By
Glenn Glover
A professional
paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master
In
Public
Administration
Department of
Public Administration
University of
Nevada, Las Vegas
December 1999
Defining Key Concepts and Terms
Board: A group of persons having managerial,
supervising or
investigative
powers.
Citizen: A member of the public or a member of a city
or town.
Citizen Review Process: An effort to involve select members of
of the
community in the monitoring of
their police department and
varies
according to structure, size
and strength
Credibility: Worthy of belief or trust.
Panel: A group of persons selected for some service
such as
investigation or arbitration.
Review: The act of inspecting or examining: to
reexamine
Judicially.
ABSTRACT
A Comparison of The Establishment of the organizational structure a Citizen Review Board At The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the City and County of Denver Public Safety Review Commission
by
Glenn Glover
Dr. Karen Layne, Committee
Chairperson
Professor of Public
Administration
University of Nevada, Las
Vegas
The study focuses on the issue of establishing a citizen review board at the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) for the purpose of reviewing allegations of misconduct. With the recent increase of police officer misconduct the LVMPD has come under a great deal of scrutiny by residents of the community. The credibility of the department has been jeopardized as a result of the current complaint investigations process which is conducted by the Internal Affairs Bureau. Community activist have demanded that a citizen review board be established to investigate complaints of police misconduct. The purpose of setting up a citizen review board is to allow for the use of an external independent form of oversight that is to be perceived by the public as an approach to restore credibility to the review process.
The method of this study includes reviewing the most current literature on the topic, and analyzing the data and facts that have been gathered on the establishment of Citizens’ Review Boards in other cities. The ordinance used to establish the City and County of Denver Public Safety Review Commission was reviewed as well as the ordinance used to establish the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Citizen
Review Board in an effort to compare and formulate conclusions based on their organizational structure.
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
Purpose of the Study 3
Scope and Limitations 4
Research Questions 5
Significance of Study 5
Organization of the Study 5
Definition of
Citizens Review 6
Description of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police 7
CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF
RELATED LITERATURE 9
History of Citizen Review 9
Background 10
Membership
qualifications 12
Training 12
Timing 13
Adequate Funding 14
Establishing Board Authority 15
Organizational Structure of Review Boards 17
Public Perceptions of the Internal Complaint 21 Investigation
Process
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 24
CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS OF THE
STUDY 26
The
History of External Oversight in Denver 26
Denver Public Safety Review Commission 30
Denver PRSC Caseload Statistics 31
The History of the Establishment of the Clark 32
County Citizen Review Board Ordinance
Political
Opposition to the Establishment of 33
a Citizen
Review Board in Clark County The
LVMPD Citizen Review Board 35 Comparison and Contrast of the PRSC
and LVMPD 36
Review Boards
CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND
CONLUSIONS 38
REFERENCES 41
APPENDICES 43
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Citizen oversight of police
exists in most major metropolitan
areas in the United States. When dealing with the notion of police
behavior, a question that arises is how can police be held accountable for
their actions? The current system is perceived to be unjust and biased to the
public. In the last 5 to10 years Clark
County residents have called for some form of external oversight of the police
when dealing with allegations of misconduct.
Currently, at the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD), complaint investigations are
conducted by the Internal Affairs Bureau or by the area command supervisor of
that particular office. However, members
of the community are discontented with the past outcomes of the complaint investigation
process, which in most instances clears the police of any wrongdoing. The complainants believe that their
complaints are not investigated thoroughly because they are investigated by the
police themselves. In an effort to
curtail this belief and to keep positive relations between the police and the
community in which it serves, community activists, local politicians and law
enforcement officials have established a citizen review board ordinance through
the enactment of Senate Bill No. 39, which was introduced in 1997 by senator
Joe Neal and assemblyman Wendell P. Williams.
The original draft was formed by a panel of community leaders. One of the most vocal advocates of citizen
review has been Dr. James Tate, a trauma surgeon and executive director of the
National Alliance Against Racism and Political Oppression. According to Tate, Las Vegas is becoming
somewhat of a joke, when considering the nature of the police misconduct that
has taken place in the last three years( Schoenmann, 1997, Oct 21).
These
lawmakers are concerned with issues that have been raised regarding the
treatment of minority groups by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police
Department. The impetus for citizen
review began in 1990 after the widely publicized case of Charles Bush. Bush, a casino worker was strangled by Metro officers who entered
his apartment without a search warrant.
At the time of entry Mr. Bush was sleeping. When he woke up to find that someone had entered his home a
scuffle ensued with police and he was placed in a chokehold. The case ended with a Metropolitan police
officer being terminated and the family of Bush receiving 1.1million dollars in
a settlement (www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/…es/text/1997/mar/06/505664126.html).
The push for citizen review has been driven by other cases of
misconduct. The most notable being the
Ron Mortensen and Christopher Brady case which occurred in 1996. These Metro officers were involved in the
drive-by-shooting death of a Hispanic gang member. Mortensen was the alleged gunman that was accused of firing six
shots from a pickup truck and killing Daniel Mendoza as he stood by with a
group of people. Mortensen was
convicted of murder in the case and sentenced to life in prison
(www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/…es/text/1997/mar/06/5056644126.html).
Another incident involving
Henry Rowe, a homeless man whom was shot to death and had his throat slit by
Officer George Pease of the Metropolitan police department. A corner’s inquest later ruled that the
homicide was justified. This was not
the first incident of a homicide involving officer Pease which gave way to
suspicion on the part of the public
(www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/…es/text/1997/mar/06/5056644126html).
Citizen
review is a very controversial issue.
The debate is based on its effectiveness for holding police accountable
for their actions. Citizen review
policies require that policymakers from various backgrounds are familiar with
the policies and procedures that have been established at police departments
across the country (Walker and Wright, 1995).
Traditionally,
citizen complaints have been reviewed by police officers of the internal
affairs department. Once the
investigation has been completed a final recommendation is made and submitted
to the chief executive law enforcement officer. But nationally, municipal law
enforcement agencies sustain an average of only 10.1 percent of all citizen
complaints reviewed internally (Pate and Fridell 1993: 113-120, as cited in
Walker, 1995).
