HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemos - CIPCI
P CIVILIAN INVESTIGATIVE PANEL
To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the ity Commission
From: Charles Mays, Independent Counsel Clvt/
Date: July 30, 2013
Subject: City of Miami Civilian Investigative Panel 2013-2014 Budget Proposal
Enclosures: 9
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully requested that the City Commission consider and adopt the attached budget
proposal in the amount of $743,100.00 to be presented by the Civilian Investigative Panel at the
September 2013 Budget Hearing(s).
CIP BACKGROUND
As a result of a November 2001 referendum that was supported by over 76 percent of the
electorate, the Civilian Investigative Panel ("CIP") was created in 2002 under Chapter 11.5 of
the Code of the City of Miami and Ordinance No. 12188 ("Ordinance"). The referendum was in
response to the demand of the citizens of Miami for independent civilian oversight over the
sworn members of the police department by an agency empowered with the authority to issue
and enforce subpoenas for testimony and or documents, and for such agency to be comprised of
a professional staff, including Independent Counsel. The Ordinance requires a thirteen (13)
member voluntary panel inclusive of an appointee by the Chief of Police.
Section 11.5-27 of the Ordinance sets forth the below listed purpose, powers and duties of the
CIP:
• Act as independent civilian oversight of the sworn police department;
• Exercise its powers so as to not interfere with any ongoing [criminal]
investigations and conduct its activities consistent with applicable law, including
the Florida Government in the Sunshine Law and with applicable law and labor
contracts.
• Make written recommendations related to the city police department policies and
procedures concerning but not limited to training, recruitment and notification
system for corrective disciplinary procedures and provide input to the chief of
police before changes in police department policy or procedure are implemented,
which proposed changes shall be transmitted to the CIP 30 days prior to
implementation, except if an emergency requires such change;
• Engage the services of trained investigators and secure adequate training for its
members, including training in police policies and practices;
• Conduct investigations, inquiries and public hearings to make factual
determinations, facilitate resolution and propose recommendations to the city
manager and police chief regarding allegations of misconduct by any sworn
officer of the city police department;
• Request issuance of subpoenas, after consultation with the state attorney of the
Eleventh Judicial Circuit (Miami -Dade County) and approval of CIP
independent counsel, for the purpose of obtaining evidence from witnesses and
production of books, papers, and other evidence, which subpoenas shall be
signed, served and enforced pursuant to applicable law, provided that no
immunity be conferred by the CIP;
• Enhance understanding of the process of submitting, processing and responding
to citizen complaints regarding misconduct by police officers;
• Issue reports to the mayor, city commission, city attorney, city manager, chief of
police and the public;
• Make recommendations as to the disposition of alleged incidents of police
misconduct, to which the police chief is required to respond in writing with 30
days;
• Forward complaints alleging criminal activity to the city police department and
other relevant agencies;
• Promulgate rules and procedures for internal governance and standards for
training of CIP members and staff.
In addition to the foregoing, the CIP is required to submit annually for City Commission
approval a budget request pertaining to its functions to cover expenses associated with the
execution of its duties.
BUDGET REQUEST
The CIP respectfully submits for adoption by the City Commission, the attached FY 2014 budget
proposal in the amount of $743,100.00.
FY 2013 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Prevailed in Legal Challenges to the Ordinance
As a result of a citizen's complaint filed with the CIP alleging that a police lieutenant had
engaged in misconduct, the CIP initiated an investigation, invited and then subpoenaed the
lieutenant to testify about the complaint. The lieutenant filed suit against the CIP; petitioning the
Circuit Court to quash the subpoena and grant him a protective order based on the contention that
under the Police Officers' Bill or Rights, §§ 112.532 — 112.533, Florida Statutes (2007), only the
police department had authority to investigate his alleged misconduct. The lieutenant maintained
that the City of Miami ordinance creating and empowering the CIP to investigate complaints of
police misconduct is unconstitutional because of a conflict with Florida statutory law just as a
virtually identical ordinance was declared unconstitutional in Demings v. Orange County
Citizens Review Board, 15 So.3d 604 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). The Fraternal Order of Police
("FOP") likewise filed suit on behalf of its members. The actions were consolidated and after
the CIP and the City prevailed on summary judgment, the lieutenant and the FOP appealed the
adverse ruling to the Third District Court of Appeal. On January 23, 2013, the Third District
ruled in favor of the CIP and the City. The opinion, however, is not final because the Third
District has not ruled on a pending motion for rehearing en banc. Also pending before the Third
District are a motion to certify the decision to the Florida Supreme Court as being in conflict
with the Demings decision, and a motion to certify on the basis of a question of great public
importance.
