Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem #10 - Discussion ItemJoseph R. Grassie City Manager Kenneth I. Harms Chief of Police � ,�.• ,jam F .... ..i._irl')R/\ N DIJM June 19, 1979 -•-,.1 Internal/External Review 'ENCLOSURES - FILE, REL 3-3 In response to Mayor Ferre's requests over the last year -and -a half, and the recent interest in the subject of Police Review Boards by the media, in the wake of the LeFleure incident, the Department has been actively reviewing methods used in other communities to insure proper police conduct and public account- ability, while at the same time evaluating the effectiveness of our own procedures. I have in the past taken the position that a strong internal administrative review is the most effective and efficient method of processing complaints of police mis- conduct. I have also publicly taken the position that a tradi- tional external Civilian Review Board wouldbe inappropriate for the City of Miami. Recently, at the request of County Commissioner William Oliver, in his capacity as council member and at the request of the,Dade County Commission, the Miami -Dade Criminal Justice Council conducted an extensive study of these issues, focusing on citizen complaint review procedures for Criminal Justice agencies in Dade County. The subsequent staff report on the subject specifically recommended against the establishment of an external Civilian Review Board. The staff did, however, indicate that some form of external review was necessary. The report recom- mended three alternate models of which the Council chose to recommend two, along with three additional models that were independently submitted, for referral to the Dade County Commis- sion. At the May 22, 1979 City Commission meeting, Mayor Ferre re- quested that the Police Department review and report to the Commission on alternative methods of investigation and review of citizen complaints. The Mayor further requested that the Depart- ment analyze the method of processing citizen complaints that has been established by the Chicago Police Department and advise the Commission on the desirability of implementing that procedure in Miami. Mayor Ferre described the Chicago Review procedure as a Joseph R.'GraSsie June Civilian Committee of non -sworn individuals that was also headed by a civilian administrator who reported to the Superintendent. He indicated that the committee was made up of young attorneys who had graduated from local law schools. The Mayor explained that the system permitted grass roots participation through review by two additional boards. Once the Civilian Review Board makes a recommendation to the Superintendent, the police organizations have a system by which they can disagree with that recommendation.. They can make an independent recommendation. The second board is an advisory board selected from the community which, if they disagree with the recommendation of the Civilian Review Board, can also make an advisory recommendation. The final decision is then made by the City Administration. The Mayor felt that this system provided both a professional inside overview and a non-professional citizen participa- tion on an advisory basis if they disagree with the conclu- sions. In order to evaluate the Chicago Police Department's review methods, an on -site visit was made by a member of my staff with the Chicago Police Department and other concerned Chicago community organizations on June 6, 7 and 8, 1979. (Attached is the interview schedule outlining the individ- uals contacted.) It was found that the Chicago Police Department has a unique method of conducting internal investigations in that they have two separate units within the department: the Office of Professional Standards (O.P.S.) and the Internal Affairs Divisions (I.A.D.). The Office of Professional Standards is staffed by civilian employees of the police department and is limited to investigating complaints of excessive use of force and par- ticipating in the investigations of shooting incidents involving Chicago police officers. The Internal Affairs Division conducts all other internal investigations or refers less serious complaints to the employee's commanding officer for investigation and recommendation. The focus of the visit was primarily on the activities of the Office of Professional Standards. This unit is currently Joseph R. Grassie - 3 June headed by a civilian attorney, has a staff of 82 -_57 of which are investigators - and an annual budget of $1.5 million. The Office of Professional Standards was established in 1974 by the then new Superintendent James Rochford in the wake of considerable community/police unrest and a scandal which resulted in the indictment of approximately 70 Chicago police officers on corruption -related charges. There had also been an incident in which a Chicago police officer had shot a juvenile under conditions that seemed unreasonable and the Internal Affairs Division investigation of the incident had been severely criticized. These incidents led to the demotion of the previous superintendent and resulted in considerable public demand for improvement in the depart- ment's internal investigations. It is interesting to note that it was generally