Community
groups have long demanded that some form of external or citizen review be
established because many citizens have been dissatisfied with the compliant
review process. After years of controversy and conflict, external review has gained acceptance. In late 1994, there was an estimated 66
external complaint review bodies in the United States. This represents a 400 percent increase over
the 13 that existed in 1980(Walker and Wright, 1995). Today, there are an estimated 94 review bodies in the United
States (www.pressdemo.com/polandpub).
The purpose of this research
is to focus on the composition of an external review board at the Las Vegas
Metropolitan Police Department. This
study will review the process that was taken to establish this board. As mentioned earlier, the result of numerous
incidents of police misconduct and public dissatisfaction with the police
internal complaint investigations process, members of the community are seeking
some form of external review. Members
of the community and law enforcement officials are challenged with the task of
establishing a board that will attempt to bring credibility to and change the
perceived effectiveness of the review process.
This
study will also discuss the classification systems for citizen review which are
categorized according to who (citizens, sworn police officers, auditors or
appellate review) is conducting the investigation. This notion of who is
conducted the investigation is deals with the issue of independence which will
also be addressed in this study. It
should be noted that not all forms of citizen review entail boards.
It is essential to understand that each community is unique as
well as each police department. The
uniqueness of the community usually dictates the need as well as the
composition of such boards. In terms of
police departments and review boards, the policies and procedures that are used
to establish and govern these boards varies from department to department.
Therefore, there is no standardized model for establishing a citizens review
board.
The scope of this study includes contrasting and comparing the establishment of a citizens review board at the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department to that of the Denver, Colorado Police Department. The external oversight system that the Denver Colorado police department uses is remotely similar to what the LVMPD will be using. The primary areas of examination will include the following: membership qualifications, sources of funding, authority or jurisdiction and training of non-police members. The issue of independence will also be discussed in this study.
The establishment of a board
of this magnitude or type entails a great deal of planning and was subject to
several changes prior to the final outcome.
Limitations of this study will include the amount of information that was available regarding review boards during the time this study was conducted. At this time the ordinance governing the review board is in its final stages of completion. However, it is still subject to some minor administrative changes that may differ from the current ordinance that is being discussed in this study.
The questions that will attempt to be answered from this research are as follows: Why should a Citizens Review Board be established at the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department? How should a Citizen Review Board be established at the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department in an attempt to make it perceptually effective to the community and what are the major political issues that have to be addressed prior to the establishment of the citizens review board? Who should serve on a Citizen Review Board and what is the selection criteria?
Significance of the Study
This study is significant for several reasons. Recently, there have been several incidents of perceived misconduct involving officers of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. As a result of these incidents community activist have demanded that some form of external oversight be established.
This study will attempt to explain the process as well as address the issues involved in establishing a citizens review board.
Organization of the Study
Chapter 1 of this study introduces the purpose of this study and addresses the questions of why a citizen review board is needed and how a citizen review board is established.
Related literature on the subject of citizen review boards will be explored in Chapter 2. This chapter will also establish the framework of the study.
Chapter 3 will discuss the
methodology used to collect the data for this study. This section will discuss the steps taken to conduct this
research. An extensive research effort
on this topic was conducted on this topic that included obtaining various
documentation, publications, journals, periodicals, Internet databases, and
world wide web search engines.
Additionally, interviews were conducted.
The findings on the Denver,
Colorado police department citizen review board and its effectiveness will be
discussed in Chapter 5. Also
the steps that were taken to establish a citizen review board at the Las
Vegas Metropolitan Police Department will
be summarized. A summary of the
ordinances governing citizen review boards for both the Denver, Colorado Police
Department and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department will be compared
and discussed in this section.
The summary and conclusions of this study will be discussed in Chapter 6. This section will take a look at future efforts of the police and the community in relation to citizen review boards.
Defining Citizens Review
It should be noted that there is not a universal term for external review. When referring to external review, citizen review, civilian review and civilian oversight are used interchangeably. The term citizen is used as opposed to civilian review for the simple fact that the latter suggest that there is a civilian-military dichotomy. When discussing American policing, it is inappropriate to substitute one term for the other (Walker and Wright, 1995).
The term citizens review can be defined as a procedure for handling citizen complaints regarding police officer misconduct. These complaints are usually investigated by citizens of the community who are not sworn police officers (Walker and Wright, 1995).
It is the involvement of people who are not sworn officers that is most essential to this complaint process. The reason for this is that the perception of the process as being external or citizen in character is what aids in the credibility of the complaint investigation process. Secondly, there are many different ways in which people who are not sworn can participate in the review process (Walker and Wright, 1995).
Description of the Las Vegas Metropolitan
Police Department
The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department was formed in July of 1973. A Nevada legislative action merged the Las Vegas Police and the Clark County Sheriff’s Departments. The LVMPD is a separate political entity administered by a elected sheriff. This agency currently
serves the residents of the City of Las Vegas and unincorporated areas of Clark County plus an
annual influx of visitors.
This jurisdiction includes 7,554 square miles bordered by Nevada’s Nye and Lincoln Counties and the neighboring states of Arizona and California.
The Department operates under the Civil Service system with more than 97 percent of all positions falling within the system. The organization is currently divided into six divisions. The sheriff is the department head; there is one Undersheriff and six Deputy Chiefs. In addition the department has the ranks of police captain, police lieutenant, police sergeant, police officer, and numerous civilian support positions.
This chapter will discuss
the current literature regarding the establishment of citizens review
boards. The first section of this
chapter will provide a brief history on citizen review. The next section will then provide the
reader with information regarding the various classifications of external
oversight systems that have been used in jurisdictions of comparable size. Finally, the related literature will address
issues such as membership qualifications, funding, authority, training and
timing.
