Civilian Oversight and Police Accountability

By TChris, Section Misconduct
Posted on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:07:28 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Civilian oversight of police departments is essential for the reasons advanced by Oakland's city attorney:

[T]aking Internal Affairs out of the Oakland Police Department would clarify the line between officers and the investigators who hold them accountable for misconduct. The concentration of investigators in Internal Affairs is a result of the Oakland Police Department's not-too-distant history of not investigating its own. In the past, Internal Affairs did a poor job of holding fellow officers accountable. A few years ago, for example, newly assigned commanders found boxes containing about 700 inquiries and possible complaints of misconduct that were never investigated.

Yet the concept is often resisted by police departments (large and small) that apparently see a danger in civilian oversight. What's wrong with accountability? And, for that matter, why shouldn't Chicago's aldermen be entitled to learn the names of "the 662 Chicago police officers with more than 10 complaints filed against them"? Police officers work for, and are accountable to, the public. Shouldn't the public's elected representatives be entitled to know what public employees are up to?

< Hillary Clinton, Media Darling? | Thursday Afternoon Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Civilian Oversight and Police Accountability | 11 comments (11 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Police "action" (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by judyo on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:17:15 PM EST

Trial balloon for national "initiative" ????

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/DC_checkpoint_plan_latest_police_state_0604.html

CCRB doesn't do much (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by stillife on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:23:00 PM EST

at least not hear in NYC.

My husband got stopped by a van of plainclothes copes (he didn't know whether he was being mugged or arrested) last year when he was walking thru the projects here in Brooklyn early in the morning to get to a Zip Car rental place to take our daughter to a college interview.

They frisked him and took his cigarettes & lottery ticket. He was in fear for his life. A friend of ours just happened to be driving by during the incident and yelled, "Hey, John! Are you OK?" To which the cops responded, "There's a robbery in progress."

John filed a complaint with CCRB and they have identified the cops, but f*ck-all has happened.

If this can happen to my husband, a middle-aged English guy, I shudder to think what happens to AA's and Latinos.

Eugene, Oregon, home to a divisive mix of liberals (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Newt on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 05:04:27 PM EST

& conservatives has had many clashes between progressives and police. Along with being criticized by Amnesty International for police brutality of tree huggers, our police union has now attacked a city counselor who set up our citizens oversight board:

http://www.eugeneweekly.com/2008/05/29/news.html#1

The sexist caricature says it all.

um, let me clue you in: (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by cpinva on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 06:23:11 PM EST

police officers are civilians, they just have fancy uniforms. contrary to what many of them are led to think, they aren't military or paramilitary units, or even militia, they just have a license to carry a gun and exercise police powers.

they don't get called up in cases of national emergency, they don't receive military training and they don't fall under the UCMJ or the geneva conventions. they're just gussied up civilians.

the last time i checked, police depts. are funded with taxpayer dollars, so they clearly should be subject to independent oversight, it's not even a question for discussion. if they don't like it, they can always quit and join the army.

i understand the weather in falujah is lovely this time of year.

Fascism not far away (none / 0) (#5)
by Lora on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:58:37 PM EST

Police officers work for, and are accountable to, the public. Shouldn't the public's elected representatives be entitled to know what public employees are up to?

Yes.

What are the police afraid of? (none / 0) (#6)
by JSN on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:01:12 PM EST

The citizen review boards I am familiar with are
limited in what they can do by legislation and union
agreements. I am not at all surprised that the names of the Chicago officers with more than 10 complaints were kept confidential.

The public likes the idea of citizen review boards even when they understand their limitations. Perhaps they think getting on the cops nerves is a good idea.

SOMEONE has to keep watch over them (none / 0) (#7)
by splashy on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:06:27 PM EST

When you have people with guns, that are allowed to attack, jail and kill others, it's important that there are people that are not biased to oversee them. Things can get out of hand very quickly without that.

I can understand why, ... (none / 0) (#8)
by Jerrymcl89 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:37:45 PM EST

... when you have mostly suburban cops policing urban areas like the Bronx or Brooklyn where the elected officials are very anti-police, the cops are reluctant to let politcal operatives be part of a process that determines whether they keep their jobs or even go to jail. But it's also true that letting them entirely police their own (as with doctors, lawyers, or really anyone else) leads to almost no policing at all. It's not an easy question to answer, but I think both sides of it need to be willing to talk to come up with a best solution.

Good points (none / 0) (#9)
by jccamp on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:07:34 PM EST

I also think that in cases where complaint files are closed to the public, as cited in the OP, you are probably dealing with situations where the officers were cleared, and the complaints adjudged as false. This is usually a part of a labor agreement, demanded by police representatives. If a person accused of a crime is acquitted, the case nolle pros'd, or even when a person is convicted but allowed a withholding of adjudication, that person can have the complete record of arrest and trial erased. Shouldn't officers be afforded the same right?

A non-politicized review process cannot be a bad thing. The devil's in the details.


: well, yeah, except (none / 0) (#11)
by cpinva on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:52:30 AM EST

those people aren't working for, and being paid by, the taxpayers. the police supposedly are. at least, that's the general idea.

I can understand why they don't want it (none / 0) (#10)
by dianem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:35:37 AM EST

First, they see themselves as the good guys. Meanwhile, they know that they are not always good - nobody can be. It's nicer to have someone you consider relatively friendly checking your behavior - they know how easily evidence can be misinterpreted.

That said, they have to do this. These men are too powerful to be held to the same standards as the rest of us. They must be impeccably honest or find another career. And they can't police themselves, obviously.