Laserfiche WebLink
Fails to establish commission independence.The National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement <br /> (NACOLE) defines an investigatory oversight model as "allow[ing] for investigations to be conducted by the oversight <br /> agency and does not rely on investigators from within the police department."The Exhibit 1 policy language will not <br /> establish an investigatory police oversight commission. Rather, the language will effectively establish a police review <br /> commission with an auditor.The language also fails to establish meaningful independence from the police department, <br /> as the Chief of Police or his designee are required to attend all regular and special meetings of the commission.The <br /> investigations and deliberations of the police oversight commission must be independent from the Santa Ana Police <br /> Department(SAPD). We can no longer afford to continue to allow a closed system in which only police command staff <br /> and officers have any direct responsibility or control over the outcome of complaints from community members. An <br /> independent police oversight commission operates outside of the control, purview, or influence of police command <br /> staff. <br /> Limits the scope and ability for public complaints.The policy language severely limits the scope of complaints and the <br /> timeframe by when the public can submit complaints. Under the stated model,the commission can only review <br /> complaints submitted to the commission, not the police department.The complaint must be submitted by the impacted <br /> person within 120 days of the incident.These limitations substantially obstruct the public from addressing police <br /> misconduct. By placing the onus for complaints on the impacted person within a specific timeframe,the City will <br /> effectively block oversight into complaints from witnesses and third parties.The timeframe is unduly burdensome, <br /> especially for people who have been harmed by police misconduct. Moreover,the policy inappropriately bars <br /> anonymous complaints, preventing people who wish to protect their privacy from seeking redress.The language also <br /> unnecessarily limits the subject of complaints submitted to the commission to serious uses of force, sexual assault, <br /> serious dishonesty, and discrimination. <br /> Fails to establish access to police department records. The policy language fails to address the commissions' access to <br /> police records.To effectuate meaningful oversight,the commission must be guaranteed complete and prompt access, <br /> subject to state laws,to all SAPID documents, information, and testimony relevant to their investigations.The policy <br /> language does not include provisions outlining the communication between the commission and SAPID.The commission <br /> must have the ability to subpoena witnesses and documents, including police disciplinary documents, communications, <br /> video and audio footage. <br /> Lacks disciplinary authority.The policy language similarly fails to address the commission's role in recommending <br /> accountability for officers that engage in misconduct.The commission must be explicitly authorized to provide <br /> disciplinary recommendations to the Police Chief and Internal Affairs division of SAPID before the statute of limitation <br /> expires. Finally,the language must authorize the commission to recommend disciplinary policy guidelines to the Police <br /> Chief, Internal Affairs Division, and City Council. <br /> Diminishes the capacity of commission membership. As written,the commission membership requirements and <br /> qualifications will undermine the police oversight model. Specifically,the commission members are not guaranteed to <br /> represent the city's diversity. Moreover,the language fails to include commissioner qualifications to ensure effective <br /> police oversight including a background in human resources, management, policy development, auditing, law, <br /> investigations, social services, civil rights, and civil liberties. Moreover,the language excludes employees of all municipal <br /> agencies and their immediate family members.This exclusion is overly broad and prevents qualified candidates from <br /> being appointed to the commission. <br /> 2 <br />