Sutton: The City Strikes Back

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Burgess strongly disagreed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blowing off steam....in San Francisco

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

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

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



EXCERPTS

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

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

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

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

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

--- Mayor Newsome

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


The Bayview community's response:

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

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

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

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

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

Wanted: Assistant Police Chief

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

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

Qualifications:

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

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

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

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

Hiding in Plain Sight: The women in the RPD

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why indeed.

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

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

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

"Come and scoot across my face."

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

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

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

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

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

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

"I owed it to him for his faithfulness."

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legal Cases:

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

Christine Keers vs the City of Riverside(Civil)

Links:

National Center of Women and Policing

Publications:

Excessive Force: A Tale of Two Genders

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

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

Police Officers and Domestic Violence: a study

Can you say, doh?!

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

TO BE CONTINUED...

CPRC: Summer Lane shooting was excessive force

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

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

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

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

CPRC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elections: To Be Continued

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

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

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

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

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

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


County and state election results

CPRC issues public report on Summer Lane shooting

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

CPRC Public Report

Click link.

(Adobe Acrobat Reader required)

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

Summer Lane: The Interrogation

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



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



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



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



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



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



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




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




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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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

Wilson: Right.

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

Wilson: Right.

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

Wilson: Yeah.



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



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



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



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



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

Wilson: right.

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

Wilson: right.



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



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

Sanfilippo: Like a will to survive.

Wilson: Right.

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

Wilson: Right.

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

Wilson: Right.



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



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

Wilson: (laughs)

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

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



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



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



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

The Long, Hot Summer of '97

Lake Evans, "Safe Haven"?



"A lot of bad stuff happened here. It's as good a place as any for it to end."
--Bud White, L.A. Confidential

No one can agree who the first person thrown into Lake Evans by Riverside Police Department officers was, or the last, but everyone can agree on which incident was the most notorious. Lake Evans has woven itself into the fabric of Riverside's history, including that of its police department, but this incident stood out on its own, for different reasons. The incident involved Jose Martinez Rodriguez, three or four police officers depending on who provides the accounts and a date with serious misconduct of a criminal kind under the moonlight, on a hot summer night at Fairmont Park in 1997.

Back Story:

Police officers tend to refer to this incident as the one involving the "two Black officers who beat and tossed the guy into the lake" when in actuality, as most of us in the general public know, there was at least a third officer who was White who actively participated in the beating and its coverup. His participation in this travesty might have been erased by those in the RPD, but not by those in the community. It was three officers who engaged in the beating and attempted drowning of a Latino man, and all three of them should have seen the inside of a jail cell. However, none of them ever did...unless you count the short stint served by Graham, only after the D.A.'s office caught him assigned to work detail rather than serving time in jail.

Another argument tossed out by police officers in the department was that this incident was an example of Affirmative Action gone bad, or as an argument against hiring Black officers in the department. But they are wrong, and anyone who has read the biannual Equal Employment Opportunity Reports for the past 15 years will know that the department has hired few Black officers.

But they are right in the sense that an Affirmative Action program of sorts was in place within the police department. Only, the program centered around athletic talent, preferably that shown on the gridiron. When Philip Graham was hired by the department, it was not just to be a police officer in the field, but a star on the field, as well. You see, Graham was the son of Tom Graham, the former star player for the Denver Broncos, and was himself a star defensiveback at Colorado State University.

He was recruited by then Officer Duane Beckman, according to a March 14, 1996 article in the Press Enterprise to play football for the department's intramural team. When the reporter who wrote that article asked Beckman if the stories about Graham's background and hiring were true, Beckman said:

"You bet. This is serious stuff."

According to that PE article, the RPD had competition for Graham's football skills: The Riverside County Sheriff's Department. Graham had done some time there before being hired by Riverside PD who put him to work...including on the gridiron. When asked by the PE reporter of the March 14, 1995 article about his prowness on the football field, Graham said:

"When you put the helmet and gear on, you are not out there to play patty cake."

Indeed, you are not. This philosophy was transferred by Graham in his police work, each time he put on his badge and gun. Only two years later, the department would see how "serious" Graham was, when he and two other officers became involved into what is now called, The Lake Incident.

THE OFFICERS:

Graham, was viewed by those in the department as "mild mannered" and a respected member of the SWAT team, which he belonged to, despite only having been in the department six years.

Graham, Tommie Sykes and Jason McQueen collectively were known as "good, young cops who looked out for one another and answered supervisors with the words, 'yes sir'. Graham and McQueen were both members of the department's Honor Guard.

McQueen had been with the department a little over five years when the incident happened. The only noted blemish on his record was a car accident he had experienced onduty which led to a young man on a motorcycle suffering serious injuries including a broken back. The city eventually issued a $1.75 million settlement in relation to the accident.

