65A - POLICE OVERSIGHT DIRECTION

Home Browse Search

Introduction Civilian oversight of the police has been a topic of discussion and debate since the 1960s. The debate generally surfaces in communities where there has been a high -profile incident in which a member of the community has been injured or killed during an encounter with the police. The shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, in August 2014 followed by other high -profile shootings and deaths pushed civilian oversight and police accountability into the national spotlight. Although not generally acknowledged by the public, police agencies have always had civilian oversight through elected mayors, city councils, prosecutors' offices, court decisions, and state and federal legislation. Since the early 1960s, other forms of oversight have been developed in the hope of ensuring greater police accountability and community trust. In the earliest cases, a number of cities established civilian police commissions or boards (Los Angeles; Chicago; Kansas City, Missouri; and Detroit are examples) that played a role in the selection of the chief, policy development, and discipline. Since the late 1960s, other forms of civilian oversight have emerged. A number of civilian oversight classification systems developed over the years because of the wide variation in approaches adopted by communities. The National Association of Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) adopted a system developed by Samuel Walker in 2001 with some modifications of their own.' NACOLE places civilian oversight bodies in one of three classifications: 1. The investigation -focused model involves routine, independent investigations of complaints against police officers, which may replace or duplicate police internal affairs processes, though non -police civilian investigators staff them. 2. The review -focused model concentrates on commenting on completed investigations after reviewing the quality of police internal affairs investigations. Recommendations may be made to police executives regarding findings, or there may be a request that further investigations be conducted. A review board composed of citizen volunteers commonly heads this model, and they may hold public meetings to collect community input and facilitate police -community communication. 3. The auditor/monitor model focuses on examining broad patterns in complaint investigations including patterns in the quality of investigations, findings, and discipline rendered. Further, in some cities that use this model, auditor/monitors may actively participate in or monitor open internal investigations. This model often seeks to promote broad organizational change by conducting systematic reviews of police policies, practices or training, and making recommendations for improvement. 1. DeAngelis, Rosenthal, and Buchner, Civilian Oversight. 65A-16