Police Probes of Complaints Win Review Board’s Praise

In its first public assessment of the San Diego Police Department, a new citizen review panel announced Wednesday that it had reviewed 64 cases of citizen complaints against police officers, and that it agreed “in each of the cases” with the findings reached by the police internal affairs unit.

“The panel is impressed, in a very positive way, with the thorough manner in which each citizen complaint has been investigated,” the Rev. George Walker Smith, spokesman for the Civilian Advisory Panel on Police Practices, said in releasing the group’s first quarterly report.

“The depth of these investigations goes far beyond that which panel members have found to exist in private industry, or other professional or governmental agencies.”

Without providing any names or details about any of the complaints, the panel agreed with the department’s internal rulings on 38 complaints of excessive force, eight complaints of false arrest, seven of criminal conduct, seven of improper procedure, three of discrimination, and one of discourtesy.

The advisory panel was created in September after an increasing volume of complaints by minority community leaders about police conduct. But even after it was formed, some police critics blasted the committee and called it a weak body that would have no real effect.

They complained because the committee was selected by the police chief and the city manager, is limited to reviewing cases provided by the police themselves and cannot make decisions on punishment.

In addition, the group’s recommendations are not binding. Police may consider the suggestions, but are not bound by them when making a final determination in any case.

In its first evaluation of the department’s self-policing efforts, the panel agreed with with the police that of the 64 complaints:

- Twelve involved officers who did in fact commit all or part of the alleged acts of misconduct.

- Forty-two were instances in which the alleged act did not occur.

- An alleged act occurred in eight of the cases, but the act was justified, legal and proper.

- And there was insufficient information in two of the cases to clearly prove or disprove the allegations.

Smith said that his panel members, while reviewing the case files, sometimes disagreed with how the internal police investigations were being conducted. But he declined to reveal how often the panel disagreed with how the police investigated the complaints and whether their disagreements were significant.

But he said his review panel ultimately agreed with all 64 of the police rulings on the complaints.

“I can tell you that none of the cases were settled until justice was done and we were satisfied with their results,” he said.

Asked if his findings appeared to be a rubber stamp of the internal police investigation process, Smith said: “I can truthfully stand here and say I feel we have not been prohibitted in any way from carrying out our functions. This panel is not a stick with which to beat the department over the head. Nor is its role to protect Bill Kolender.”

Police Chief Kolender, who helped name the 12 panel members in September, said he was satisfied with the group’s work and that he continued to welcome their scrutiny of how the department polices itself.

‘Honest and Open’

“We have been honest and open and we have worked very hard together,” he said. “Obviously, I am very pleased with the results.”

He reiterated that any and all punishment for errant officers remained his decision, and he added that “corrective action” was being taken in each of the 12 complaints that were sustained.

Of those 12, one involved criminal conduct by a police officer. Without revealing any specifics of that case, Kolender said the matter was being forwarded to the district attorney’s office for review.

In addition, five of the 12 sustained cases involved use of excessive force. While again not providing details, Kolender said those instances could range from an officer pushing a citizen to an officer actually striking someone with his baton.

Kolender also said that the police Internal Affairs unit probably would have reached the same conclusions on the complaints even without the review panel looking over its shoulder.

“We’re a public agency,” he said. “I’m a public official. I’m basically very proud of what we do. And we don’t do it this way just because they (the review panel members) are here.”

The process calls for the internal affairs unit to first investigate a complaint, then allow the panel to review how objectively and thoroughly police probed the matter.

But critics of the panel, including organizations within the black and Hispanic communities, have sharply decried the group, saying it lacks any real enforcement powers.

They have criticized the panel because the police chief himself helped select the members, because the group has no subpoena powers, and because the members are not permitted to interview victims or witnesses.

One critic, Robert A. Garcia, an official with La Raza Lawyers Assn., said he was dismayed but not surprised that the panel had agreed with all of the department’s findings on the complaints.

“This will raise a lot of eyebrows in the community,” he said. “One hundred percent is a pretty high score.

“And,” Garcia added facetiously, “I’m sure Chief Kolender is pleased with the people he has appointed. The friends and acquaintances whom he has appointed are doing good work, I guess.”

Garcia said his group is sending a letter to the city attorney’s office, asking for a re-evaluation of how the review panel was selected. He maintains that a recent state attorney general’s opinion permits a police review board that is selected in a public forum, and not by the police chief himself.

“The review board should have the authority to investigate complaints, make recommendations on the types of punishment and in fact even impose the punishment itself,” he said.

Cooperation Called Good

However, Tuan Quang Pham, a member of the current review board, said that, should his panel actually disagree with the findings of the Police Department on any complaint, it has the right to publicly declare its disagreement and call for an appeal.

“As you can see, the cooperation between the department and the review panel is very good right now,” he said. “But the recourse of going to the public is a possibility.”

Denise M. Lavell, another panel member, agreed.

“We haven’t faced that situation yet,” she said. “But if we come to a case like that, where we disagreed with the department, we’d express our displeasure all the way up to the chief and the city manager and if we have to, the public.”