Facilitated Service Access for Customers
Conducted nine (9) regular, monthly CIP meetings to date to receive and consider testimony on
complaints of alleged police misconduct, to address CIP administrative issues and offer
opportunity for citizen input and to hear persons with expertise in various subject matters.
Included among such presenters were the City Mayor, City Commissioners Marc Sarnoff,
Francis Suarez, and Wilfredo Gort. Miami -Dade County Judge Steve Leifman also appeared to
educate the panel and the public about programs designed to minimize violent encounters
between law enforcement officers and the mentally ill. Representatives of the Miami -Dade State
Attorney's Office appeared before the panel to discuss their investigations into two (2) fatal
police -involved shootings. Commanders and other upper echelon Miami Police Department
personnel appeared before the panel to discuss a variety of subjects including dashboard cameras
in police cars, police training, the use of force, and how internal investigations are conducted.
Provided internet web access to general information on the CIP including applications for CIP
membership, annual reports, public meeting schedules, meeting minutes, tri-lingual brochures,
tri-lingual complaint forms and customer service surveys.
Continued its recruitment efforts for Panel members, resulting in the appointment of three (3)
new members.
Case Management
In furtherance of its mandate to investigate complaints of police misconduct, the CIP:
Opened 201 cases. This represents a comparable number of cases opened in 2012. Of the 200
cases opened by the CIP, 12.5% were directly filed with the CIP. The remaining cases were
initially filed with the Miami Police Department's Internal Affairs Unit and received by the CIP
for independent investigation and/or review.
Completed 202, representing; a 10% increase over last year. (There are 127 cases pending/open
as of July 29, 2013.)
All CIP case findings and recommendations are submitted to the Chief of Police. The following
represents some of the findings and recommendations of the CIP: (Note: Where the CIP's
findings are inconsistent with those of the MPD, notification is submitted to the Chief of Police.
In addition to such notification, the CIP submitted 11 notifications to the MPD regarding officers
who have been placed on the CIP's Monitoring List and continue to receive additional
complaints. The Monitoring List is comprised of officers who routinely receive complaints
which indicate that additional scrutiny and possible referral to the MPD to determine whether
remedial training is merited. The CIP has initiated the process to make the Monitoring List
interactive which will enable the public to view complaints and officer profiles on-line through
the CIP website. This is expected to be fully operational by 2014.)
• A lieutenant knowingly failed to comply with a directive that an officer assigned to his
unit was to work in an administrative capacity only. Irrespective of the lieutenant's
knowledge of the directive, he nonetheless authorized the officer's participation in an
undercover tactical operation. Internal Affairs rendered a finding of Inconclusive
asserting that the lieutenant was not on duty on the day in question. The CIP sustained the
allegation of Improper Procedure.
• A juvenile sustained visible injures during an arrest for robbery and officers failed to
follow procedure by documenting his injuries. The CIP sustained the allegation of
Abusive Treatment. Internal Affairs classified the case as "Information Only" citing an
inability to locate the complainant although he was housed at the Miami -Dade County
Jail.
• Noted that officers routinely fail to submit daily worksheets resulting in the inability to
accurately account for and document daily activities.
• Recommended review and modification to MPD policies, procedures and practices
regarding tactical units to require that a marked unit be available for surveillance
activities to easily identify police officers once it is determined that an arrest or other
custodial contact will occur.
• A sergeant acknowledged confiscating $200 in cash and professional game tickets
from a complainant following an arrest for conducting business without a license.
The officer claimed that the tickets were turned into the MPD's Property Unit and
the cash was returned to the purchaser. The individual whom the money was
reportedly returned denied receiving any money from the arresting officer, moreover, the
MPD Property Unit had no record of any evidence linked to the arrest. The CIP
sustained the allegation of Missing Property. The CIP also added and sustained the
allegation of Improper Procedure. Internal Affairs neglected to interview the second
individual involved in the incident and disregarded the arresting officer's statements as to
how he mishandled the evidence which resulted in an MPD finding of Inconclusive as to
the allegation of Missing Property. The allegation of Improper Procedure was not
addressed by the MPD.
• Following an arrest, a detainee banged his head against the partition of the police cruiser
and later complained of injury. The arresting officer failed to comply with departmental
policy and document the detainee's injuries. The CIP added and sustained the allegation
of Improper Procedure. Internal Affairs had failed to address the matter.