Citizen review is not a new concept. It is both a national and international
phenomenon. As stated in the beginning
of this study, most major cities in the United States have adopted this
concept, and medium size and small cities are rapidly adhering to this pattern
as well (Walker and Wright, 1995). The
city of Las Vegas is currently dealing with this concept of citizen review. In an attempt to establish a citizen review
board ordinance that will be effective in the community, researchers have found
that when looking at other cities and police departments of comparable size,
there is no one standard model that best fits the city (Walker and Wright,
1995). A hybrid will be used to
establish a review board that will serve the citizens of the Las Vegas
community and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police department. However, according to Undersheriff Richard
Winget, of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Denver is the city
that most closely resembles the form of citizens review that is being
established in Las Vegas (Richard Winget, personal communication, July 14,
1999).
The concept of citizen
review was initially proposed in 1935, however it was not implemented until the
1940s and 1950s in cities such as New York and Philadelphia. It was during this time that citizen
involvement with the police began to rise.
The United States Supreme Court also began to take a closer look at the
cases that were brought before them regarding police misconduct, and as a
result became critical of police behavior of this type (Peak, 1997).
The
1960s, along with the riots and protest of this time, brought even more concern
for citizens review. However, it is
important to note that this concept of citizen review boards received a strong opposition from the police, politicians
and some citizens (Roberg and Kuykendall, 1993).
During
the 1970s there was more public concern and support for citizen review boards
and the notion of reform was surfacing.
Finally, during the 1980s and 1990s, police scandals began to rise in
cities across the United States. Many
of these incidents of misconduct were now more convincing to the public than
those that had occurred in the past because some of them had been videotaped or
witnessed by citizens themselves. For
example, the Rodney King incident, which occurred in Los Angeles in 1991 and is
the most notable incident of the decade.
The Los Angeles police were videotaped by a citizen, beating king
excessively after he was stopped for being in violation of several traffic laws
such as speeding and driving while under the influence of drugs and/or
alcohol. The acquittal of the officers
involved in the king beating resulted in three days of civil unrest that left
fifty-three people dead and caused one billion dollars in damage (Goldsmith,
1996). In the past police had been more
discrete with their incidents of misconduct.
The media gained access to these tapes and as a result the interest in
the complaint review process began to spread according to Roberg and
Kuykendall.
Today
this concept of external review of the police has gained a respectable
following throughout many cities in the United States (Terrill,1990). In 1980 there were approximately 13 police
oversight agencies or procedures in place.
As of 1996 there were more than 80 (Walker and Wright,1994). Today there
are 94 police review procedures in the United States
(www.presdemo.com/polandpub). One
predominant factor contributing to this growth in external review has been the
increase in African-American political activity, which has increased the number
of mayors and city council members who hold these offices. The African American community has been the
leading advocate of citizen review primarily because incidents of police
misconduct have involved African Americans in many instances. As a result external citizen review is often
found in cities with large minority communities and effective local civil
rights organizations. It should also be
noted that cities with small minority populations have also begun to establish
various forms of external review (Walker and Wright, 1995). Citizen review was proposed as an attempt to
reduce conflict between police and minority communities in the United States (www.nyclu.org/fiveyears.html). The concept of citizen review will remain a
critical issue in the future of policing in the United States (Terrill,
1990). Chief law enforcement
executives are now able to recognize this fact, as can be seen by the decline
in opposition from the initial mention of citizen review. The effectiveness of responding to the
concerns of citizens complaints of the community depends on the support that it
receives from police officials (Walker, 1995).
Citizens review is most commonly found in municipal police departments although county sheriff’s departments have been known to have them in place (Walker and Wright, 1995).
A properly trained citizen review board will serve the community more effectively than one that has not received training. The credibility of the review boards will be enhanced as a result of a thorough training program. Training such as this can be seen as beneficial to both residents of the community and the police.
Literature
on training for review boards suggest that programs by design, provide board
members with the same training and street experiences of police officers. It should also familiarize board members
with departmental policies as well (Tyre and Braustine, 1994).
Along with classroom instruction, citizen
review board members should receive hands – on training. This type of training is important in the
areas such as high-speed chases, and searches and seizures which is where the
officers risk injury and the potential lawsuits. Research indicates that hands-on training is important because it
allows board members to see events from the officer’s perspective. This
training also provides board members with a realistic view of police work (Tyre
and Braustine, 1994).
There are currently six ways to establish a
citizen review board. They are as
follows: municipal ordinance (LVMPD),
state statute, voter referendum, mayoral executive order, police chief administrative order, and memorandum
of understanding (Walker and Wright, 1995).
These
various sources of legal authority are exemplified in municipalities throughout
the United States with the majority being established by ordinances. For example, Iowa created a state statute to
establish what is known as the Citizen’s Aide/Ombudsman office to handle
complaints of misconduct by police. The
various sources of legal authority tend to reflect that there are obscure
differences in the nature of support for citizen advisory boards. The enactment of an ordinance to create a
review board usually indicates that the majority of the elected officials in
that particular jurisdiction are supporter of such a phenomenon. When looking at the initial establishments
of review boards, it is important to note that the “pioneers” of citizens
review (New York and Philadelphia) were created by mayoral executive orders in
spite of opposition from the cities’
respective city councils. Without the
political support council members these
boards became prime targets of attack
and were subject to heavy scrutiny.
Research also suggest that the creation of citizens review boards and
their procedures through the use of ordinances indicates that there is a
growing public support for citizens review (Walker and Wright, 1995). The citizens review board at the Las Vegas
Metropolitan Police Department has been established by an ordinance, which was
enacted by Senate Bill No. 39, which was introduced by Senator Joe Neal.
The goals, powers and
procedures are the key to establishing an effective review board. Recent literature suggest that it is the
goals of the review board that determine its powers and this in turn dictates
what procedures will be followed. These
factors should be considered separately and in direct correlation to one
another (Tyre and Braunstein, 1994).
The goals of a citizens
review board should be clearly defined so that board members know exactly what
they are. However, goals cannot be
effective unless they are attainable according to Tyre and Braunstein.
Past research indicates that boards that have been formed in response to protest have lacked the power to accomplish its goals (Tyre and Braunstein, 1994). The levels power or authority of the citizens review board can vary from examining decisions of the police of department to the power or authority to force the police department to take action on an issue (Davis, 1997).
