My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Correspondence- #22
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2022
>
10/18/2022 Special and Regular
>
Correspondence- #22
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/18/2022 2:07:44 PM
Creation date
10/18/2022 9:25:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Date
12/1/2021
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
66
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
effectively establish a police review commission with an auditor. The language also fails <br /> to establish meaningful independence from the police department, as the Chief of Police <br /> or his designee are required to attend all regular and special meetings of the commission. <br /> The investigations and deliberations of the police oversight commission must be <br /> independent from the Santa Ana Police Department (SAPD). We can no longer afford to <br /> continue to allow a closed system in which only police command staff and officers have <br /> any direct responsibility or control over the outcome of complaints from community <br /> members. An independent police oversight commission operates outside of the control, <br /> purview, or influence of police command staff. <br /> 2. Limits the scope and ability for public complaints. The policy language severely limits <br /> the scope of complaints and the timeframe by when the public can submit complaints. <br /> Under the stated model, the commission can only review complaints submitted to the <br /> 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 <br /> from addressing police misconduct. By placing the onus for complaints on the impacted <br /> person within a specific timeframe, the City will effectively block oversight into <br /> 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 <br /> inappropriately bars anonymous complaints, preventing people who wish to protect their <br /> privacy from seeking redress. The language also unnecessarily limits the subject of <br /> complaints submitted to the commission to serious uses of force, sexual assault, serious <br /> dishonesty, and discrimination. <br /> 3. Fails to establish access to police department records. The policy language fails to <br /> address the commissions' access to police records. To effectuate meaningful oversight,the <br /> commission must be guaranteed complete and prompt access, subject to state laws, to all <br /> SAPD documents, information, and testimony relevant to their investigations. The policy <br /> language does not include provisions outlining the communication between the <br /> commission and SAPD. The commission must have the ability to subpoena witnesses and <br /> documents, including police disciplinary documents, communications, video and audio <br /> footage. <br /> 4. Lacks disciplinary authority. The policy language similarly fails to address the <br /> commission's role in recommending accountability for officers that engage in misconduct. <br /> The commission must be explicitly authorized to provide disciplinary recommendations to <br /> the Police Chief and Internal Affairs division of SAPD before the statute of limitation <br /> expires. Finally, the language must authorize the commission to recommend disciplinary <br /> policy guidelines to the Police Chief, Internal Affairs Division, and City Council. <br /> 5. Diminishes the capacity of commission membership. As written, the commission <br /> membership requirements and qualifications will undermine the police oversight model. <br /> Specifically, the commission members are not guaranteed to represent the city's diversity. <br /> Moreover, the language fails to include commissioner qualifications to ensure effective <br /> police oversight including a background in human resources, management, policy <br /> development, auditing, law, investigations, social services, civil rights, and civil liberties. <br /> Moreover,the language excludes employees of all municipal agencies and their immediate <br /> family members. This exclusion is overly broad and prevents qualified candidates from <br /> being appointed to the commission. <br /> Fundamental Police Oversight Policy Provisions and Our Recommendations <br /> It is imperative that the City of Santa Ana establish a comprehensive, effective, and fully <br /> funded police oversight model with a clearly defined scope and authority to prevent, intervene, <br /> and investigate police misconduct and violence. For this reason, we urge the City Council to pay <br /> the greatest attention to and adopt amendments pertaining to the following policy provisions. <br /> 464➢.. caaw Ave#202* ➢ms Airng llu w,CA 90017*213...481.3740*www,duueJuusfice„aairg*Pirnirnted in•Ihouse <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.