Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCitizen Review Board - Minutes - 07/20/2005Citizen Review Board Meeting 2554 Midpoint Dr. July 20, 2005 Present: Dennis Baker, Harry Edwards, Dave Evans and Maria Martinez Absent: Brian Carroll, Monica Garcia and Becky Richardson. Staff: Lt. Jim Broderick, Sgt. Joel Tower, Greg Tempel, Assistant City Attorney, and Wendy Hartzell, Secretary Public: None. The meeting was called to order at 6:05 p.m. by Chair Dave Evans. Absences: All submitted written notices for absence. Voice Mail: No messages. No public comment. Minutes: June 15, 2005, Minutes — Tabled until July. Dennis Baker made a motion to table approval of the June 15, 2005 Minutes until the July meeting when all Board members would be present. Harry Edwards seconded the motion. There was no discussion and the motion passed 4-0. Subcommittee Minutes — Case #2004-26 — Dave Evans will complete and return to Lt. Broderick by the end of the week. The minutes will be considered for approval at the August meeting. Subcommittee Minutes - Case #2005-02 — Harry Edwards moved to approve the subcommittee minutes in Case #2005-02. Dennis Baker seconded the motion. There was no discussion and the motion passed 2-0. Old Business: Periodic Review — Dave Evans and Harry Edwards reported that the periodic review by City Council was held on June 28. They reported that it went very well and new Council members learned about the CRB. New Business: Ordinance Issues — Civil Rights Violations Lt. Broderick brought before the Board an issue regarding the types of cases and/or complaints received in Police Services. He dealt with a recent case that could have been identified as a civil rights violation and wanted to bring it to the attention of the Board to discuss his handling of the situation and whether or not more clarification was needed in the ordinance. Lt. Broderick read the complaint from an African -American male to the Board and described his discussion with the complainant. Sgt. Pearson investigated the complaint and found that police officers were responding to a call which explained their focus on the complainant. After conveying this to the complainant, he was satisfied with the response and required no further attention or action. Lt. Broderick asked if this particular incident should have been brought forward to the CRB pursuant to the ordinance. Greg Tempel stated that the ordinance specifies that complaints must be written, be within one year of the incident and allege that the person "....suffered a civil rights violation." Lt. Broderick stated that many of the complaints taken could be deemed civil rights violations and he wants to make sure the discretion exercised by him is what the Board wants. Dave Evans asked if a written complaint triggers an internal investigation. Lt. Broderick stated that the ordinance says it is initiated by a written complaint. Dennis Baker asked if the Board wants to see investigation of all civil rights complaints. There was discussion regarding complainant's statement that he was okay with the level of investigation and response. Lt. Broderick stated that if there had not been a police call in the area and police had contacted the complainant as a suspect, he would have deemed it an alleged civil rights violation. Greg Tempel stated that if a complainant withdraws the complaint, there is nothing else to do, but withdrawal should be in writing. Lt. Broderick stated it is a bigger problem, in that many complaints are called in and are not written. Greg Tempel stated that if Police is screening out written complaints alleging civil rights violations, then the Board is missing out on what it is intended to do. Lt. Broderick stated that a written complaint would still be needed for CRB review. Greg Tempel stated that if a complaint is made in writing, this avoids errors and screens out people who are not serious. Lt. Broderick stated that in this particular case, the complainant came to talk to someone, but no one was available, so he was sent home with a complaint application. Lt. Broderick asked about defining civil rights violations, and Greg Tempel clarified that this was a primary reason the CRB was created. Lt. Broderick stated that when citizens are making a complaint, most times they do not frame it in a way that makes it is clear it is a civil rights violation. It is necessary for him to interpret. Greg Tempel suggested that he would always be available for advice and he could bring the issue to the Board. Lt. Broderick wanted Board to be aware of trivialization that may occur and that Board may see many cases that could be classified as civil rights violations that the Board is not seeing now. The functions of the Board were then reviewed, under Section 2-139 ( 2) and ( 3). Greg Tempel stated that the allegation of a civil rights violation is what matters in deciding whether it receives CRB review, not what Police Services determines after an investigation. Lt. Broderick stated that many of the cases are trivial. Greg Tempel stated it is important that City employees not be perceived as attempting to coerce complainants to drop their complaints, which is one possible function for the HRC liaison program. Dennis Baker stated that a victim could easily be encouraged to drop and will want to. Civil rights allegations deal with motives and other factors they may not know about. He suggested doing an investigation and then ask that it be forwarded to the Board. Greg Tempel stated that the ordinance does not specify that but requires it to go to the Board after an investigation is conducted. Lt. Broderick stated that it is not just a concern for him or Sgt. Pearson, but is agency -wide. By policy sergeants do not forward complaints to Internal Affairs that are performance related. Police Services wants supervisors to be accountable for their employees. Some complaints are received in writing by patrol sergeants but most are not. Greg Tempel stated that as the ordinance is written, even if less serious, all cases involving a written allegation of a civil rights violation still have to go to the CRB pursuant to 2(b) of Section 2-139. Dave Evans suggested an intake process where complainant would not lose control of the destiny of their complaint; they can choose. Greg Tempel discussed the process of rudeness complaints. Different scenarios were discussed that might trigger cases to be sent to CRB. Lt. Broderick stated again that this change in process could potentially be a lot of cases for the CRB to review. Greg Tempel encouraged Lt. Broderick to identify specific changes he would recommend in the ordinance and either ask the Chief to bring them forward or the CRB Council liaison. He cautioned that suggesting to delete civil rights violations from the ordinance would be very political and highly unlikely of success. Lt. Broderick stated that anything and everything could be considered a civil rights violation and if the complaint is written, it would be sent to the Board. Greg Temple suggested defining civil rights violations if it was felt that that term was too vague. Harry Edwards stated he thought that in the case mentioned earlier by Lt. Broderick, it should have come before the Board. Maria Martinez stated that if the complainant was satisfied, she thought it would be sufficient not to come before the Board. Dennis Baker added that the t complainant would need to withdraw his complaint in writing. Maria Martinez suggested giving this option to the complainant and giving him the option to choose. Lt. Broderick did not think it wise for Police Services to approach any complainant about withdrawing a complainant, under any circumstances. Dave Evans mentioned this creates a bargaining position and could be considered coercive. Harry Edwards stated it would be better to err on the side of reviewing too many cases than too few. Lt. Broderick stated he will review IA policy, performance complaints and language of ordinance. He stated that all level 2 cases by nature are CRB cases. He also recommended further training to Police Staff in regard to written vs. oral civil rights complaints. Greg Tempel and Lt. Broderick will explore the definition of civil rights violations. Board Training: • Use of Force Demonstration — presented by Sgt. Joel Tower. Pending Cases — None. Adjournment: Maria Martinez moved to adjourn the meeting. Harry Edwards seconded the motion. There was no discussion and the motion carried 4-0. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 P.M. Next Meeting: August 17, 2005, at 6:00 p.m. at Training Facility on 2554 Midpoint /Qiwove.QL-1 7-6 /3e+6 Chair cr-uL>r cpU a��