The notion of citizens
review continues to be a debatable issue.
According to research on this issue, it has been argued by police that
without an internal review board to
conduct the investigations, departmental morale would decrease
significantly. The police also view this
as an opportunity for the public to bring false accusations against them for
simply carrying out their duties (Terrill, 1985) (Royberg and Kuykendall,
1993). Finally, police argue that
review boards interfere with the authority of the chief administrator. In an attempt to adhere to management theory
and apply the concepts of public administration, the view of the police is
supported by the notion that the chief administrative officer is responsible
for the conduct of his or her agency and therefore should have equal
authority. Any attempt to divide this
formal authority will create difficulty in the leadership of the agency and
make it virtually impossible for the individual in charge to control
disciplinary actions of the department (Terrill, 1985).
For purposes of this study, category I will be examined closely since this is the model in which the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department citizen review board will be primarily based on. Under Category I complaints are investigated by citizens. In examining jurisdictions that fall under this category it was found that investigative authority can take on various forms:
a. Independent investigative staff to conduct independent investigations of the police department; and/or,
b. Authority to issue subpoenas; and/or ,
c. Authority to conduct evidentiary hearings.
The ordinance used to establish the investigative authority of citizens’ review
at the LVMPD takes on form (a) listed above.
Advantages
and Disadvantages of Category IA and Category IB Procedures
As stated above, category IA and category IB oversight procedures conduct their own independent review of complaints by non-sworn officers. The advantage of this approach is that it is independent of the police department, which restores public confidence in the complaint review process. The fact that the investigation will be thorough and objective enhances the public’s confidence in the complaint investigation process (New York Civil Liberties Union, 1996).
The other advantage to this approach is that it takes on the form of a multi-member board. This approach can ensure the broad representation of the diverse elements of the local community and act as a channel for voicing community concerns to the police department (New York Civil Liberties Union, 1996).
The disadvantages of the category IA and IB oversight procedures are that independent review of complaints are resented by police officers and may cause morale problems in the department. A problem that arises as a direct result of independent review of complaints is that of the quality of staff and the amount of resources available to conduct it. In regards to the selection, training and supervision of investigative staff, high standards should be in place to ensure the maximum effectiveness of the board. Those procedures that are deemed by the public as having insufficient power to conduct thorough investigations also lack credibility and therefore are less likely to be effective ( New York Civil Liberties Union, 1996).
According to an article written by Richard J.
Terrill, the greatest concern of the citizen regarding the complaint process is
that the police investigate the police as stated early on this study. Most of this concern has been voiced by
groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association for
the Advancement of Colored People, or by those who have had a great deal of
involvement with the criminal justice system (Terrill, 1985).
Another article authored by Andrew J.
Goldsmith goes on to say the problem with the police internal investigations is
that the public perceives them as lacking empathy, being too legalistic in
their approaches and unresponsive to the complainants concerns, and favoring
the police (Goldsmith, 1996).
According to Richard Terrill, research indicates that it is the investigative stage of any complaint procedure that is the key to reducing the criticisms of the review process from the public because it affects the integrity of the steps that come in the initial stages of review and the latter stages.
Perceptions of the police complaint procedures vary depending upon whom you talk to and their experiences with the complaint investigation process. The implication of cultural differences should be addressed due to the belief that there is a connection between the levels of dissatisfaction of certain of citizens of certain areas of the community and the review process. This dissatisfaction is found to be in areas of the community that are heavily policed. The minority population tends to make up the majority of citizens residing in these areas (Goldsmith, 1996).
Gary
Peck, who is the director of the Nevada American Civil Liberties Union, and
other supporters of a citizens review board, believes that an external review
board is capable of breaking down class and race stereotypes and attacking
double standards of the police department (Smith, April 1, 1998).
As indicated earlier by the research on citizens review boards,
citizens have desired to involve themselves in the complaint investigation
process for over three decades. It has
only been in the last 20 to 30 years that an increased effort to develop boards
of this type has been put into effect.
As more incidents of police misconduct occur, external oversight becomes
more and more of a critical issue for both the police and citizens alike, there
will be a continual drive to achieve some form of external review.
According
to Richard Terrill, citizens argue that having internal investigations of
complaints are pointless since the outcomes of these investigations tend to
rule in favor of the police. It is
primarily for this reason that the public believes those internal
investigations cannot be trusted (Terrill, 1990).
Citizens argue that
establishing an external review board would not only give credibility to the
review board but also improve relations between the community and the police
(Henry, 1997).
The approach taken by most
investigators when dealing with the complaint process is what Goldsmith labels
as forensic realism. Forensic realism refers to formalist and
legalistic method of investigating complaints.
The problem with this approach is that it does not address the
differences of perception, belief, value, and understanding among different
areas of the community (Goldsmith, 1996).
The approaches to gathering
this data entailed analyzing current literature on this topic and relating it
to the ordinance used to establish citizen review at the Las Vegas Metropolitan
police department. In addition to this
I interviewed several individuals who had some involvement in the process, LVMPD
Undersheriff Richard Winget, Clark
County Commissioner Dario Herrera, LVMPD Lieutenant Stan Olson in the
intergovernmetal affairs section, Clark County Assistant Manager of
Administrative Services Don Burnette and Nevada State Assemblymen Wendell P.
Williams.
I also contacted the Denver Colorado Police Department via telephone and spoke to a representative in the research and development department ,who was able to send me information pertaining to the department and a copy of the 1993 annual report taken from the City and County of Denver Public Safety Review Commission which is the oversight board for citizen complaints concerning Denver police officers and sheriff’s deputies.
This chapter will discuss the impetus for external review in the city of Denver Colorado and provide a history on the creation of the City and County of Denver Public Safety Review Commission, which is the external review body responsible for investigating allegations of misconduct against the police. This chapter will also discuss the establishment of a citizen review board in Clark County and the contentious issues that needed to be addressed prior to the final stages of the development of the board. In both instances (Denver and Las Vegas) the processes did not come without a great deal of contention on the part of political leaders, police, and members of the communities. Finally, the similarities and differences for the ordinances used to establish the review processes in both cities will be discussed and a comparison and a contrast of them in the sections of the ordinances that pertain to membership qualifications, funding, jurisdiction, and training.
