USED DURING THE INITIAL CONTACT AND HANDCUFFING, COURT FINDS FOR
THE DEFENDANT.
-
ON THE ISSUE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE USED AT THE ARREST SCENE AFTER HANDCUFFING WAS COMPLETED,
COURT FINDS FOR THE PLAINTIFF, AND AWARDS DAMAGES IN THE AMOUNT OF $500.
-


Filing in Small Claims Court

for cases of retaliation upon filing a complaint:

civil temporary restraining order forms

Conduct Unbecoming of an Officer and other policy nonsense

While perusing the case file online in the case, The People of the State of California v the City of Riverside, I came upon a copy of Policy 2.23, which addresses the Rules of Conduct. Reading through the list of behaviors that police officers employed by the city of Riverside are NOT allowed to do, I had myself a good chuckle.

Not that I really think that this issue is funny, but that I realize that just because it is not funny, does not mean it is not treated like a joke.

Policy 2.23 states that commission of the following behaviors can result in suspension, demotion or (gasp, but it'll never happen in this life time) termination:

1) The commission of a felony or misdemeanor under any local, state or federal law

Let's see, where to start, because the list is growing....

Victor Williams, 1995, charged with three misdemeanors in connection with a domestic violence incident involving his then-wife, discipline, unknown, but he has been promoted twice since. Assigned to Internal Affairs...and no this is NOT a joke.

Aaron Leigh Perkins charged with three misdemeanors stemming from a "road rage, turned street-justice" incident involving a motorist in 2003. Plead guilty to two, and was slapped with probation and anger management courses. Discipline, unknown. Assigned to grave yard shift as a patrol officer

Melissa Leigh Wagner-Brazil charged with DUI and Hit and Run(misdemeanors)stemming from an injury accident she caused while her blood alcohol exceeded 0.20. Plead guilty to one misdemeanor, received probation and drunk driving counseling. Discipline, unknown. The only employee threatened with termination was the one who leaked information about her arrest to local media. He was ultimately transferred OUT of the police department.

2. Reporting on Duty with intoxicating liquor on breath or drinking any type of intoxicating liquor while on duty

I assume this is different than cops who drink liquor while on the job(i.e. Vice unit) Unknown, as it is assumed that Brazil, etal who drink after completion of their shifts commence their binge drinking on their own time and this assumption was backed up by a source, at least in regards to Brazil and other graveyard officers she drank with off-duty up to the point she entered rehab in December 2004.

3. Consuming any alcoholic beverage on or adjacent to the police department property

See above

4. Reporting for duty or being on duty following the use of a "controlled substance" or any drug(whether legally prescribed or otherwise) where such use may impair the employee's ability to perform assigned duties

Barring former officer and Miller killer Wayne Stewart's consumption of some form of ephidrine, whether cold medication or otherwise, according to his urine test, it is not known how many if any officers show up under the influence of a controlled substance during a work shift. There have been unofficial reports of officers not looking right, having blood-shot eyes, dilated pupils, agitaged by witnesses in their presense, during the graveyard shifts of 2003. Efforts to substantiate these reports were fruitless. Drug testing is performed once every six months and is not random. Only one officer has flunked a "random" drug test in three years and was sent to rehab.

5. Refusal, failure or delay in performing and/or carrying out proper orders, work assignments, or instructions of supervisors without reasonable and bonafide excuse.

Unknown, at the present time. However, several officers including Bill Rhetts(ret.) did say they reduced their work output and duties performed during 1999, in protest of the firing of four officers who shot and killed Tyisha Miller. Michael Watts(ret.) did write in a Press Enterprise Op-Ed that officers had told them they were reluctant to perform traffic stops on minority motorists or perform some of their duties because of the existance of the CPRC. Statistics of the traffic stops done during the past two years do not support this assertion.

6. Disobedience or insubordination to constituted authorities, in the course of conducting lawful department business

Not much information regarding this provision.

7. Criminal, dishonest, infamous, or notoriously disgraceful conduct unbecoming an officer/employee, which might be detrimental to the serviceon or off duty

Criminal, see above. Dishonest? How about an officer who tells a joke about the death of members of a non-white ethnic group overseas to peace activists, but then tells other people that during that interaction, he behaved politely and professionally?

CPRC, inc.

Ground Zero, was the memorandum produced on the Volne Stokes shooting that occurred on May 23, 2003 and has yet to reach its conclusion, thanks to lack of cooperation by various factions of the Riverside Police Department.

First Tina Banfill Gould, who shot and killed Stokes, failed to fulfill her duty as a police officer by providing an account to the Officer-Involved Shooting Team without exercising her Fifth Amendment rights.

The Officer Involved Shooting Team investigators failed to perform their duty as investigators when they failed to receive a voluntary statement from all the witnesses or participants in the Stokes shooting, most notably Banfill Gould.

The Internal Affairs Division failed to perform its duties as an investigative division when it violated departmental policy 4.8 by:

Failing to do an independent investigation of the Stokes Shooting.

Failing to wait to get a statement from a witness(Banfill Gould) until after the Officer Involved Shooting Team had received its statement.

