Increasingly, Key Westers are becoming aware that, under the leadership of Chief Buz Dillon, our Police Department is, at best, floundering; at worst, out of control. And the whole concept of thisdepartment investigating its own atrocities borders on the ridiculous. If you're a regular reader, you know that Key West The Newspaper just recently forced Dillon to admit that an internal affairs investigator had declared a citizen complaint that a cop lied under oath in court "unfounded"— without even investigating the complaint! And the cop had to admit that he did, indeed, lie— but "unknowingly"!
An even more recent example is the current "inquiry" into the shootout on Front Street. It has been three weeks since that incident, yet there's no final report. Any competent newspaper reporter could have accomplished that investigation and written a report in a day or two!
Perhaps the answer is a Civilian Review Board. The following information is from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
Civilian review of police activity was first proposed in the 1950s because of widespread dissatisfaction with the internal disciplinary procedures of police departments. Many citizens didn't believe that police officials took their complaints seriously. They suspected officials of investigating allegations of abuse superficially at best, and of covering up misconduct. The theory underlying the concept of civilian review is that civilian investigations of citizen complaints are more independent because they are conducted by people who are not sworn officers.
At first, civilian review was a dream few thought would ever be fulfilled. But slow, steady progress has been made, indicating that it's an idea whose time has come. By the end of 1997, more than 75 percent of the nation's largest cities (more than 80 cities across the country) had civilian review systems.
Civilian review advocates in every city have had to overcome substantial resistance from local police departments. One veteran of the struggle for civilian review has chronicled the stages of police opposition as follows—
• The "over our dead bodies" stage, during which the police proclaim that they will never accept any type of civilian oversight under any circumstances;
• The "magical conversion" stage, when it becomes politically inevitable that civilian review will be adopted. At this point, former police opponents suddenly become civilian review experts and propose the weakest possible models;
• The "post-partum resistance" stage, when the newly-established civilian review board must fight police opposition to its budget, authority, access to information, etc.
Strong community advocacy is necessary to overcome resistance, even after civilian review is established.
Civilian review systems create a lot of confusion because they vary tremendously. Some are more "civilian" than others. Some are not boards but municipal agencies headed by an executive director (who has been appointed by, and is accountable to, the mayor).
The three basic types of civilian review systems are:
Type 1. Persons who are not sworn officers conduct the initial fact-finding. They submit an investigative report to a non-officer or board of non-officers, who then make a recommendation for action to the police chief. This process is the most independent and most "civilian."
Type 2. Sworn officers conduct the initial fact-finding. They submit an investigative report to a non-officer or board of non-officers for a recommendation.
Type 3. Sworn officers conduct the initial fact-finding and make a recommendation to the police chief. If the aggrieved citizen is not satisfied with the chief's action on the complaint, he or she may appeal to a board that includes non-officers. Obviously, this process is the least independent.
Although the above are the most common, other types of civilian review systems also exist.
• Civilian review establishes the principle of police accountability. Strong evidence exists to show that a complaint review system encourages citizens to act on their grievances. Even a weak civilian review process is far better than none at all.
• A civilian review agency can be an important source of information about police misconduct. A civilian agency is more likely to compile and publish data on patterns of misconduct, especially on officers with chronic problems, than is a police internal affairs agency.
• Civilian review can alert police administrators to the steps they must take to curb abuse in their departments. Many well-intentioned police officials have failed to act decisively against police brutality because internal investigations didn't provide them with the facts.
AN EFFECTIVE CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD
1. Independence. The power to conduct hearings, subpoena witnesses and report findings and recommendations to the public.
2. Investigatory Power. The authority to independently investigate incidents and issue findings on complaints.
3. Mandatory Police Cooperation. Complete access to police witnesses and documents through legal mandate or subpoena power.
4. Adequate Funding. Should not be a lower budget priority than police internal affairs systems.
5. Hearings. Essential for solving credibility questions and enhancing public confidence in process.
6. Reflect Community Diversity. Board and staff should be broadly representative of the community it serves.
7. Policy Recommendations. Civilian oversight can spot problem policies and provide a forum for developing reforms.
8. Statistical Analysis. Public statistical reports can detail trends in allegations, and early warning systems can identify officers who are subjects of unusually numerous complaints.
9. Separate Offices. Should be housed away from police headquarters to maintain independence and credibility with public.
10. Disciplinary Role. Board findings should be considered in determining appropriate disciplinary action.
The existence of a civilian review agency, a reform in itself, can help ensure that other needed reforms are implemented. A police department can formulate model policies aimed at deterring and punishing misconduct, but those policies will be meaningless unless a system is in place to guarantee that the policies are aggressively enforced.
Civilian review works, if only because it's at least a vast improvement over the police policing themselves. Nearly all existing civilian review systems:
• reduce public reluctance to file complaints
• reduce procedural barriers to filing complaints
• enhance the likelihood that statistical reporting on complaints will be more complete
• enhance the likelihood of an independent review of abuse allegations
• foster confidence in complainants that they will get their "day in court" through the hearing process
• increase scrutiny of police policies that lead to citizen complaints
• increase opportunities for other reform efforts.
A campaign to establish a civilian review agency, or to strengthen an already existing agency, is an excellent vehicle for community organizing. In Indianapolis, for example, a civilian review campaign brought about not only the establishment of a civilian review agency, but an effective coalition between the Indiana ACLU, the local branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and other community groups that could take future action on other issues.
Such a campaign should seek a strong, fully-independent and accessible civilian review system. But even with a weak system, citizens can press for changes to make it more independent and effective.
If you're interested in joining in a campaign to push for a Civilian Review Board here in Key West, write, fax or e-mail Key West The Newspaper. P.O. Box 567, Key West FL 33041. Fax 292-1882. E-mail (no attachments): office@kwtn.com.