Sykes was hired out of the United States Air Force where he had worked as a pharmacist and had been working with the department about four years.

THE VICTIM: Jose Martinez Rodriguez, a 59 year old legal immigrant who worked as a laborer who on one job had helped in the construction of Zacateca's restaurant, a centerpiece in the Eastside neighborhood. His neighbors described him as a quiet, helpful person whose attitude changed completely after his beating at the hands of the officers.

THE PLACE: A departmentally designated "safe haven" for inebriated people known as Lake Evans.

NARRATIVE:

The first notice of the incident in the Press Enterprise occurred in an article written in July 1997 which detailed the OTHER beating of a civilian by an officer resulting in a prosecution that occurred that summer. That involved a White officer, Robert Mauger who hit a teenager named Jerry Maroney who was handcuffed at the time, first on the scene and then while he was being booked. The officers involved in the Lake Evans incident were mentioned in that article, but not named. That would come over six months later after two of the three officers involved in the case entered guilty pleas in exchange for wrist slaps in Riverside County Superior Court.

The story broke in the Jan. 29, 1998 edition of the Press Enterprise when it was announced that Graham, Sykes and McQueen had picked up Jose Martinez Rodriquez from University Avenue and taken him to Fairmount Park to "sleep it off" and instead, beat him, stomped him and threw him in the lake. Martinez climbed his way out of the lake, hid in the foliage until he was sure his abusers had left, then walked home.

Within days of the beating, rumors swirled around the department and officers began asking the three officers about what they had done. Investigators from Internal Affairs and the General Investigations Bureau launched inquiries into the incident, which lasted longer than three months. The department however, remained perusual tight lipped on the matter to those outside its ranks. That worked until Graham became involved in his second assault and battery of the season, this time at a bar-restaurant hybrid known as Carlos O'Brian.

In this incident that occurred Sept. 27, 1997, Graham, Sykes and another White officer allegedly had appeared at the door of the bar already heavily intoxicated and were initially refused entrance...until they flashed the bouncers their badges. The doormen allowed the three men and their entourage to enter, and were quickly rewarded for that favor, by Graham who proceeded to assault a female patron and two bouncers who had intervened to stop him. Graham pulled a gun on one of them, and allegedly forced him on the ground, and the gun in his mouth, breaking the bouncer's teeth. Another bouncer suffered injuries in his altercation with the violently intoxicated Graham, including a broken wrist.

According to then-chief Jerry Carroll who had slipped in the revolving door of the department's administration and had been in charge all of about three months before all this happened, there were no 9-11 calls made from the bar in relation to this incident.

However, someone had to pick up Graham, and according to witnesses, two officers appeared and told Graham that if he went quietly, they would not tell the sergeant what happened. Graham was not willing to cooperate with that rather generous offer, so the officers arrested him. He was later charged with two felonies including brandishing a firearm and assault with a deadly weapon.

Of course, the public was left completely in the dark about this incident as well for many months. In hindsight, few people were surprised about the department's decision to do that.

After the Lake Incident, the Riverside County District Attorney's office in a rare display of zeal decided to convene a grand jury, and they went to Jason McQueen(the White officer) to testify but McQueen wanted no part of breaking that code of silence rule until the office granted him full immunity from prosecution. So, McQueen testified abeit reluctantly to the Grand Jury. He was followed by Sykes who also invoked the Fifth Amendment before the D.A. offered him partial immunity in exchange for his testimony. Later, the D.A.'s office would reward Sykes for his efforts by offering him an even lighter slap on the wrist than they would give to Graham.

McQueen testified first, and his words should put to end any assertion that this incident was solely a Black on Hispanic crime, because it turned out, McQueen was on equal footing with Graham when it came to participating in the beating at the lake, while Sykes's participation was actually less than that of the other two officers. If you do not believe that, go back and read McQueen's account of the incident in his own words, under threat of perjury.

McQueen's Story:

Press Enterprise feb. 18, 1998


McQueen testified that on July 5, he had worked a two-man car with his partner and friend, Graham, when they encountered what they saw as an inebriated male Latino walking down University Avenue. It was 11pm, seven hours into their 4pm to 2am shift and both men were tired and hungry and on their way to an anticipated date with a third officer at the McDonalds restaurant on the corner of Eucalyptus Avenue and University. It was not to be, at least not right away.

McQueen and Graham turned around to stop Martinez, and even without doing a breathalizer test, they concluded he was drunk and that they would have to delay their rendevouz with Mickey Ds to arrest him. Instead, they decided to take him to what they called a "safe haven" at Fairmount Park to allow him to sleep it off. They parked their squad car at a dark spot about 100 yards away from the American Legion Hall. Martinez had struggled, yelled and cursed at them, McQueen said.

"He had gotten my goat."