The History of External Oversight in Denver
The history of external oversight of the police in Denver Colorado includes the initiatives by city officials and citizen advocacy groups addressing issues of alleged police abuse and misconduct. Since the police investigates allegations of police misconduct and abuse, the complaint investigation process was perceived to lack credibility by the public. In an attempt to respond to public opinion and enhance the credibility of the review process, efforts were made to develop external oversight of the police and to address the issue of accountability. This was considered to be a supplement or an alternative to law enforcement officers investigating themselves (Walker and Wright, 1995).
This concept of citizen
review was initially discussed in 1947 in Denver, when the Mayor, Quigg Newton,
Jr. created a 21 member Charter convention to deliberate over racial hiring
practices and the possibility of establishing a citizen review board to
investigate complaints against the police (Walker and Wright, 1995).
Then
in the 1950’s the African American community was outraged when a young male was
arrested for drunkeness in Five Points.
Later this individual was shot and killed by police in front of Denver Juvenile Hall, which is currently
known as the Gilliam Youth Services Center.
The officer involved in the shooting claimed that the youth ran when he
approached the door of the detention center.
The officer drew his weapon and a chase ensued. Upon stumbling on a crack in the sidewalk
the officer stated that his weapon accidentally discharged causing him to shoot
the youth (Annual Report, Public Safety Review Commission, City and County of
Denver, 1994).
Incidents such as these during the 1950s,
1960s, and 1970s caused an uproar in the Denver minority communities. The belief here was that the injuries or
deaths came about under suspicious circumstances. This put more pressure on the demand for change that was
surfacing as a result of these incidents (Annual Report, Public Safety Review
Commission, City and County of Denver, 1994).
In response to these incidents, the
Denver City Council then created the Community Investigation Committee. The committee authorized reports developed
from a team of psychologist from R. J. Hernandez and associates, and from the
Metro Denver Urban Coalition. A report
was then released by the Community Investigations Committee addressing problems
of the police and their relations with the community. However, this still did not lead to any immediate action (Annual
Report, City and County of Denver, Public Safety Review Commission, 1994).
It
was not until 1974 that the issue of citizen review began to be considered
seriously with the alleged mistreatment of Council-member Paul Hentzall. Council-member Hentzall parked his vehicle
in a police parking lot while he
attended a Denver Rockets basketball game.
Upon returning to his vehicle he found that his tires had been
flattened. He then went into the police
administration building to file a report regarding the incident (Annual Report,
City and County of Denver, Public Safety Review Commission, 1994).
In
1988 Denver Councilwoman Hiawatha Davis, introduced a proposal to study the
issue of whether citizen review of police should exist. This proposal stemmed from community
pressure indicating the need for a police review board. Due to heavy lobbying against this proposal
it was not passed (Annual Report, City and County of Denver, Public Safety Review
Commission, 1994).
In
January of 1991, Jovan Ivory, who was at the time fifteen years of age, was
apprehended after being chased by police and crashing his vehicle. Ivory stated that police kicked and beat him
as he was lying on the ground. As a result
he suffered multiple cuts, bruises, several loose teeth, and a broken
nose. He also stated that the police
called him several racial epithets during this ordeal (Annual Report, City and
County of Denver, Public Safety Review Commission, 1994).
This
incident was the impetus for many residents of the community. It took only one week to decide to conduct a hearing where victims
and witnesses could disclose their experiences of alleged police
misconduct. This 19 member panel
composed of citizens, was headed by Councilwoman Hiawatha Davis. The panel heard 15 hours of testimony from citizens who had experienced
or witnessed everything from rudeness to intimidation, coercion, theft, false
arrest, rape, and wrongful death (Annual Report, City and County of Denver,
Public Safety Review Commission, 1994).
Many
of these citizens who testified, stated they did not file complaints against
the officers involved in the incidents of misconduct for four reasons: 1) they believed that nothing would be done by
the police, 2) fear of retaliation, 3) insensitive or unwelcome bureaucracy,
and 4) prior or pending criminal charges (Annual Report, City and County of
Denver, Public Safety Review Commission, 1994).
Those
who did file complaints found the following results 1) police were exonerated,
complaint unfounded, or action justified, 2) No information was provided to the
complainant regarding the investigation 3) A long delay in completing the
investigation 4) No appropriate disciplinary action taken. The panels research influenced the drive to
enact an ordinance that would establish a citizens review board that could
independently investigate complaints.
Initial attempts failed as bills were denied passage (Annual Report,
City and County of Denver, Public Safety Review Commission,1994).
In June of 1992, Executive
Order No. 106 was issued by Mayor Wellington E. Webb creating a Public Safety Review Commission (PRSC) composed
of 7 members with the power to review complaints and subpoena only witnesses
exclusive of the complainants and the witnesses filed against (Annual Report,
City and County of Denver, Public Safety Review Commission, 1994).
In
August of 1992, the Denver City Council enacted Ordinance 585, Series of 1992,
which was a compromise sponsored by Councilman Timothy Sandos. This ordinance
allowed for the review of cases only after an internal departmental
investigation had been conducted (Annual Report, City and County of Denver,
Public Safety Review Commission, 1994).
The Public Safety review Commission is responsible for ensuring that citizen complaints against the members of the Denver Police and the Denver Sheriff’s Departments are investigated thoroughly and without bias. The determinations of such should be decisive and equitable.
The commission has given all investigations a thorough analysis and has developed an internal computerized system for tracking complaints and is one of the most comprehensive systems in the United States (Annual Report, City and County of Denver Public Safety Review Commission 1993).
The Public safety review Commission was appointed on October 28, 1992. The internal policies and procedures regarding the budget, training schedules and design standard forms were established immediately. The commission was sworn into office on January 8, 1993 (Annual Report, City and County Denver Public Safety Review Commission, 1993).
