What Do the Police Chiefs Fear?By Steven Fabian
Published: Press Democrat February18, 1998
Eleven people have been killed by our local police in the past two years; a higher per capita rate than San Francisco or New York. Federal and state civil rights officials have called a hearing (this Friday, 8:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. at the California State Building, 4th floor, 50 D Street, Santa Rosa) to look into the numerous community complaints received concerning our local police forces. This high number of deaths clearly shows that something is wrong with our local law enforcement agencies and that independent citizen review of what’s going on is needed. Yet reaction of the Sonoma County Law Enforcement Chiefs Association has been to fight the review of their policies and actions of their agencies by the impartial U.S. Civil Rights Commission.
The battle began last month when our law enforcement chiefs complained to the Press Democrat that the commissions were neither objective nor fair. Why? Because they heard the commission was going to issue subpoenas to the hearing. “It was a slap in the face,” Sheriff Piccinini protested. “They don’t need to subpoena us to get our cooperation.” It is troubling to see the men who head our local police agencies try to mislead the public into believing that the issuance of a subpoena demonstrates bias against them. These men know that subpoenas are issued by the Sonoma County District Attorney Office every day to get police officers to testify in court. Thousands of these subpoenas are received by their agencies each year. They do not contend the District Attorney is unfair and biased against them.
This smearing of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission as biased against law enforcement is made even more disturbing by the fact that the law chiefs have been unable to give any examples of the commission acting in an unfair manner. Have they been able to say to the public: “Look what this commission has done elsewhere” to show that this prestigious non-partisan panel has a history of being anti-police? The answer is no. These actions by our law enforcement chiefs have served to prime the public to distrust any adverse findings against the police agencies by questioning the panel’s neutrality.
What our law enforcement chiefs knew and did not state in their fight against subpoenas was that they knew that subpoenas could be used to expose much that they have kept hidden. Subpoenas by the commission could be used to make public the agencies’ policies, procedures, and secret investigations into the deaths and other citizen complaints. Subpoenas would also allow the commission to force the officers involved to give sworn testimony about these deaths.
Our chiefs lobbied federal officials to limit the scope of the investigation by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. The chiefs’ campaign against the commission has worked. The hearing has been downgrading from a formal joint state and federal civil rights hearing to a forum presided over by the commission’s state advisory committee. Most importantly, no subpoenas will be issued.
Why are our police chiefs against having independent citizen review of their policies that have resulted in such a high rate of deaths? They clearly do not want “outsiders” reviewing their policies and the many citizen complaints about their officers. The chiefs have pointed out they have already investigated their officers and cleared them of any wrongdoing. But the investigations were conducted by the police and reviewed by the District Attorney, a member of Sonoma County Law Enforcement Chiefs Association. The review by the District Attorney Office is solely to determine whether the officer broke the law. As District Attorney Mike Mullins explained: “I don’t actually determine whether the case could have been handled differently. My job is to determine whether criminal charges should be filed. In other words, how the officer placed himself in harm’s way or whether he should have placed himself in harm’s way is not the issue for the district attorney because it’s not the issue of criminal liability.” Bad policies that lead to a death or unprofessional police conduct short of law violations are not part of the review.
The current review process ignores the real questions. What changes are needed to stop the high rate of killings? The current policy is that officers should only shoot their guns to kill. Shouldn’t the community have input on whether this policy should be changed? Is further training of officers on cultural stereotypes and ways to react to force by individuals short of using deadly force needed?
What is needed is the creation of independent civilian review boards to help investigate allegations of police misconduct and to review policies that have lead to violence. It is the only effective means of ensuring that the actions of law enforcement meet the values of the local community. Independent citizen review boards provide the local community with the assurance that full investigations of citizen complaints are conducted and that any shortcomings in policies or in the actions of officers will be dealt with properly. Even Mullins stated that it would be the proper place for a citizen review board to help in assuring the credibility of investigations of police officers performance to the public.
This battle by our law enforcement chiefs against the Civil Rights Commission is a message to the public that the chiefs will fight any meaningful review of their policies, procedures and actions by an independent neutral forum. With our law enforcement chiefs fighting the hearing, it is important for citizens to come to the hearing and speak out for independent citizen review boards. Without reform, the high rate of our citizens being killed by our police may continue.