McQueen gave as his excuse for beating Martinez, four years of rage at having been yelled at by civilians. It was for him, excuse enough. The D.A. thanked him for his testimony by not charging him and the department allowed him to resign on Dec. 10, without being fired.

So he and Graham beat and hit Martinez, until he was on the ground. Then, Graham stomped on Martinez's chest with his boot. Both officers assisted by a third(Sykes) then picked up Martinez, swung him two or three times, then tossed him into the lake.

Afterwards, they discussed what to do, with McQueen saying they should arrest him.

"We got to do something about this, because you know this is not going well."

They left the lake and went to McDonalds to eat but the conversation was not centered on anything pleasant, McQueen said.

According to McQueen, he, Graham and Sykes got together to meet to discuss the beating during several onduty meetings afterwards. Just to say when asked that they weren't at such and such when such and such happened, if anyone happened to come to them and ask.

The Victim's story:

Martinez naturally was not called before the Grand Jury to testify about his experience at the hands(and feet) of these officers, because he was a civilian who had 6-8 beers, so he imagined the whole experience, of course. At least until it was collaborated first by McQueen and then Sykes in their testimonies.

Martinez did tell his account in a Feb. 20 Press Enterprise article. He said that he was walking home from a bar after having some beers when he saw two squad cars stop in front of him. Out of one of the cars, came one Black officer and one White officer. He thought at first he was going to jail, then after he realized they were going some place else, he thought he was going to die. At the park, he was hit six times and then felt a knee on his chest, then hit again, by four officers. Next thing he knew, he felt himself being picked up by two officers, then swung back and forward a few times, before being tossed in the lake. He sunk to the bottom of the lake and crawled his way out, because he could not swim. He hid in the grass until the officers left, then walked home.

He called 9-11 which dispatched an ambulance but he said the ambulance refused to take him to the hospital. He said that the employees made him sign a form refusing service which was in english even though he spoke mostly spanish. His family came to see him and they tried again, and he spent eight days at the hospital recovering from injuries and pneumonia. It would be months before he could work in construction again. Martinez suffered from nightmares and other signs of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. So did most of the neighborhood, many living in fear that they too would receive visits from officers like Graham, Sykes and McQueen.

In 2001, the city of Riverside settled a law suit filed in U.S. District Court by Martinez for $550,000.


After the Fact:

Sykes had testified that he had arrived at Fairmount Park to clear it out since it was closed to the public, and had ran into the other two officers at a stop sign. The D.A. thanked Sykes for his testimony by granting permission for him to be sentenced by a judge to only three years of probation. The department fired Sykes on Dec. 9, 1997.

Graham plead guilty to felony charges in the Carlos O'Brian case and misdemeanor charges in the Lake Incident, and was sentenced to six months in jail. Only, a judge placed him in work detail instead of taking him into custody. Graham refused to pick weeds as part of his detail because he said he suffered from a wrist injury and was assigned to desk work for one day.

In June 1998, he surrendered to do time in jail, and three years later, he had his misdemeanor conviction in connection with the Lake Incident expunged along with one of his felony counts from the Carlos O'Brian case.

Martinez, his attorney Andrew Roth and others decried the wrist slappings given to two of the officers and the immunity deal given to the third. Perennial D.A. Grover Trask called the offenses by the officers, "borderline felonies" which was interpreted by most people to mean that if the officers had been civilians, they would have had the book thrown at them.

Eight years and a consent decree have passed since the Lake Incident, and many lessons have been learned and others still to be learned. To start with, one being when you hire police officers, hire them for the desired personality traits and skills necessary to do that job. Do not go looking for gridiron prowness and expect to find a mentally sound police candidate. Leave the football recruiting to the pros and stick to hiring people equipped to work as police officers.

As for the other lessons to be learned, the next opportunity for that was just around the bend...and three miles away from the lake.

Sources:

Press Enterprise articles dated: March 14, 1995, July 21, 1997, Jan. 29, 1998,Jan. 30, 1998, Feb. 10, 1998, Feb. 19-22, 1998.

The People of California vs Philip Graham, Tommie Sykes(Riverside County Superior Court)

The People of California vs Philip Graham(Riverside County Superior Court)
FELONY CASE

Jose Martinez Rodriguez vs the City of Riverside (U.S. District Court)

The CPRC, and Ward 2 candidates

Last night, the League of Women Voters held a forum at the Kansas Avenue 7th Day Adventist Church, which offered community members an opportunity to listen to and field questions at all the city council candidates running for the Ward 2 seat.

Candidates appearing were businessman Andrew Melendrez, retired teacher Gloria Willis, retired Riverside County Sheriff deputy, Ruben Rasso and retired city employee, Deen Teer.

