Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCitizen Review Board - Minutes - 06/15/2005ORIGINAL Citizen Review Board Meeting CIC Room, 300 Laporte Avenue June 15, 2005 Present: Dennis Baker, Brian Carroll, Harry Edwards, Maria Martinez, and Becky Richardson. Absent: Dave Evans, Monica Garcia Staff: Lt. Jim Broderick, Sgt. Joel Tower, Greg Tempel, Assistant City Attorney, and Wendy Hartzell, Secretary Public: Elaine Boni, Human Relations Commission. The meeting was called to order at 6:07 p.m. by Vice Chair Harry Edwards. Absences: Written notice was received in May for Monica Garcia's absence this month. No written notice was received from Dave Evans. Voice Mail: No messages. No public comment. Minutes: May 18, 2005, Minutes — A correction was made under Pending Cases to state that it is "...unlikely a transcript would be provided." Becky Richardson made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Dennis Baker seconded the motion. There was no further discussion and the motion passed 5-0. Subcommittee Minutes — Case #2004-26 — Minutes are still outstanding for this case and should be coming from Monica Garcia or Dave Evans. Lt. Broderick stated that the memo was processed but the minutes have not been completed. This was tabled until the July meeting. Old Business: Periodic Review — The periodic review has been rescheduled for the June 29 at 6:00 p.m. Council has requested that the Chair and Vice Chair be present. Three other boards will present on the same night. Harry Edwards stated that the information complied for the review has been sent to Board members for their review and he asked for their feedback. Transcript Discussion — There was a lengthy discussion regarding Police Service's practice of including case transcripts and interview summaries with the materials presented to CRB subcommittee members. There has been some question regarding this practice and if Police Services can continue providing transcripts. Lt. Broderick explained the process. Sgt. Pearson conducts and records the interviews. He reviews the interviews and takes notes. The notes are then complied into a typed summary of the interview and he and Lt. Broderick decide whether to send it to an administrative assistant for transcription. This is the part of the process that may be changed. If an audio recording is sent to an administrative assistant who transcribes it verbatim. Sgt. Pearson reviews the transcription and compares it against the audio recording to ensure that mannerisms, etc., are captured accurately. Then, the transcript is finalized. Lt. Broderick stated that the scope and seriousness of each case is considered and based on that, a determination is made whether a transcript is requested. If the case is simple in nature and there are no disagreements among the parties regarding what occurred, a transcript is not requested. Lt. Broderick and Sgt. Pearson review each case and make a determination whether a transcript is necessary. Brian Carroll stated that there was a change in the system without input from the Board, and transcripts are not being provided. He stated in the past, Police Services has been very accommodating regarding suggestions from the CRB. He stated that initially, the Board received transcripts and CD's with each case. Also, if case was really large, a summary of the interview was made and the summaries were sent to witnesses or complainants for their approval. This is not being done now and witnesses/complainants are not approving the summary of their interviews. He stated that a poor review is worse than no review. If subcommittees were to rely on listening to only the CD, it is not possible to do this in a reasonable manner. Reading the transcripts and having the CD to check points regarding how people respond in comparison to the transcript is important. If only a CD is provided to review a case, a member must have or be in front of a computer. He stated one can review the binder provided in many different places, but can't do this if only a CD is provided. Summaries are good and the process designed shouldn't be for one IA officer. Brian Carroll then stated that he had checked with different citizen review board's regarding their policies — Denver CRB, NY/LA Police Association of Chiefs of Police, etc. He talked with the director in Portland. Of 30 different CRB's in the association, they have nothing in common. The boards that relied on summaries, more often than not, it was found that the summaries were weighted in one direction. Pittsburg, San Jose, Oakland, Iowa City all have transcripts available if members request them; some did their own interviews. He stated if there is an additional burden on the Board and if it is a fiscal issue, there should be a compromise. He suggested having people review and approve the summary. He recognized that summaries were discontinued because many were not returned. He felt it would be up to the complainant to follow through. The complaint, interviews and police officer transcripts should be included. He mentioned the riots on Howes and that the CRB discovered one officer that was not included in the report and that the case had already been reviewed by the chain of command. He stated that for CRB independence, it must have transcripts and audio, if not, extended time to review cases will be needed. Members will have to listen to every CD. He mentioned that an ordinance change may even be necessary. He feels it is important for the independence of the Board that it not rely solely on summaries. Harry Edwards commented that if there was an opportunity for complainants/witnesses to approve their summaries, this would be acceptable. Brian Carroll stated that when he was working with the FBI, interviews were never recorded. A interview document was created and the person interviewed approved it. They may have an opportunity to make changes and return it. In cases where summaries were sent to witnesses and were not returned just the summary was used, but then they were removed from criticism since the witnesses didn't follow through. Lt. Broderick clarified that when they changed having the complainants review summaries, he sent a memo to the Board and everyone was made aware of the change. Some of the reasons they are not sending summaries to complainants include the fact that complainants did not return them, they wanted to add additional information obtained from others, there was lots of back and forth with the summaries, certified mailing costs and Police Services really felt it was a waste of time. He stated that once complainants saw their interview on paper, they wanted to change it and then the question must be asked as to what was right or accurate. Brian Carroll stated the Denver process is an auditory process and that Mr. Bonafides recommends not relying on summaries. Lt. Broderick stated that the Denver oversight system consists of an auditor who investigates the process by which the police accept and investigate complaints and reports on the thoroughness and fairness of the process.. In contrast the Ft. Collins process is one where the police investigate complaints and develop findings and citizens review and make recommendations to the Chief and City Manager. He stated the Police chain of command doesn't routinely review every CD audio interview. The case where one officer was not listed as a subject officer was not a case that involved transcripts.. He stated his intent was not to be adversarial and agreed that the independence of the Board is very important. Lt. Broderick suggested that the Police continue to use