• A complainant was arrested for domestic violence in the presence of minors and after he
was handcuffed, the arresting officer was observed by both civilian and sworn witnesses
striking the arrestee/complainant. The CIP sustained the allegation of Abusive
Treatment; however, Internal Affairs rendered a finding of Inconclusive as to the
allegation of Abusive Treatment even after obtaining recorded, sworn statements
from officers of others who acknowledged that they observed the MPD officer
assault the arrestee/complainant while handcuffed.
• Failure of officers to notify the Department of Children and Families (DCF)
regarding domestic violence situations involving minors. The MPD has been
previously notified of this practice which resulted in the distribution of a
department -wide bulletin advising all officers to adhere to policy and make the
appropriate notifications regarding domestic violence cases involving minors.
• A complaint that involved an officer who responded to the scene of an automobile
collision wherein the driver that caused the crash had abandoned his vehicle and fled the
scene which involved personal injury and property damage. In spite of supporting
evidence that the absent party was at fault, the officer failed to issue the appropriate
citations and inaccurately completed the crash report; listing inaccurate demographic
information regarding the victim and Florida statutes. Although thorough knowledge of
pertinent Florida statutory laws is required of officers, the officer acknowledged that he
did not have thorough knowledge of such laws which resulted in him identifying
the incorrect statute on the crash report. Internal Affairs cleared the officer on the
allegation of Improper Procedure. The CIP rendered a finding of Sustained as to the
allegation of Improper Procedure.
• Noted Internal Affairs failure to investigate a complaint wherein a defendant alleged that
during an arrest for burglary and drug possession, he was severely beaten by several
officers into a state of unconsciousness. Medical evidence confirmed that the complainant
sustained a four part facial fracture typically incurred only from extreme force such as
serious automobile accidents or being struck with concrete. The CIP sustained the
allegation of Abusive Treatment regarding the primary officer based on medical
evidence. The CIP also added and sustained the allegation of Improper Procedure as to
the remaining officers. Internal Affairs classified the case as a Non -Complaint and
failed to investigate the issue.
An officer was accused of discourtesy and acting improperly after he arrested a parent at
a local school for illegally parking and failing to return his driver's license and
registration. Several independent witnesses classified the officer's behavior as
inappropriate and rude. The CIP rendered a finding of Sustained as to the allegations of
Discourtesy, Missing Property and Negligence of Duty. Internal Affairs closed the case
as Inconclusive.
• The CIP requested the police department to reinvestigate a complaint involving the
transport of a transgender female (from male to female), with male detainees. The
officers ridiculed the complainant, exposed her sexual identity and damaged her cell
phone. The CIP sustained the allegations of Discourtesy, Damaged Property and
Improper Procedure. Internal Affairs initially classified the case as Inconclusive,
however, Internal Affairs has now obtained the CIP 's investigative file and reopened its
investigation.
Policy Review:
The CIP, acting through its Policy and Procedures Committee, Independent Counsel, and the full
Panel, reviewed and considered 17 proposed changes to police policy and procedure.
FY 2014 GOALS
Achieve Operational Savings
To continue to review and manage all processes, contracts and expenditures with a view to
minimizing costs while maintaining the highest level of service.
To fill the position of CIP Executive Director.
Facilitate Service Access for Customers
To continue to work with the Miami Police Department towards increased cooperation and
responsiveness.
Provide Employees with Key Information
To provide mandatory and necessary training opportunities for each employee in identified areas
of specialization and meet mandatory training requirements for Panel members.
Provide Excellent Customer Service
To fully utilize the services of the investigators and administrative support staff to reduce the
number of backlogged cases and to increase case intake and disposition.
Questions or concerns regarding information contained in this report may be directed to Charles
C. Mays, CIP Independent Counsel at (305) 960-4950, or to Thomas A. Cobitz, Esq„ CIP
Chairperson at (305) 821-3041.
CCM/
Enclosures
CIVILIAN INVESTIGATIVE PANEL
To: Johnny Martinez, P.E., City Manager
From: Charles Mays, Independent Counsel
Date: July 30, 2013
Subject: City of Miami Civilian Investigative Panel 2013-2014 Budget Proposal
Enclosures: 9
Attached for your information is the Civilian Investigative Panel's FY 2014 Proposed Budget
request in the amount of $743,100.00. This matter is scheduled to be heard by the City
Commission at Budget Hearing(s) in September 2013.
For additional information, questions or concerns regarding information contained in this report,
please contact Charles Mays, Independent Counsel, at (305) 960-4951.
CMM/
Enclosures