The four candidates spoke on the issues that had impassioned them to run for office, to an audience of 40 people. Traffic, public safety, University Avenue, job training, traffic, economic development, the new ethics code and traffic were the issues that were discussed by the candidates.

The candidates agreed on several issues, disagreed on many others, but all of them agreed on one thing: When the voters of Riverside passed Measure II last year, they had spoken about the importance of keeping the city's civilian review mechanism in place. The message sent by all four of them was this:

The Community Police Review Commission was a valued and necessary componant in the city of Riverside.

All of them began their comments when asked about their positions about the CPRC with the assertion that the people had made it clear that civilian review was an important part of the fabric of this city and if elected, they all intended to honor the wishes of their constituents.

Melendrez even said he was endorsed by the CPRC, which was likely a flub. Rasso stood up and said he was no body's puppet and that he would honor his constituents' feelings about the CPRC by supporting it. He said he believed it was necessary to keep officers accountable for their behavior.

The behavior of all these city council candidates in terms of being so willing to carry out the wishes of the people who spoke through a crucial vote last year is to be commended.

The election that is scheduled for Nov. 8, 2005 includes municipal races as well as a list of very important propositions to vote on, include proposition 75 which will determine how union members will decide whether or not their annual dues are spent on political campaigns launched by their PACs.

The cost of racism

$1.64 million is what tax payers in this city will have to pay to cover the expenses that resulted when members of the department's management decided to engage in racial discrimination, harassment and retaliation against one of the department's Black officers.

Jury awards $1.64 million in racial discrimination, harassment and retaliaton case

The jury of two African-Americans, two Latinos and eight Whites deliberated for a day and a half before agreeing in most cases on a verdict. They decided that Sutton was entitled to $140,945 in economic losses and $1.5 million in non-economic losses. The verdict, as juror Charles Espinoza said in the Press Enterprise article, was intended to help take care of Sutton's need but also to send a message to the city of Riverside in the form which would deliver the most impact: Through the city's coffers.

So taxpayers in this city will be the ultimate payers for the "outrageous treatment" which management chose to impose on Officer Roger Sutton when it removed him from the canine unit in 1999, and then engaged in retaliatory behavior against him when he complained of racial discrimination in the department.

Earlier, in 2004, Sutton was forced to take his case to arbitration after the civil court system froze its trial schedule to handle a backlog of criminal trials. After a "mini-trial" lasting several days, the arbitrator awarded Sutton, $200,000, which is peanuts in comparison to the jury's verdict. The city refused to pay chump change to Sutton and the case went back to the courtroom. In 2004, Scott Silverman had said that he felt his client would receive a larger award if a jury heard his case.

And on Oct. 20, he was proven right.

Of course, racism in the RPD is old news by now, what with federal and state investigations done involving the agency. The state's investigation was prompted by Riverside County District Attorney Grover Trask, who though his office decided not to prosecute the four officers who shot Tyisha Miller, was concerned about possible evidence of racial animus in connection with behavior displayed by the four officers and their sergeant after the shooting. The only people still in denial are those at City Hall, who even after this huge indictment by a 12-member jury against the pre-decree RPD's management will continue to bury its head in the sand and will likely opt to take this decision out of the hands of ordinary citizens performing one of the most important civil duties, and place it into the hands of a judge with the Court of Appeals. The city's continued practice of denying culpability in the racism that plagued the police department especially its management for many years, is part of the reason why people have difficulty believing that things have changed. For those who have tried to change the racial environment inside the department including officers, the city's stance makes that courageous task much more difficult.

Although most of the management personnel including former Deputy Chiefs Michael Smith and Audrey Wilson, who contributed to this mess are long gone through timely retirements, two of the principal players still remain. Now, they will not just be drawing high salaries for doing whatever it is that they have been doing, but they will cost the tax payers in another way, through a payout on this costly verdict. Sure, an insurance carrier might pay out the costs above $500,000 but what happens to your insurance policy when they are forced to pay out a claim? The costs of premiums goes up.

And given that other Black city employees have pending trials against the city of Riverside in the more amiable U.S. District Court, it remains to be seen how the huge jury's verdict in this case will impact their legal decisions as well as those of the city's. One thing for sure is this. The emotional impact of racism in the city's workforce has been long known, and often ignored. However, for the first time, this racism's financial costs have also become known, and those can not and will not be as easily ignored. The fact that this new revelation came from a vote of 12 ordinary people who heard all the allowable evidence, rather than from a city quickly settling reverse discrimination claims outside of public scrutiny makes the message that the city received through the verdict all the more clear in terms of race relations among its own employees.