their discretion with regard to different types of cases in which the interviews are transcribed.. He stated that in officer involved shooting cases, transcripts are not done. Members receive video and audio of actual interviews. He stated that they would request a transcript if there is a conflict and that there are plenty of examples of when they do not create transcripts: He stated they should not create transcripts for trivial cases. Brian Carroll cautioned that anytime a citizen makes a complaint, it is not trivial to them and whether it is a Rodney King -type of case or someone walking with a beer bottle on Howes, all cases should be treated with the same level of importance. Lt. Broderick clarified that all cases are thoroughly investigated but each investigation has a different level of complexity. He stated they will not do the same level of work for a use of force case vs. a rude behavior complaint. He stated they do not request transcripts for homicide cases, unless the DA requests such.. He stated the Police used to routinely transcribe criminal interviews but stopped due to so many problems of accuracy. Currently Police document interviews via digital video and audio.. Dennis Baker asked if every interview is included in the binder. It was stated that this is the case and that they are also provided on the CD. He asked if there is an expectation that members will review both. Lt. Broderick clarified that it is not his expectation but members can review both if they so choose, or if they notice a disagreement or inconsistency. Becky Richardson stated that in one case, they did listen to audio recordings at the Police Station for several hours. Maria Martinez stated that they had transcripts, too, but she said she gets distracted by the written version and if there was a choice, she would prefer the audio recordings. Harry Edwards suggested a compromise in that Police Services continue to provide CD's and summaries; and that the summaries be kept at Police Services and members can review them there if they so choose. Lt. Broderick stated that the summary is what CRB members currently receive. Before, members would review the summaries, and listen to cassette tape recordings. Interview summaries are currently part of the investigative report. Harry Edwards stated that since Police Services does not want to mail out the summaries for witness/complainant approval, complainants can be invited to come to the station in order to review their summaries. This would address Brian Carroll's concern — in that complainants can come down and review and make corrections. Maria Martinez stated that this is what was said before and complainants will not have an opportunity to change what is written. Lt. Broderick clarified again that complainants do have the right to review their statements. Brian Carroll added that the issue is about not automatically accepting what Police Services summarizes. He does not believe that it is bad thing that complainants receive a copy. If they do not agree, that is okay. Harry Edwards stated this could give complainants an opportunity for collusion. Lt. Broderick stated that the problem is not just with new information from complainants, but also it is a problem that comes from the news media or that complainants have heard from others. Brian Carroll stated it is important that complainants affirm that it is what they said and not to go on a manhunt trying to track them down for that approval. It is important to give them an opportunity and that the CRB is not relying solely on independent police material. Lt. Broderick stated that a form can be drafted to facilitate this. Brian Carroll stated it will be critical that interviews have more structure during the interview process, especially that multiple parties in an interview be prohibited. Lt. Broderick stated this would not work for cases that have an HRC liaison assisting or parents with a minor and that he would never tell a complainant that he/she could not bring a third party into the interview. Dennis Baker said when listening to audio of the interview without text in hand, he writes down where there is a question and/or listens to it twice. He has to have the transcript and re -read it. He suggested providing transcript for validity just for CRB review purposes in order to save time. Lt. Broderick stated they could do that if there was assurance the "ah's" and "uhm's" were the only issue. He stated they have never had an interview transcribed when something was not left out. Assistants transcribing often go on autopilot and do not always get the context right. Brian Carroll stated the best evidence is the audio, then the transcript. Greg Tempel stated that for court proceedings, a witness must lay the foundation for the transcript by comparing it to the recording and then the transcript becomes admissible. He stated the transcript can be marked as "transcribed but not reviewed," indicating that no one has reviewed it for accuracy. This could be misleading and there is no time to verify with the tape in order to believe the transcript is accurate. Becky Richardson stated this could be used for the summary. Maria Martinez stated that one can make notes on the summary as a person is listening and go back to review if there is a discrepancy. Brian Carroll stated again that perhaps not everyone will have access to a computer and this may be a complication if relying only on audio. Harry Edwards stated that the overall agreements from the discussion are that members can receive CD's which provide audio or video recordings of the interviews and that summaries will be available upon request. Brian Carroll reiterated that the most important issues is the Board's independence. Becky Richardson stated that if it is a complicated case, transcripts can be requested. Lt. Broderick stated that transcripts would definitely help in this kind of situation. He feels that the tapes are much easier to review and help to gain more insight into the process. This is not to deprive the CRB of data but to provide more live information and cut out bureaucracy. Brian Carroll stated that it is important that the Board had the discussion because it pertains to the independence and perception of independence of the Board. There is a burden on the Board not to do a sloppy review and the process put in place has to last for future Board members. Harry Edwards thanked Brian Carroll for bringing the issue forward. Resolution to this includes the following: 1) Digital Audio CD's or DVD's will continue to accompany the investigative case packets that go to the subcommittee. 2) Interview summaries by the investigator will continue to be part of the investigative report. 3) All complainants/interviewees will be advised in writing that they will have an opportunity to review the summary of their interview prior to the completion of the investigation. 4) Transcripts will continue to be done on a case by cases basis dependent on the investigative facts at Issue. New Business: Pending Cases — Case #2005-02. This case was distributed to subcommittee members. A time will be set to review the case in late July. Board Training: • Defensive Tactics Overview Training — Sgt. Joel Tower provided training to the Board members regarding defensive tactics. Adjournment: Brian Carroll moved to adjourn the meeting. Harry Edwards seconded the motion. There was no discussion and the motion carried 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. 4 Next Meeting: July 20, 2005, at 6:00 p.m. at the Police Training Facility located at 2554 Midpei Dri e. hair