Review of S.D. Police Probes Urged : Panel Seeks Citizens’ Group to Monitor Misconduct Cases

A subcommittee of a citizen’s police advisory committee recommended Friday that San Diego allow civilians to monitor investigations of alleged police misconduct.

Although the motion didn’t specify what kind of “citizen involvement” should be used, subcommittee chairman Phil Hart offered as “an example” the idea of having two civilians--a minority and a non-minority--monitor the daily investigations of the San Diego Police Department’s Internal Affairs Division.

The subcommittee’s recommendation will be presented Wednesday at a meeting of the Citizens Advisory Task Force on Police-Community Relations, which also is expected to discuss Police Chief Bill Kolender’s proposal to use county grand jurors to monitor internal police investigations.

Under Kolender’s proposal, grand jurors would review a random sample of misconduct investigations once or twice a year, then issue public reports on the “quality, objectivity and fairness” of the police reviews.

Under the subcommittee’s plan, the city manager would hire two civilians as temporary employees for half the year to review the investigations conducted by the police internal affairs division. Hart said the two would have access to all files as they monitor the investigations and make periodic reports to the advisory board.

As expected, the Police Officers Assn. opposed Friday’s motion, objecting to any kind of civilian involvement in monitoring the Police Department’s investigation of its officers.

“Our stance hasn’t changed,” Steve Sloan, secretary for the association, said after the meeting. “We believe we’re overpoliced as it is.”

“All I can say to that is that no matter who makes the suggestion, it won’t get supported by everyone,” Hart said in response.

Several residents attending the meeting said the recommendation was too ambiguous.

Some community leaders, in response to a series of alleged incidents of police abuse and racial misconduct, have argued for a citizen review board, made up entirely of civilians, to investigate the complaints.

Minority groups were critical of the police chief’s proposal that the county grand jury be used to probe the police internal affairs’ handling of its officers because, they contend, the grand jury does not represent a broad spectrum of San Diego’s racial and ethnic groups. City Manager John Lockwood has praised the idea of the county grand jury reviewing police internal probes.

The recommendation “does not speak to the issue of the citizens’ involvement in processing complaints,” said Dr. Carrol Waymon of San Diego State University, who has advised the board in the past. “The ultimate of a democratic process is a joint venture. The bottom line is that the community get involved, and I’m pushing for that.”

He reported that, in studies of several other cities, the citizens’ review boards had cut down on the number of residents’ complaints against police.

Geraldine Moses, a Southeast San Diego resident, told the subcommittee that she was upset that the advisory group’s motion still does not address the question of alleged police misconduct.

“I’m a little disturbed about what transpired today,” she said. “I’m not concerned what procedures take place as long as it prevents misconduct.”

Hart said that, in his review of other cities’ review boards, he found that the public ended up losing confidence in them. He also said he could not find anything wrong with the Police Department’s current handling of its investigations of officers.

But, he added: “I’ve personally come to the conclusion that, yes, we should have some citizen involvement.”