Last week, the CPRC tossed in its two cents in terms of committing obstruction of its own regarding a public report, when during discussion of an item placed on the agenda by Commissioner James Ward, it came to light that Chair Michael Gardner and Interim Executive Director Pedro Payne had met with Chief Russ Leach and presented him with a (not so) final draft of the Stokes memo.

Actually, it was a copy of the memo that both Ward and Commissioner Brian Pearcy had drafted, which included fairly strong language criticizing the department's actions from Banfill Gould, to both investigative divisions.

Then it fell in the hands of Gardner and Payne who stripped it of both words, and meaning, returning a watered-down version to the commission. At some point, as of yet undetermined, Payne and Gardner had conducted a "special" meeting with Leach to "give him a head's up" that the department was about to be criticized. Leach told the two men that the document had better be absolutely accurate. One can imagine what the expressions on the faces of both men would have been, upon hearing those words. Leach thumbed through a document both men were surprised he would even want to read, and found an error which had actually been raised and ignored in discussions at earlier meetings. Ignored perhaps because it was a member of the public who raised it, and not a commissioner.

If this chain of curious events sounds confusing, well, the truth of what really happened is still quite fuzzy. The stories vary, depending on who tells them.

Whether Leach perused the "weaker" version or whether the "weaker" version authored by Payne and Gardner had arisen from Leach's criticism is still unclear as well, though given the timing of that special meeting, the latter scenerio is likely. At any rate, during its last contentious meeting, the CPRC restored some of the stronger text into the memo, even though several commissioners strongly dissented with the stronger text saying that they had "beat up the department enough".

Ward raised two objections at the meeting on June 22. He objected to Gardner meeting with the chief without getting a consensus or majority vote from the commission. He also had an issue with Gardner and Payne making substantive changes to the memo without the consensus of the CPRC. His concerns were valid, but pooh-poohed by most of the other commissioners present, including Pearcy, who said that he commended Gardner for taking both actions. Commissioner Les Davidson who's been a no-show since he castigated me for being too critical of the Riverside Police Department did not offer his two-cents in person. Not too curious, considering his history as an LAPD officer, and his political connections with two city councilmen who oppose civilian oversight: Frank Schiavone and Art Gage. Davidson is not alone in having political connections to City Hall. Gardner enjoys several, as well.

Gardner: ran for a council seat and announced publically that after filing in August 2003, he solicited an endorsement and funding from the RPOA, even while currently serving as a commissioner. The RPOA had its own reasons for stringing Gardner along for awhile, and just because Gardner was seen slapping the back of an RPOA board member at a city council meeting in August 2003, doesn't an endorsement make. That contact would not have been so noteworthy had Gardner and the CPRC not voted to clear that same officer of a discourtesy allegation less than two weeks earlier. I was so surprised at the sight, I left my keys at the security machine, instead of retrieving them. I have learned much since.

Why would any commissioner run for office and seek an endorsement from an organized union trying to dismantle the CPRC?

Davidson: has political ties to Frank Schiavone(CPRC hater) through serving on his campaign fundraising committee(see invitation for Schiavone fundraiser, Oct. 27, 2004) and even after Gage(another CPRC hater)proposed cutting the funding of the commission by up to 95 % last year, Davidson dropped $200 into his campaign coffer on Sept. 15, 2004, only three months later.

Why would any commissioner donate money to a council member who made it no secret how much he despises the CPRC?

Only Bob Garcia agreed with Ward's concerns, the racial divide on the commission emerging once again, under stress. The issue, despite its seriousness and its ethical implications(made timely with the creation and soon-to-be adoption of an ethics code)did not get the public hearing it deserved.

Other questions awaiting answers:

What role did the legal settlement between the city and the RPOA have in the issuance and content of the CPRC's memo on the Stokes shooting and investigation?

What role did several political fundraisers held by certain political candidates which preceded the shifting of the tides in the creation of the Stokes' memo, have on several commissioners with known political ties to those candidates?

Hopefully the answers to these questions will be, none at all if they are ever answered at all.

Intersting link on Tyisha Miller and the RPD

This article appeared online at a Web site and analyzed the killing of Tyisha Miller and the investigation conducted by various Law Enforcement agencies after the fact, especially attempts to paint her as the villainess of the tragedy.







Murder of Tyisha Miller

excerpt:

REAL WORLD HORROR: WE GOT HORROR, RIGHT HERE IN RIVERSIDE CITY
And its not the fun kind of chills up your spine, monsters in the dark Horror either. I'm talking about Horror among posturing, posing, preening, liberal community, "Racists don't kill people, guns do" type of Horror in California. There are no doubt more movies to come out of California (made by white folks) - as well as finger pointing to the Southern states of the U.S. - regarding racism against dark skinned people.

But...

I'm referring to the recent decision of the state of California to drop all murder charges against 4 white policemen, who saw a woman asleep in her car with a gun on her lap, woke her up, and the second she was awake, opened fire. 4 cops. 4 guns. 4 shots would have been enough for even the most frightened idiot. All 4 of them kept firing until their guns were empty. They fired 24 freaking bullets at 19 year old Tyisha Miller. They murdered her with 12 of those bullets. She was not a criminal, she was not under arrest. Her car broke down and she locked the doors while her friend went to get help. Alone at night, she put her hand gun on her lap in case she was attacked. Well...she was.