accepted, even within the police department, that the public lacked confidence in the Internal Affairs Division investigations of excessive use of force complaints and that this lack of confidence was justified, in that the Internal Affairs Division had proved ineffective in conducting these types of investigations. The Office of Professional Standards became operational in 1974, headed by a troika of civilian attorneys: one white, one black and one Latin. However, this proved unworkable and James Casey, the white attorney, subsequently became the head of the program. Civilian investigators are hired and trained at the Police Academy though they do not attend the same classes as the Chicago Police Department's officers. An attempt is made to insure an ethnic and racial mix in the investigative staff, which is generally made up of young, recent college graduates. The investigators are paid salaries equal to that of police investigators, which is higher than that of starting Chicago police officers. The Office of Professional Standards investigators are not sworn police officers and do not carry weapons. The purpose of O.P.S. was to improve public credibility because it was perceived that I.A.D. was not trusted by the community. The program, after initially experiencing con- siderable problems, seems to have become generally accepted and is meeting this objective. Both Police Department Joseph R. Grassie representatives and community organizations with its operation. There are, however, several significant drawbacks that must be considered in evaluating the advisability of implementing such a program in the City of Miami. Principal among these is the fact that the program is expensive; the quality of investigations is inconsistent and generally lower than the quality of I.A.D. investigations; the investigations take considerably longer to be completed; and O.P.S. investigators need closer supervision than do police investigators. An additional negative aspect of the program is that it tends to significantly increase the number of complaints lodged against officers, with the increased complaints being generally of a more frivolous nature. The Chicago Police Department, however, apparently feels that added cost and the reduced quality of investigations were worth trading off in order to insulate the Department from controversial situations. It is important to note that the Chicago Police Department is not unionized and that there is no appeal outside of the Department for disciplinary action of less than six days suspension. This is important because the majority of the disciplinary action taken by the Department, as a result of O.P.S. investigations, fall within the six -day -no -outside -appeal period. Thus the majority of O.P.S. sustained complaints are not subject to external review in the form of an employee appeal. In the Chicago Police disciplinary process, the employee may have disciplinary action reviewed by a departmental board that can make recommendations to the Superintendent. Any disciplinary action of six days to thirty days suspension may be appealed to the Police Board which is similar to the Miami Civil Service Board with respect to disciplinary matters, except that its decision is binding and final unless the employee appeals to the Circuit Court for relief. Dis- ciplinary action in excess of thirty days suspension or for termination, must be approved by the Police Board which makes the final decision, which is also appealable to the Courts. June 19,, 1979 appear satisfied` Joseph R. Grassie A. comparison of the overall complaint review procedures of the City of. Chicago and the City of Miami indicates many similarities. At the investigative level, Chicago's O.P.S. and Miami's I.S. are different in that the Commander and investigators of I.S. are sworn personnel rather than civilian employees and I.S. conducts a wider range of investigations. However; both units report directly to the Police Department's top administrator. In both departments the employee may appeal recommended disciplinary action to an internal department review board which may make an alternative non -binding recommendation to the Department head. All disciplinary action taken against Miami Police Officers (other than a written reprimand) may be further appealed to the Civil Service Board. In Chicago, only disciplinary action in excess of five days may be appealed to the City's Police Board while disciplinary action of more than thirty days must be approved by the Police Board. The Chicago Board is similar to Miami's Civil Service Board, but as indicated, it has a more limited jurisdiction on disciplinary matters. However, the Police Board also has several other functions. These include approving the Police Department's budget, reviewing departmental policy and recommending candidates to the Mayor for the position of Superintendent. The O.P.S. had a complaint sustained rate of 6.84% for 1978 while the City of Miami Police Department's I.S. had a sustained rate of 13.72% for the same period. It is important that certain misconceptions about the Chicago Police Department's Office of Professional Standards and its disciplinary system be clarified. The O.P.S. is not