The San Diego Police Department has come a long way, but it still needs much more transparency and accountability.
That was the conclusion of the first audit from the newly-formed Commission on Police Practices, which this week submitted a 91-page audit of the department detailing serious problems with the department’s internal investigations.
The report said that “administrative investigations of possible employee misconduct or violations of policy should be more timely, complete, and objective, for the benefit of all stakeholders.”
The creation of the 25-member commission has been a long slog for activists and citizens seeking more comprehensive oversight of the police department. A prior effort at civilian oversight was considered a failure, but San Diego voters subsequently approved a more vigorous model to investigate police conduct, operating independently from both SDPD and the mayor’s office.
This review of 153 cases, resulting from 651 allegations of misconduct against SDPD officers, is a baseline for data and insight into the department’s internal handling of citizen complaints.
Not all the conclusions of the report were critical.
“SDPD and its investigators do many things right and are to be commended overall for their commitment to a robust accountability system with strong procedures and policies in many key areas,” the report observed.
The report focuses on the following areas: objectivity or lack thereof in investigations, completeness and timeliness of investigations, excessive force complaints, discourtesy investigations, conflict of interest issues, and racial profiling during traffic and pedestrian stops.
Overall, it found “significant racial disparities in the rate of complaint allegations about use of force, racial discrimination, unlawful detentions and searches, and discourtesy.”
Among the specific findings:
Lack of objectivity. Investigator questioning of officers sometimes lacked objectivity “in collecting and analyzing (or not collecting and analyzing) evidence relevant to the allegations,” the audit said. Investigators would allow the officer’s attorney to suggest questions, which is not considered appropriate. In several cases, the investigator asked leading questions of the subject, leading the officer to give responses “that supported negative findings on the complaint allegations,” the audit said. Conflict of interest issues in investigations. The report highlighted two cases here. In one, the officer was a close relative of a member of the department’s command staff. In the other, the subject was a high-ranking supervising officer. The investigator, a sergeant, had to make the call on a complaint against a person of “significantly higher rank” in their employing organization, which “creates an inherent conflict of interest for that investigator.”In both cases, interviews of the subject officers were “highly deferential to the officer and failed to explore conflicts between the subject officer’s statements and other available evidence,” the audit concluded. Timeliness of investigations. The report found this to be a consistent problem. The department’s own operating manual provides that all investigations classified as CAT1 should be finished within 90 days, and all CAT2 investigations wrap up within 60 days. However, the report found that it is “rare for SDPD administrative investigations to satisfy these guidelines.”CAT1 — category 1 — is an investigation into more serious “unreasonable force, discrimination, criminal conduct by an officer, unlawful search/seizure, unlawful detention, unlawful arrest” complaints, and CAT2 covers the less serious “discourtesy” and “procedural errors.” Excessive force complaint investigations. This is one of the most common complaints, accounting for about 20% of the allegations. It is considered among the most serious type of allegations that can be investigated by a police department. The auditor found that about 48% of the allegations involved force against a Black person, more eight times their share of the Black population in San Diego. “Of the 122 excessive force allegations, the great majority (20%) of the incidents were initiated due to a call for service that involved alleged violence or the threat of violence,” the report said. Completeness of investigations. The audit found instances in which investigators failed to ask officers about inconsistencies or ambiguities or failed to consider certain evidence supporting the allegations. “The entire purpose of such investigations is to ensure employees follow policies and training designed to guide their actions and ensure they operate effectively, responsibly, and safely,” the report said.The audit closes with a summary of findings and suggestions to address the problems detailed in the audit.
Independent auditor, attorney Jerry Threet, was chosen to review “multiple areas of concerns” and make suggestions for improvements. Threet was previously lead investigator for a similar commission in Richmond, California, but he resigned in September in protest of the way that it handled police complaints.
Work on the released audit began in March of this year, probing more deeply into 20 of the 153 cases, which the auditor felt warranted further attention.
He was not able to question San Diego police investigators, instead relying solely on the records provided in the investigative files for each complaint.
The full report can be read here.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( New Commission Report Says SDPD Needs More Accountability )
Also on site :