More rain drops in Riverside

Jury deliberation began this morning in the racial discrimination, harassment and retaliation case filed by Officer Roger Sutton in 2000. The trial which lasted nearly a month heard closing arguments yesterday afternoon, in front of an audience of representatives from the department's management.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ernest Cohen, who was due to be arraigned on a misdemeanor battery charge on Oct. 17, in Dept. 34 failed to make an appearance, according to court minutes. A bench warrant has been issued for his arrest. Hardly a surprise in my opinion. It's not like he hasn't done this before, in earlier cases. *shrug*

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The city's appeal of the reinstatement of former Det. Al Kennedy has recieved an appeal number. Kennedy was fired by Leach several years ago for having sexual relations with a rape victim whose case he was investigating.

An unpleasant memory returns to town

Adam James Brown returns to Riverside to face over 65 felony charges of child molestation, after a police department launched an investigation in 2004. Brown, who had spent the last 18 months at a federal detention center in Wisconsin has already plead guilty to felonies related to the bust of an Internet child molestatin ring, by the FBI.

Chief Russ Leach said that the only good thing to come out of this appalling situation is that Brown promptly resigned from the department after his arrest, sparing the city and everyone in it the difficulty of firing him. He was right about that.

Still one asks, how did he slip through the cracks? How did a child molester become an employee of the police department? Was he, as a son of a senior management member vetted as properly as he should have been? How does the department uncover a history of child molestation committed by one of its candidates?

Brown hurt his victims in ways that no one can fix. They'll bear the mark of his acts on their souls forever. He hurt the community, he worked in. He made every mother or father of small children who ever crossed his path worry about their kids. And he hurt his department, which has had its share of its own problems to fix during the past five years. Hopefully, he was the only one of his kind in its employment.

Will Brown take a guilty plea, as the prosecutor suggested? Hopefully yes. His young victims have been assaulted already. They don't need to be assaulted again during the criminal proceeding.

Adam Brown transferred back to face charges in Riverside

Storm Clouds on the horizon??

In the midst of a whirlwind of city elections, police union elections and the waning months of the arranged marriage between the city and the state AG's office, comes potential storm clouds on the horizon.

Or at the very least, a potential range war between the Riverside Police Department and the Community Police Review Commission.

Not that the CPRC is a stranger to strife between itself, and factions of the police department. But this one if it erupts could be entirely different.

The CPRC's previous range wars were fought with the RPOA, including a five year battle which culminated in a public vote that placed the commission in the city's charter away from the whims of the city council.

For the most part, the battles between the CPRC and the department's management have been a few relatively minor squalls, under the radar of most city residents. Chief Russ Leach attended a workshop with the CPRC on March 17, 2004 and told them that the CPRC was the most important commission on the city's roster.

Only one week later, two members of the RPOA board came in front of the same commission and unleashed a litany of complaints against the body including the claim that the commission had made some really horrible decisions and most of its cases were thrown out in arbitration, but when asked by the CPRC to provide documentation of this claim, the RPOA demurred. Instead, several of its boardmembers targetted their pique at a commissioner and pushed for her ejection by circulating a letter around City Hall. When that failed, they lobbied one of their council members to push for the disqualification of active(but non-RPD) law enforcement officers from serving on the Commission. This council member, reading me as an anti-cop person, lobbied me for my support in this endeavor and if I had truly been anti-cop, I would have gladly helped him. He guessed wrong.

So we moved on to the city charter amendment, and the resulting campaign.

Then came the whole Officer "Hands Tied" episode where slow response time was not blamed on the shortage of officers(as it is now) but the existance of the CPRC. Dan Bernstein saw the obvious, and wrote it in his column, and the public responded by voting the CPRC into the city's charter. In part, not because they had not heard the RPOA's message(as claimed by its PR representative, Richard St. Paul) but because, as Bernstein wrote, they had heard its message loud and clear.

Measure II probably would have passed without the RPOA's high-priced campaign but every little bit helps.

Calm seas prevailed for a while. Maybe the RPOA's leadership had finally figured out that the CPRC was not the enemy but really the best thing that ever happened to it.

The CPRC once again fell off the radar of most people who returned to taking its existance for granted.

Until revelations about the Summer Lane shooting investigation conducted by the CPRC's own investigator came to light. Revelations which do not match those included in the RPD's report which made it clear as early as a memo written by Sgt. Steve Johnson to Leach on Dec. 7, 2004 that it was a justified shooting, done to deal with the highest level of threat.

That statement was echoed by a memo written by Det. Jay Greenstein to Johnson on Dec. 21, 2004.

"The female suspect hit Officer Wilson with her vehicle three times and was preparing to attempt to run him over again when Officer Wilson eliminated the threat to his life by discharing four rounds [sic] firearm into her vehicle, mortally wounding her,"

In fact when you read the transcript of the interview given by Ryan Wilson to Det. Jay Greenstein and Det. Ron Sanfilipo, by its end, they are telling him what happened in their question including their own perceptions and experiences as police officers, and Wilson's saying "right", "yeah" and so forth.