a committee or board but rather a part of the Chicago Police Department's organizational structure that employs non -sworn investigators to conduct investigations of allegations of excessive use of force by police officers. These investi- gations are conducted in much the same manner as the Miami Police Department's Internal Security Unit conducts similar types of investigations. The non -sworn employees working in O.P.S. are not attorneys. However, the head of O.P.S., James Casey, is an attorney and a former Federal prosecutor. The Chicago Police Department is not unionized and does not have a procedure where police organizations review disciplinary action and make recommendations to the Superintendent. The department does, however, have an internal department review board to which employees may appeal disciplinary action prior to review by the Superin- tendent. This board is similar to the Miami Police Depart- ment's Disciplinary Review Board (D.D.R.H.). Furthermore, Chicago does not have a Community Advisory Board that reviews citizens' complaints and makes recommendations to the City Administration. The City of Chicago does have a Police Board that has jurisdiction to hear appeals by employees of disciplinary action of six days suspension or more and which must approve all disciplinary action. of thirty days or more. The Police Board's action is not advisory but rather final unless overturned by the courts upon an employee's appeal. As previously indicated, the Staff of the Miami -Dade Crim- inal Justice Council conducted an in-depth study of external review procedures used in other communities. At its June 4, 1979 meeting the Council referred five external review models to the County Commission and recommended that the Commission select from those models the features they felt most suited for Dade County. The following is a summary and comparison of the models that the Council recommended. OMBUDSMAN The Ombudsman is an independent governmental official who receives complaints against government agencies and offi- cials, who investigates and who makes recommendations to remedy the complaints. He does not replace or displace existing remedial machinery, but would supplement and re- inforce the existing political, administrative and legal processes of control. CRIMINAL JUSTICE REVIEW PANEL This panel will act in an advisory capacity to the County Manager and the Director of the Public Safety Department, and to the City Managers or Mayors and Police Chiefs from Dade's twenty-six municipalities. It will have two (2) major functions: (1) to review and provide input on 10101111 criminal justicepoliciesand procedures that affect Dade's citizenry; and (2) to, ensure the integrity of the various criminal justice internal review systems through an after - the -fact review of citizen complaints, where the citizen is dissatisfied with the internal review findings. GELBER PLAN The Citizens' Review Board is group. The goal of the Board trate the secrecy of internal the law enforcement sector of grievance machinery. an advisory, counseling, referral is to provide a process to pene- investigations and to deprive complete domination over the Upon receiving a complaint, the Board will direct the staff to gather all available information, counsel and refer the complainant to the appropriate agency and assist in obtain- ing a lawyer where required. If necessary, they will accompany the individual to the appropriate agency to assist in the filing of the request for an official investigation. HARDIN PLAN This plan creates a board known as The Police -Civilian Appeals Board. It consists of five members appointed by the Commission. The duties of the Board are to hear complaints by citizens who are not satisfied with the results of the Police Internal Review process. They will hear complainants and any witnesses the complainants or any other party may wish to present. Upon hearing all witnesses and the police position, the Board will vote yes or no on the question of referring the case to the Manager's Office for additional review. The recommendation is not legally binding. COMMUNITY APPEALS BOARD The Community Appeals Board investigates, conducts hearings and makes recommendations to the Chief Administrator of the appropriate City or County regarding complaints or grievances made by any person against any employee of the Public Safety Department or any municipal police department in Dade County. The Community Appeals Board does not exercise jurisdiction until the appropriate police depart- ment has completed its investigation. If the Community i Joseph R. Grassie June 19, 1979 Appeals Board determines that the police department is, not properly handling the case, then the Board may investigate prior to the termination of the investigation by that police department. The Board has full authority to require testimony under oath and to subpoena witnesses and to obtain relevant dnucments. The Board consists of seven members appointed by the County Commission for three years:' OMBUDSMAN 401 CRIMINAL JUSTICE REVIEW PANEL CRIMINAL JUSTICE COUNCIL STAFF ENDORSEMENTS AMERICAN BAR ASS 0 TION/ C.J.C. STAFF COST Oversees existing complaint processes to insure proper consideration