Correspondence- #22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Structural Failures of Exhibit 1 Policy Lanpuape As previously stated, an ineffectual and powerless police oversight model will be far more detrimental to the residents of Santa Ana than simply not having any police oversight, as it will give the false impression that meaningful accountability and investigation into police misconduct is occurring and potentially stall more effective reform methods. This is not acceptable for Santa Ana residents who largely prefer investigation-focused and auditor-focused models.v 1. Fails to establish commission independence. The National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) defines an investigatory oversight model as "allow[ing] for investigations to be conducted by the oversight agency and does not rely on investigators from within the police department."v The Exhibit 1 policy language will not establish an investigatory police oversight commission. Rather, the language will effectively establish a police review commission with an auditor. The language also fails to establish meaningful independence from the police department, as the Chief of Police or his designee are required to attend all regular and special meetings of the commission. The investigations and deliberations of the police oversight commission must be independent from the Santa Ana Police Department (SAPD). We can no longer afford to continue to allow a closed system in which only police command staff and officers have any direct responsibility or control over the outcome of complaints from community members. An independent police oversight commission operates outside of the control, purview, or influence of police command staff. 2. Limits the scope and ability for public complaints. The policy language severely limits the scope of complaints and the timeframe by when the public can submit complaints. Under the stated model, the commission can only review complaints submitted to the commission, not the police department. The complaint must be submitted by the impacted person within 120 days of the incident. These limitations substantially obstruct the public from addressing police misconduct. By placing the onus for complaints on the impacted person within a specific timeframe, the City will effectively block oversight into complaints from witnesses and third parties. The timeframe is unduly burdensome, especially for people who have been harmed by police misconduct. Moreover, the policy inappropriately bars anonymous complaints, preventing people who wish to protect their privacy from seeking redress. The language also unnecessarily limits the subject of complaints submitted to the commission to serious uses of force, sexual assault, serious dishonesty, and discrimination. 3. Fails to establish access to police department records. The policy language fails to address the commissions' access to police records. To effectuate meaningful oversight, the commission must be guaranteed complete and prompt access, subject to state laws, to all SAPD documents, information, and testimony relevant to their investigations. The policy language does not include provisions outlining the communication between the commission and SAPD. The commission must have the ability to subpoena witnesses and documents, including police disciplinary documents, communications, video and audio footage. 4. Lacks disciplinary authority. The policy language similarly fails to address the commission's role in recommending accountability for officers that engage in misconduct. The commission must be explicitly authorized to provide disciplinary recommendations to the Police Chief and Internal Affairs division of SAPD before the statute of limitation expires. Finally, the language must authorize the commission to recommend disciplinary policy guidelines to the Police Chief, Internal Affairs Division, and City Council. 2