Don’t Close the Door on Civilian Probe of Police

The current debate about introducing some type of civilian participation into the investigation of complaints against police officers treads on very delicate ground.

The police occupy a unique place in our society. To carry out their mission of ensuring public safety, their charter entitles them to carry guns and other weapons and gives them broad authority over the movement and activities of the rest of us. Yet their actions, too, are governed by law, and police officers not only enforce the rules but also abide by them.

The San Diego Police Department has more than 1,600 sworn officers. As with any group that large, a few are likely to be bad apples. Some come with inferiority or superiority complexes or racial, sexual or other prejudices. Some will lapse into unprofessional behavior on an occasional bad day.

Complaints against police officers here are investigated by the department’s Internal Affairs Unit. If discipline against an officer is recommended, the chief of police must approve. For more than a five-day suspension, the city manager must also consent. Under state law, neither the person who makes the complaint nor any other member of the public is entitled to detailed information about the results of the disciplinary procedure unless it becomes part of a civil or criminal trial.

Of the thousands of situations occurring each day between police and civilians, many are charged with conflict that can lead to either legitimate or vindictive complaints against officers. The way in which those complaints are handled must be viewed by the public and the police as fair to both the complaining and accused parties. Only if the system has credibility will the public be willing to use it and will the Police Department get the broad community support it needs and deserves.

The secrecy of the outcome and the fact that only other police personnel are involved in investigating complaints have led members of the Citizens Advisory Board on Police-Community Relations, minority leaders and others to seek some type of civilian involvement in investigating misconduct.

In what appears to be a preemptive strike intended to blunt the growing call for civilian participation, Police Chief Bill Kolender has proposed that the county Grand Jury be given the job of periodically reviewing a random sampling of internal investigations and publicly reporting on their “quality, objectivity and fairness.” City Manager John Lockwood is considering Kolender’s proposal, and he already has expressed enthusiasm for it.

But Kolender’s plan falls far short of opening up the process to assure the public that legitimate complaints made against police officers will be thoroughly and impartially examined and appropriate action taken. It is time for civilians to play some role along with police investigators in misconduct reviews. State law and the City Charter may make this difficult to work out, but the experience of other California cities shows that it can be done.

Lockwood should not rush to embrace Kolender’s proposal. Rather, a thoughtful examination of all the possibilities for involving civilians should be made and the plan that appears best for San Diego adopted. The Police Department and the Police Officers Assn., which opposes even Kolender’s bland proposal, do not enhance their credibility in the community by standing steadfast against any civilian role.