The Public Safety Review Commission for the City and County of Denver is staffed by an executive council and one assistant. The Commission consists of seven members who are appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the Denver ordinance 585, Series of 1992. The complaints received by the commission are either referred to the Internal Affairs division of the police department or considered by the commission itself. The Commission has the authority to subpoena witnesses and documents concerning the complaint as well as conduct evidentiary hearings. The local police union has debated the issue of subpoena authority. The city ordinance addresses the issue of outside investigators. It allows for the Commission to hire outside investigators to investigate cases of misconduct at their discretion and within its budget. This situation has only occurred once in the last four years (Annual Report, City and County of Denver Public Safety Review Commission, 1993).
If
the Chief of Police is in disagreement with the Commission’s findings, he or
she has ten days to submit an appeal to the mayor. The findings of the Commission cannot be overturned unless the
Mayor determines that there is a preponderance of evidence that the Commission
acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner (Annual Report, City and County of
Denver Public Safety Review Commission, 1993.)
Initially (1992) the major
portion of the funding for the PRSC was administered with the assistance of
contract employees. The current
operating budget for the Denver Public Safety Review Commission is $130,000,
which is funded by the city and county of Denver. According to staff, the program budget has remained relatively
stagnant since 1996. The commission may
at its discretion and within the budget refer a complaint to a contract
investigator. However, this has only
occurred once since 1996 (Annual Report, City and County of Denver Public
Safety Review Commission), (Don Burnette, personal communication, July
14,1999).
The police sustained 224 (12.36%) of the complaints that were investigated. Complainants who were unhappy with the complaint process are allowed to file appeals. There were 367 (20.24%) appeals filed with the Review Board by dissatisfied complainants. The review board agreed with the police department on 283 of the complaints that were filed (77.11%). Of those cases where the review board requested the Police Chief change his conclusion regarding the matter, the police chief responded to 55% of the request ( Annual Report, City and County of Denver Public Safety Review Commission, 1993-1996).
In
1997 445 complaints were investigated by the Denver police department. The review board accepted and forwarded 47
(or 10.56%) were accepted. Findings
revealed that the police sustained 42 (or 9.44 %) of the complaints
investigated. The appeal rate for
dissatisfied complainants was 70 (or
15.73%) of all complaints. The review
board and the police department were found to be in agreement on 54 of the
complaints or 77.14% of the time (Annual Report, City and County of Denver,
Public Safety Review Commission, 1997).
Finally, in 1998, 373 complaints were investigated by the police department. The review board accepted 37 (or 9.92%) of those complaints. Findings revealed that the police sustained 26 (or 6.97%) of the complaints that were investigated. Dissatisfied complainants appealed 24 (or 6.43%) of all complaints to the review board. The review board agreed with the police department on seven complaints or 29.17% of the time. At the time this data was compiled some of the complaints were still under review by the board. Since then the number or percentage of complaints has increased (Annual Report, City and County of Denver, Public safety Review Commission, 1998).
The History of the Establishment of the
Clark County Citizen Review Board Ordinance
The history of the establishment of a citizen review board in Las Vegas is somewhat different but just as contentious as the history of Denver’s PRSC. The Las Vegas ordinance for citizen review began in the state legislature whereas the Denver PRSC sought a mayoral decree for its creation. The ordinance to provide for the establishment of a citizen review board at the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department has been put into effect. This ordinance was introduced the by Senator Joe Neal, in 1997 during the Legislative Session for Senate Bill (SB) No. 39, which permits Cities and Counties to create review boards for local law enforcement agencies. According to Senator Neal the intent of this board is to have someone from outside the organization (LVMPD) ferret out the facts and report them to the City council and County commission. It is not a board aimed towards punishment (Smith, 1998, March 20).
Title 2 of the Clark County code had to be amended by adding chapter 2.62 to provide for the establishment of a citizen review board. This ordinance designates for the following: the qualifications and means of the selection of members; to provide for the training of members; to set forth the jurisdiction of the review board; to provide the establishment of the screening panel
and
other panels of the board; to specify procedures for the conduct of the panels;
and providing
for appeal of recommendations of panels.
The
county and city upon mutual agreement, will provide funding, legal counsel and
other resources as they determine to be necessary for the performance of the
functions of the director and the review board.
Most inquiries regarding citizen review boards generally stem from three sources. They are as follows: citizens’ groups, civil liberties organizations, and government officials who perceive problems of local police accountability (Fyfe, 1985). From its inception the concept of citizen review has been faced with opposition stemming from the police and local politicians. There were two key political issues that Clark County commissioners expressed concern over. The first was the issue of funding the new citizen review board. The initial cost of the board had been estimated to be $400,000. This cost figure was deemed to be rather costly by commissioners Lance Malone and Erin Kenny. The estimated cost has since then been reduced to $200,000. After conducting research regarding the cost of citizen review boards in other cities, Commissioner Kenny found that the costs tended to remain stagnant in most cases (Freiss, February 17,1999). Even more supportive of this notion of the stagnation is the Public Safety Review Commission’s cost (PRSC), which has remained at $130,000 since 1996. This cost figure is relevant to the LVMPD because the PRSC is the system of oversight that most closely resembles that of the LVMPD’s (Dario Herrera, personal communication, February 11, 1999).
Clark County Commissioner Lance Malone, a former police officer, expressed concern over the provision in which the appointees serving on the board could be persons convicted of misdemeanors or felonies who had their rights reinstated. However, panelist could not be former police officers or relatives of current or former police officers (Freiss, January 20, 1999). Other commissioners also questioned why retired police officers would not be allowed to become eligible appointees for the board. This issue was expected to become the most contentious of them all. Assemblyman Wendell Williams, who co-authored the bill for the existence of review boards, was opposed to this issue along with Gary Peck, the Nevada Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union. They viewed a change in the ordinance regarding the appointment of former police officers would threaten the independence and the credibility of the review board (Freiss, February 17, 1999). The current ordinance (2.62.040) allows for no more than three former police officers to be members of the board simultaneously.