When they tell him they can tell how traumatized he is because he is still shaking(the interview took place the day after the shooting)Wilson laughs. Then Greenstein congratulates him for surviving a "hair raising ordeal".

Absolutely true words about the ordeal, but words which should have not been said by the two detectives interviewing him as a potential criminal suspect, during the actual interview used as part of an ongoing investigation which will ultimately determine whether or not Wilson ever faced criminal charges. Especially by two hardworking and talented investigators like these two, who are above the mean. It also looks too effusive to be explained entirely away by the team-tagging "good cop"/"bad cop" interrogatory tactics. Perhaps it just means that officers in the department are too close, emotionally and experience-wise, to one of their own to investigate shootings done by their own officers.

So this investigation essentially ended early as all investigations really do when conclusions are drawn and expressed from the beginning, at least as far as the Officer Involved Shooting Team is concerned. The District Attorney's office, as Deputy Chief David Dominguez(who had little else to say) said in the PE article backed them up in its own decision, just as it has in the past.

The Internal Affairs Division refuses to say a thing about the conclusions it reached in the administrative investigation, but it seems safe to say that they did not close the book on the shooting much slower than the DA did.

Usually the CPRC follows stead, and as its chair, Michael Gardener, said in the PE article decides the shootings are within policy. Once, in the Rene Guevara shooting, the body determined that the officer had waited too long to fire his weapon.

This time, however, you have commissioners in public meetings referring to the shooting of Summer Lane, as "an executionary type of shooting. He executed her." and another saying:

"Given what we have in front of us, the D.A.'s office should be the greater concern."

With that comment, hell just froze over, because in the past, commissioners had been reluctant to even mention the words, "DA" and "CPRC" in the same sentence, let alone in this context.

Dominguez, in his lack of comments, seems to be hoping that with time, the commissioners will come around, issue the appropriate ruling and then he can break the department's silence on this shooting. He could be right, as the department's policy on lethal force is quite liberal.

Still, moods would have to change at CPRC meetings inside the city council chambers before they come around as departmental officials likely hope. After all, there is quite a large gap to bridge between these two terms: execution and justified shooting.


Two inquiries two opinions in the Summer Lane shooting death

***registered site***

Book Club Selection

Now, that there are so many people from the Riverside Police Department(which has been monitoring this site for months) showing up at this Web site and some of them breaking their silence, it seems like this would be an appropriate time to announce the Book Club Selection of the Month.

Breaking Rank: A Top Cop's Expose of the Dark Side of Policing

by Norm Stamper, former lieutenant from San Diego Police Department, and former chief of Seattle Police Department.

Copies are available at Barnes and Nobles, Borders and online for anyone who wishes to purchase it. Some of you out there might wish to some day be promoted in the administration that you are somewhat at odds with today. Do you agree with Stamper's philosphy of police administration, or not?

Occasionally, selections from Stamper's book will be posted here.

Politics as usual at City Hall

The city council minus Frank Schiavone played to a full house last night, as three important items on the discussion calendar came on the plate. Over 100 city residents, police officers and other city employees sat in the audience or spoke on the three items which purtained to the police department.

(Frank despite the annual contribution of $3,000 from the RPOA PAC obviously had better things to do.)

The police administration had very little to say about any of the three items, prefering to take up the half of the front row and sit like bumps on a log. A man with a love for elephants, and an oxygen tank formed the dividing line between the command staff and the RPOA representatives. Once again, the job was left to City Manager Brad Hudson and his assistant Tom DeSantis. No one really wanted to come up to the podium to address the agenda item on recruitment incentives, until Leach came up to say a few words about the "best of the best" and not sacrificing quality in search of quantity. The command staff and Mayor cited "fatigue" as the reason not to respond to the issue of recruitment. With all the city funds that is going to pay all those tired people in the front row, better excuses are needed.

Pat McCarthy, president of the RPOA and clearly practicing his election speech, spoke about how there was a crisis on the frontlines, due to the increased population growth both from migrations and from the city's annexations of several populated areas. Actually, this crisis was there last year, but the RPOA was too busy spending over $30,000 of its dues to fight Measure II, by scaring the voters into believing that if they cast a "yes" vote, the police officers would not be able to respond as quickly to calls for service. But then, the RPOA did not hold elections last year and any opposing candidates were not on its radar.

Steve Adams, playing to his constituents in the front row, blasted anyone who questioned the quality of the department's officers. Most likely, he was not listening or out of the room taking a phone call(as he often is at meetings)when several residents spoke about how important it was not to sacrifice quality, in search of quantity. Agencies in cities like Washington D.C., Los Angeles and Miami among others learned this the hard way in the early 1990s.