of complaint. Any act or failure ;to act by any agency,, official 6 public employee (except courts, .legislative, chief executive); multi- jurisdictional: Subpoena powers, access` to all public records and confidential files relevant to investigation. Complaint received at Ombudsman office, then forwarded to existing complainant review mechanism of agency complained about. Ombudsman appointed,by;:: executive 6 confirmed by legislative body; Ombudsman has freedom to choose own staff. At least 5 years; removal for cause only by legislative body. $175,000 per year. Review 6 provide input on Criminal Justice policies 6 procedures 6 insures integrity of the various Criminal Justice Review Systems. Any case where complain- ant appeals findings of internal review system 6 other areas of crit- ical concern to the community; multi - jurisdictional. Created by County Ordinance -advisory authority; no subpoena powers. County Manager Receives complainant's appeal of internal re- view findings; reviews adequacy 6 accuracy of internal review pro- cedures. 11 specified community agencies each designate 1 member to panel - appointment ratified by County Manager 6 County Commission. Panel has 5 member staff. $125,000 per year. GELBER PLAN COMM ITY APPEALOARD DR. SEYMOUR GELBER ilieRDIN PLAN ROBERT A. HARDIN COMMUNITY RELATIONS BOARD Advises, counsels, makes referral for Complainants, monitors police', agency's. investigations,',expresses public approval or disap- proval where appropriate, makes recommendations. Citizen's complaint(s)_. against law enforcement agencies. Advisory; no subpoena powers. Staff responsible to County Manager - Board responsible to County Commission Receives citizens' complaints h provides support assistance to complainant. Minimum 5 citizens from 5 specified community agencies, plus optional citizens -at -large; 1 or 2 professional staffers hired by County Manager. Board members: volunteers: Staff: full-time employed by County. Supplements existing control processes by producing avenue or appeal of internal review finding. Complaints by citizen(s) not satisfied with re- sults of police internal review process. Advisory; can recommend review by City. Manager of case. City Commission Public hearing 6 re- viewing of facts; all participants appear voluntarily. Each City/County Commissioner appoints 1 member to Board. Unpaid volunteers, staggered terms. Investigates 6 conducts hearings, makes recom mendations regarding, complaints. All complaints or grievances against `` any employee of: the PSD or;muni"cipal department. Created pursuant to Dade County Charter;. full power to sub- poena & require testimony under oath. County Commission, No jurisdiction until appropriate police agency has completed investigation of com- plaint --exception is when CAB determines police agency is not properly handling investigation, then CAB may proceed to investigate. 7 members appointed by County Commissioners; Board has working staff. 3 years staggered terms; unpaid - volunteers. 1 All of the plans recommended by the Council appear to have both positive and negative aspects. It is axiomatic that, for anyform of external review to be successful, it must be tailored to the community it is to serve. Another pre- requisite to success is that the model be accepted by those it will affect. I recommend that the City Administration be charged with the responsibility of forming a committee to review all pertinent material relating to this issue and to report its recommenda- tions within thirty to sixty days. This committee should have two primary objectives: First, it should assess the community's need in this area and should determine if the Department's internal review function should be supplemented with other procedures. Second, if the Committee determines that there is a need for additional community input in the present system, it should assess the recommendations made by the Council along with any other information that may be available, and it should recom- mend to the City Commission the form of community participation that will best meet the needs of the citizens of the City of Miami. KIH :mm/rch Wednesday,' June 6 Interview Schedule - Chicago.Trip 1979 Sergeant Floyd Turner Commander Jim Casey Dennis Nowickie Joseph Haughey` Thursday, June 7, 1979. Robert Howard Jim Burns Edmund Brooks Julius McMillan Werner Petterson: Dick Salem Steve. Sheller Joseph Gomez Friday, June 8, 1979 William Geller Janice Linn Jim Casey Joseph Dileonardi Dick Brzeezek Chicago Police Department- Youth Division former IAD Investigator Chicago Police Department Commander, Youth Division Chicago Police Department - OPS Commander Chicago Police Department - Legal Advisor Better Government Association Chicago Human Relations`` Commission Department of Justice Community Relations Service' Chicago Crime Commission Chicago Alliance of Business - former OPS Investigator Law Enforcement Study Grou Chicago Police Department - OPS Commander Chicago Police Department - Deputy Superintendent Bureau of Inv. Serv. Chicago Police Department - Exec. Assistant to the Superintendent Dennis Nowickie Chicago Police Department` - Youth Division Chicago Police Department Division Commander 1 INNIIMM.110111