The final form of opposition and the most stunning to everyone involved in the issue of establishing the review board was suggested by Commissioner Kenny that the idea of citizen review be junked and replaced with a governor-appointed ombudsman paid by the police Department to screen complaints (Friess, January 20, 1999).
The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
Citizen Review Board was created by Senate Bill No. 39 pursuant to the
authority of chapter 289 of the (NRS) Nevada Revised Statute.
Clark County Code 2.62 provides for the
establishment of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Citizen Review
Board. The ordinance states that the
purpose of this review board is to act as an advisory committee to the
department on issues regarding police officers, complaints against police, to
review the findings of the internal complaint investigations process, and make
recommendations to the sheriff regarding disciplinary actions. However, the final decision regarding the
issue is made by the chief law enforcement executive.
Senator
Joe Neal who sponsored SB No. 39, pushed for the citizen review board to have
subpoena power and the allowance for the board to conduct its own
investigations. Some members of the
Fiscal Affairs Committee feel that a separate board to police the police would
lengthen the review process and create another layer of bureaucracy (Levy,
March 6, 1997).
The similarities that were found under the section of
membership and qualifications for both ordinances were as follows: that
appointed members must be residents of the City and County in which the police
department serves, not be officers or current employees of the department, and
not be a person convicted of a felony.
The differences were found in the size of the two boards
and the length of terms they serve in office .
The Denver PPRSC consist of 7 members who are appointed by the
Mayor. The LVMPD citizen review board
consists of 25 members, 13 who are appointed by the County fiscal affairs
committee and 12 who are appointed by the City fiscal affairs committee. The length of terms served by each member of
the Denver PSRC is 4 years while the term for the LVMPD citizen review board
members is 3 years. It should be noted
that there are other minor differences in the ordinances, however, they were
not mentioned.
In the ordinances the sections on funding are
basically the same. The Public Safety
Review Commission receives its funding from the City and County of Denver. Funding for the Las Vegas Metropolitan
Police Department Citizens Review Board will be provided by the City and County upon mutual agreement as well. The members of these boards shall serve
without compensation. Members of the
review boards shall not incur any expenses for which funding has not been
approved by City and the County, however, they may be reimbursed for reasonable
expenses incurred in the performance of there duties.
Excluding the cost of these boards there are no significant differences in the section of funding.
The section of jurisdiction for the both review boards is the most extensive and crucial area. The similarities are found in the power to make recommendations to the chief law enforcement executive regarding complaints, department policies, procedures and programs.
The differences were found in that the Denver ordinance states that the PRSC has the jurisdiction to hire an outside investigator to perform investigations, establish procedures for filing of complaints and perform other duties as requested by the Mayor and make rules and regulations to adopt by-laws.
Prior to serving on any panel of review both ordinances require that members receive training on law enforcement policies and procedures of the department. The Denver PRSC differs in that it provides training to its members in the area of human rights and community relations. The LVMPD citizen review board includes training to its members on civil service rules related to conduct or the “Peace Officer Bill of Rights, collective bargaining agreements covering the department and officers.
CHAPTER 5
After careful analyses of this study and according to research on the topic, the survival of a citizens review board is highly dependent on the support of the local government and police officials. When looking at this issue of external review in terms of the long run and weighing out the cost and benefits, it appears as if the benefits exceed the cost by serving as form of a solution to the existing problem with the internal complaint investigations process police. It should be noted that the Denver review board disagreed with the internal affairs division on 1 out of 4 cases. The national average for the internal review of citizen complaints for law enforcement agencies in regards to finding any wrongdoings on the part of police is 10.1 percent.
The
growth of citizen review boards from 1964 ranged from one in l969-l970 to 66 in
1994-1995. Statistics (1995) indicates
that 82% of the 66 review boards are multimember boards. The number of members can range from 3 to
24. Denver has a 7 member review board
and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department has a 25 member board that is
city/county appointed.
A
misconception is that those who are advocates of citizen boards desire to have
procedures whereby an independent board of citizens would have the power to
terminate or administer discipline to police.
The
issue of independence is essential to setting up review boards. Independence is important to members of the
community because it is what they perceive as enhancing the credibility or
legitimizing the complaint process.
Citizen’s oversight of police departments exists in most metropolitan areas in the United States. In the past 5 to l0 years Clark County residents have called for some form of external oversight of the police department when dealing with allegations of misconduct.
The City of Las Vegas is currently in the process of establishing a citizen’s review board. According to Undersheriff Richard Wingert of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, (LVMPD), the City of Denver is the city which closely resembles the form of citizens review that is being considered for implementation by the LVMPD.
There is no standard model for a citizen’s review board and without any detailed
comparative evaluations, it is almost impossible to say that one particular approach towards citizen is best for a certain kind of jurisdiction. The primary differences in external review boards can be found in their structure/organization, authority and process. A common feature of all types of citizen’s oversight is that of multi-member boards. These boards are designed to be investigative or review in nature.
The LVMPD citizen review board uses an independent investigative staff to conduct
independent investigations of the police department.
Funding for citizen review board is crucial to its existence and should be a shared effort by both the city and the county with a matching fund basis.
I found the Denver citizen review board and the Las Vegas citizen review board to be similar in that each were a result of citizen pressure because of the many incidents of police misconduct. Denver’s citizen review board was initiated by Executive Order 106 issued by the mayor. This order created the Public Safety Review Commission. This commission is composed of 7 members who have the power to review complaints and subpoena witnesses exclusive of the complainants.
Senate Bill 39 was introduced by State Senator Joe Neal in 1997. This bill permits cities and counties to create review boards for local law enforcement agencies in the state of Nevada. With the passage of Senate Bill 39, Title 2 of the Clark County Code had to be amended to include Chapter 2.52 which provides for the establishment of a citizen review board. The review board for Clark County and the City of Las Vegas consists of 25 members; 13 appointed by county representatives and 12 appointed by city representatives. The Ordinance provides for the citizen review board to be operated by a Director appointed by the County Manager.