Former RSD employee, Ruben Rasso practicing his campaign speech, fresh from receiving an endorsement by the RPOA PAC said that public safety is his first priority. Judging by his appearance at recent meetings and his list of political contributors, it is his own priority. If elected, then, will he jump in with the GASS Quartet(picked by the RPOA PAC, financed by the members of the RPOA) and focus on development over the quality of city services?

With two elections on the city's horizon, politics was an obvious flavor in the background, as people debated over issues impacting the quality of life of those who live in what is sometimes fondly, but often not referred to as RiverCity.

Going public...

When I started this blog, my intention was mostly to store material and articles obtained in research done on the Riverside Police Department since the stipulated agreement began between this agency and the city on March 6, 2001.

This past week, the address of this blog, which previously had been private, was obtained by employees of the police department and one of them posted some disturbing comments in response to one of the entries on this blog. It is not known how employees of the Riverside Police Department obtained the address of this blog, but they have and began posting on this blog beginning with "Kevin" who prayed that in an example of beautiful poetic justice, I or a member of my family would be a victim of a violent crime, then he described the perpetrator of that crime and insinuated that it would occur near where I live. He also stated in his comments that the Eastside, a community populated by Black and Hispanic populations, should be turned over to Animal Control. When he discovered who he was talking to, he backtracked and began explaining away his prior comments. But despite that, I did learn something when I read his comments and if he wishes to continue to share his views, then he is welcome. He has created some fear in my heart towards him, but I am willing to put that aside and allow him to voice his opinions...while exercising precautions of course.

Since he appeared, other people have appeared both in my defense and in opposition, all anomynous. I have appreciated their contributions to this site, even though initially I felt as I would if my kid brother had stolen my journal and was reading it on the playground. But it has been interesting reading their comments. I think it's been educational as well and they also provide an education to other potential readers.

However, now that the blog has been visited by members of the police department and some civilians who have easier access to criminal reports including investigative reports(confidential) than most civilians, it seems that the time has come to go public with this blog so that everyone can read it. Not just members of the RPD and their friends.

With the city and the state scheduled to part ways next March, this blog will continue to be a place where issues pertaining to the department and the stipulated agreement will be discussed. One anomynous poster brought up the topic of the proportion of officers in a particular racial group in the department, which is a topic to be addressed as well. As is staffing issues.

Even union elections.

I will be asking questions of those who respond as well, and it is their decision of whether or not to answer them.

Until March, do we part...

The PE had a fascinating article about whether or not the city and the state were going to end their five-year shotgun marriage on schedule on March 6, 2005.

Will they or won't they?

***registered site***

Interesting study on the characters that populate the fabric which began stitching itself back together after being ripped apart by the tragic shooting of Tyisha Miller in December 1998. The police brass and union so rarely on the same page, or same side of a court battle actually agree on the contention that the reforms are over and done with and it's time for Bill Lockyer and co. to roll up the carpets and head on back North. Fascinating metaphor indeed.

The community members are all on an advisory board handpicked by the chief himself in 2001. All but one says "We have more work to do...but we're done...maybe."

Woodie Rucker-Hughes and Chani Beeman make good points in their comments, but their comments mirror the assertion Beeman made about the relationship between the community and its police force, being "schitzophrenic".

The other, Michael Crichton, a former law enforcement officer, is more blunt with his remarks. He chose to go a different route and say, show me the money, which could be akin to challenging whether the emperor has no clothes! Not an easy choice, but a brave one.

But it has been on the minds of many including those who were not invited to participate in any meaningful way in the department's reform process. Now that the gala is coming to a close, those invites will not be forthcoming. And if you contest the end of the forced marriage between the city of Riverside and the state, well then you are one of two things depending on whom you ask.

1) an igorant person who can not tell the difference between a court-mandated document and a booklet with glossy pages.

****pssst, it has something to do with the Strategic Plan****

2) a chronic liar.

2.5) a complainer who is not doing the work

Words that surely would soothe the minds of those who are not entirely convinced that this marriage of convenience is ready to end? Whether they do or they do not, is beside the point. It matters little what the communities in Riverside most impacted by the problems(sorry Kevin) in the police department express doubts, or want to see proof that change has indeed occurred.

excerpts from the cast :

BRAD HUDSON: views the stipulated agreement as a business deal he does not wish to see go sour.

City Manager Brad Hudson said, "This council and these taxpayers have spent almost $20 million on this. ... We're gonna get better and bigger and do more."

Maybe open up some more franchises of McRPD??? Money matters of course, but this stipulated judgement was about people. That is how it should remain in its waning days and beyond into the future. The future of course remains unwritten.


CHIEF RUSS LEACH:

Police Chief Russ Leach said, "I know there's some well-meaning people in the community who have concerns." But, he added, the consent decree has been a huge investment.

"Overnight we're not going to turn into ... reckless cowboys," Leach said.

Leach said he doesn't expect to continue the annual traffic-stop study, which is used to determine if racial profiling exists within the department, but aside from that, nothing will change.

"How do we convince them that we won't just roll up the carpets and go home?" Leach asked.

His answer: Read the strategic plan, which lays out department goals through 2009.

"People don't seem to understand -- that's a court-ordered document," Leach said. "We didn't just throw a bunch of words out in a glossy little book."

RPOA President Pat McCarthy:

Pat McCarthy, president of the Riverside police union, said it's unfair for people who haven't been involved in the reform process to point fingers.

While the union certainly didn't welcome the consent decree with open arms, McCarthy said, the department has thrived in the years since it has been in place.

"People are gonna cry wolf no matter what," McCarthy said. "I'm ready to move on."

Put it in the history books, the police chief and the RPOA president in agreement on an issue. So maybe after this current marriage is annulled, these two parties will run off and elope. Then the city's residents can wait and see how this pairing works out, before we throw our rice.

Shhhh...don't look!

***This information is not currently accessible by the taxpaying residents of Riverside***

Anticipating the end of its marriage to the State Attorney General's office, the police department has rearranged and reconfigured its management structure. The Field Operations Division now presides over four regions or precincts, North, Central, East and West. The long vacant Captain of Personnel position has been filled by the promotion of John Wallace. The Special Operations Division which includes Aviation, Canine and Traffic, will be overseen by newly promoted Capt. John DeLaRosa.

Hidden in the impressive chart that details the infrastructure of the new, model(tm) department, is one small detail which spells trouble. Buried at the bottom of the chain of command is the Audit and Compliance Division, formerly known as the Attorney General's Task Force. The Task Force was set up by the department in order to implement required reforms and monitor the progress of these reforms. Originally, it was headed by a lieutenant, who presided over a sergeant, a detective, an officer and an administrative assistant. Various officers have rotated on and off the Task Force during the past four and three-quarter years the department has spent under state consent decree.

Out with the old and in with the new, and the philosophy that seems to fit the mood surrounding the cutting of the department's chains with the state, is to forget the old through embracing the new. Meaning that this critical task force is part of the old, and thus has no place in the new, model(tm)agency. Consequently, there will be no lieutenant heading the new, defanged Audit and Compliance unit. Instead, it will be headed by a sergeant, who will preside over a small group of civilian employees known as criminal analysts.

Initially, the city and department had planned to phase out the Task Force completely on March 6, 2006, and this was shown by the lack of budget funding provided for this unit after that date in the city's biannual budget. Obviously that decision has been put on hold, but the weakening of this body just goes to show that the city and the department wish to exorcise their collective memories of bad behaviors including those that reflect the years of gross negligence and incompetance which led to the necessity of the consent decree in the first place.

The philosophy of defanging the Task Force and burying it in its command structure is one that goes to show that the department is operating under the flawed assumption that the reforms under the consent decree were nothing more than a checklist to be completed and chucked aside.

More officers...check.
More supervision...check
More equipment...check
More cool toys...check, check

But what Attorney General Bill Lockyer had in mind when he set his sights on the RPD, was to destroy the department's culture of racism, sexism and paranoia and rebuild it anew.

From San Diego Indymedia:

Lockyer on RPD

"I decided there were systemic problems with the Riverside Police Department," Lockyer said. "There were a lot of instances in which African-Americans were beaten, Hispanics beaten and tossed in the lake, and Gays and Lesbians harassed and beaten. I spent a year and a half negotiating with the Riverside Police Department for such basic demands as psychological evaluations for officers before they are hired, up-to-date training, community relations boards, availability and training in use of non-lethal weapons, TV cameras in the chief's office and the squad room and video and audio recording in police cars."

Here's the kicker:

The intent of these reforms, Lockyer said, was to break the macho culture of the police department and the racism and sexism that went along with it.

Why was it important to file a law suit against Riverside in Superior Court in order to ensure that it would reform its troubled agency in the wake of the shooting death of Tyisha Miller?

Lockyer found that the Riverside City Council balked at signing on to the deal. "They did some things of their own. which they'd done three times before, and each time there had been slight improvements and then things had got worse again," he recalled. Finally I went to one of the Council meetings and said, The choice is, you adopt the reforms or I will sue you and we'll see what the federal courts have to say.? They said, "Our constituents don't like outsiders coming in," and I said, "I've got news for you. All your constituents are my constituents as well."


But it remains unclear whether Lockyer's version of judicial tough love will keep the scandal-plagued department on the straight and narrow. Defanging the Task Force, is not a forward step on that road.


And there lies the danger that always cloaks this type of voluntary amnesia. As well as with the tried and true adage that if one forgets one's mistakes they are doomed to repeat them.