The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Citizen Review Board is in the final development stages at the completion of this paper. It will be effective in the year 2000. The perceived effectiveness of the Denver PRSC may be crucial to determining how effective the LVMPD review board will be.
Future research should be conducted in this area to test the success or failure of the citizens review board. The statistical data provided by the Denver Public Safety Review Commission in this study should be used as comparative tool.
Another area to be analyzed and a major concern of local politicians prior to the establishment of this review board was that of cost, which is currently estimated to be at $200,000.
Changes should be made to the existing process that will build community trust and create conditions for more effective and responsible law enforcement agency. What is good for one side is good for the other. Both the accused officer and the aggrieved citizen have a right have to a full and fair hearing. Therefore, continuing efforts to achieve and maintain public trust as well as address issues of accountability and independence are essential to the future of positive police and community relations.
REFERENCES
Berg,
Gregory. (1995, January) Police Advisory Boards: A Word of Caution.
The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 64(1), 13-15.
Brown, Lee P. (1991, July). President’s Message: The Civilian Review Board: Setting a Goal for Future Obsolescence. The Police Chief, 58, 6-7.
City and County of Denver, Public Safety Review Commission, Annual Report (1993).
City and County of Denver, Public Safety Review Commission, Annual Report (1994).
City and County of Denver, Public Safety Review Commission, Annual Report (1995).
City and County of Denver, Public Safety Review Commission, Annual Report (1996).
City and County of Denver, Public Safety Review Commission, Annual Report (1997).
City and County of Denver, Public Safety Review Commission, Annual Report (1998).
Davis, Marcia. (1997, November) Police Brutality: What Can Be Done? Emerge, 43-49.
Flanagan, Tanya. (1998 February 4). Police Review Board: Goals Dissected. Las Vegas Review Journal, p. 3B.
Freiss, Steve. (1999, February 11). Plan for police review board would open officers’ records. Las Vegas Review-Journal. p. 3B.
Freiss, Steve. (1999, February 12). Blacks chide Herrera revisions to police review board plan. Las Vegas Review-Journal. p. 9B.
Fyfe, James. (1985). Reviewing Citizens’ Complaints Against Police. Police Management Today, (pp. 76-87). Washington DC: International City Management Association.
Goldsmith, Andrew J. (1996, Winter-Spring). What’s Wrong with Complaint
Investigations? Criminal Justice Ethics. 36-53.
Kim, Michelle Lersch and Tom Mieczkowski, (1996). Who are the Problem-Prone Officers? An Analysis of Citizen Complaints. America Journal of Police. Vol.
XV, No. 3, 23-41.
Klose, Bob. (1998, April 27). Police review: Separate approaches. Here are how each of the Bay Area’s eight examples of civilian oversight work. The Press. [Online] Available: www.pressdemo.com/polandpub/polandpub2.html
Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. (1998). Police Recruit. [Brochure]. Las Vegas, NV.
Lacayo, Richard. Good Cop, Bad Cop. (1997, September 1). Time, 26-30.
Levy, Rachael. (1997, March 6). Metro review board debated. Civilians would have power over hiring, training standards. Las Vegas Sun. [Online]. Available: http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/
Morrisson, Jane Ann. (1998,February 4). Trying to Police The Police. Las Vegas Review Journal, p. 4B.
New York Civil Liberties Union, (1993-1996, July 5). A Third Anniversary Overview of the Civilian Complaint Review Board. New York: NYCLU, 1996.
Peak, Kenneth J. (1997). Policing America. (pp.238-273). Prentice Hall, Inc.
Perez, Douglas. (1994). Common Sense about Police Review. Temple University Press.
Puit, Glenn. (1997, March 29). Internal Affairs under the Gun. Las Vegas Review-Journal. p. 1B.
Puit, Glenn. (1999, August 29). Police complaints scrutinized. Las Vegas Review-Journal. pp. 1B, 3B.
Roberg, Roy and Kuykendall, Jack. (1993). Police & Society. (pp. 238-273) Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Schoenmann, Joe. (1997, October 21). Citizens police review board meeting draws demands. Las Vegas Review–Journal. p. 4B.
Schoenman, Joe. (1998, March 20). Appeal process set up for police-review panel. Las Vegas Review-Journal. p. 2B.
Schoenmann, Joe. (1998, November 3). Police panel gives citizen review board vote of approval. Las Vegas Review-Journal. p. 1A.
Smith, John. (1998, April 1). Cops Worry who will Police Forthcoming Civilian Review Board. Las Vegas Review Journal, p. 1B.
Smith, John. (1998, March 20). Effective Police Review Board in ACLU Director’s best interest. Las Vegas Review Journal, p. 1B.
Stephens, John III. (1998,November 5). Civilian review board step closer to frution. Sentinel-Voice, p. 1-2, 4.
Terrill, Richard J. (1985). Critical Issues in Law Enforcement, (4th ed.). (pp.115-122). Cincinnati Ohio: Anderson Publishing Company.
Vogel, Ed. (1997, February 13). Hearing set on civilian police review boards. Las Vegas Review-Journal. p. 4B.
Vogel, Jennifer. (1992, January 6/13). The Pro-Police Review Board. The Nation, 18-20.
Terrill, Richard J. (1990, June). Alternative Perceptions of Independence in Civilian Oversight. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 17 (2), 77-82.
Tyre, Mitchell and Braunstein, Susan. (1994, December). Building Better Civilian review Boards. The FBI law Enforcement Bulletin, 63 (12), 10-14.
Walker,
Samuel and Wright, Betsy. (1995). Citizen Review Resource Manual.
Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.
Zapler, Mike. (1999, May 18). City panel votes for ordinance creating police review board. Las Vegas Review-Journal. p. 3B.
APPENDICES
Appendix 1- Senate Bill 39 authorizing the creation of a citizen review board
Appendix 2- Title 2 of Clark County Code ordinance adding chapter 2.62
To provide for the establishment of the Las
Vegas Metropolitan Police Citizen Review Board
Appendix 3- Chapter 2 of revised Municipal Code to establish a Public
Safety Review Commission in the
City and County of Denver