The Fairfax County Police are out of control and need oversight but are slick enough to organize "Campaign contributions" during election time to avoid it.

Dallas police brutality cases prompt calls for oversight


by REBECCA LOPEZ
DALLAS — Video obtained by News 8 last week is raising concerns again about the actions of a Dallas police officer.
"What I saw did disturbs me, and I have some concern," said City Council member Dwaine Caraway.
In the recording, Officer Brian Bradley is seen pulling over 59-year-old Albert Butler for an unsafe lane change in December 2012. Bradley immediately starts searching Butler.
"Why would that give him the right to search Mr. Butler like that before anything had taken place?" asked defense attorney Daryl Washington.
But it's what the officer does next that is more troubling. He pulls Butler to the side and out of view of the camera.
Butler — who is disabled and hearing-impaired — said Bradley then beat him.
"I was doing all that hollering and screaming and crying out to God, 'Please, make him stop,'" Butler said. He was hospitalized for his injuries.
The officer was cleared by the department's Internal Affairs for excessive force, and that has some civil rights leaders outraged. They maintain that Dallas police cannot investigate their own.


"We've requested for the FBI to come in and start investigating these cases with the Dallas Police Department, simply because of those reasons," said Rev. Ronald Wright, the founder of Justice Seekers Texas.
On Tuesday, the case of Tobias Mackey will be heard by a federal judge. His mother filed a federal civil rights violation lawsuit after Mackey was shot and killed by police. He was unarmed and had committed no crime.
“Certainly we don't throw our police department under the bus, but we certainly don't want to stand by and see our citizens thrown under the bus," Wright said.
The city has paid nearly $6 million in these types of cases, and the costs are mounting as the cry gets louder for a Justice Department inquiry into the Dallas Police Department.



Buffalo lawmakers cautiously question Police Department officials


By Jill Terreri

Buffalo lawmakers attending the first meeting of the newly revived Police Oversight Committee took care on Tuesday not to appear as if they were antagonizing Police Department officials, even as they acknowledged they have concerns about the behavior of certain officers.
Their delicate dance lasted 90 minutes in Council Chambers.
Council members asked department officials about training, the rights of private citizens who videotape police officers, and the department’s process for investigating suspected misdeeds committed by police personnel.
Police Commissioner Daniel Derenda, accompanied by 14 department administrators, told the lawmakers “we’re very, very proactive on discipline.”
“The vast majority of officers do the right thing every day,” Derenda said.
From the outset, the Council made clear the committee wouldn’t be an investigative body. And city lawmakers took pains to say they believe the vast majority of officers do the right thing.
No one on the Council believes “that we have a police force that is out of control,” said Council President Darius G. Pridgen.
Council members said they are most concerned about the relationship between the public and the department, in part because detectives rely on tips from the public to solve crimes. Then came the dollars and cents concern: The city must pay for court settlements to victims of police misconduct.
Committee Chairman David A. Rivera, a former police officer who represents the Niagara District, asked the first question, aimed at allowing Derenda to explain that many of the investigations into bad behavior by officers are initiated by the department.
Derenda said the department’s Internal Affairs Division has conducted more investigations since he took over as commissioner in 2010.
Rivera disclosed he met with Derenda and the union that represents officers before Tuesday’s meeting. Based on his discussions with union representatives, he expressed concern about the level of training for police officers.
Even with some recent troubling incidents involving officers, the Council wasn’t sure it needed to revive the long-dormant Police Oversight Committee. But Pridgen decided to schedule a meeting, and he put Rivera in charge. Pridgen brought up incidents about police behavior that constituents brought to him, and he said the department has some “bad apples.”
“We cannot ignore that because they are tainting people who are really great,” he said.
Pridgen asked that at the next meeting, Derenda return with a plan for a community survey on attitudes about the department; an answer to whether installing cameras in police cars is feasible; plans for sensitivity and other training; and how to communicate to the public about the consequences officers face when they are disciplined.
He also wants officers trained on the rights of citizens to videotape police and what should be done if officers need a video file for evidence, short of asking someone to turn over their entire mobile phone.
In addition to adding mandatory training, the department is also reviewing policies regarding officers’ outside employment.
Derenda said the city is working to include a residency requirement for new officers in the next labor contract, in response to Fillmore Council Member David A. Franczyk, who said the city is better off with officers who live within its borders.
Another police-related item came before the Council on Tuesday.
Pridgen is calling for a special meeting with the city’s Law Department to discuss the 2008 firing of Police Officer Cariol Horne. She was fired following a violent arrest during which she and another officer turned on each other. She claimed the other officer was choking a suspect during the arrest, while the other officer said she interfered with him as he dealt with a combative suspect. She was fired after a disciplinary proceeding that reviewed her on-duty confrontation with the officer.
The Council agreed to hold a special meeting July 8. Council members Joseph Golombek, Richard A. Fontana and Christopher P. Scanlon voted against it.




Citizens oversight panel urged for Oakland police force


Chief, union oppose councilman's plan
Will Kane
A panel of Oakland residents should be appointed to oversee the city's troubled Police Department - a common practice in other cities - a member of the City Council said Thursday.
Councilman Noel Gallo introduced a plan pushed by police accountability groups that calls for 12 civilians to investigate complaints of officer misconduct, recommend the hiring and firing of a police chief, and monitor quality overall.
Oakland's proposed commission would be similar to those in San Francisco, New York and Los Angeles.
Increased oversight of the Police Department would help stem the kind of police misbehavior that has led to more than a decade of federal oversight of the police force, Gallo said.
As federal monitoring winds down, Gallo said, Oakland should create a new way to monitor the Police Department.
"What we currently have has not worked and is not working, and that's why we have had a federal judge for 11 years who is about to leave, and that is why we need this initiative," Gallo said.
The commission would have the ability to subpoena police officers, conduct investigative hearings, direct a chief to impose discipline on an officer and ensure that the Police Department follows applicable laws, according to Gallo's proposal, which was drafted by PUEBLO, a police watchdog group.
The 12 members would be appointed by the mayor and the City Council's Public Safety Committee, which Gallo chairs. The costs of such a proposal were not immediately clear.
"We have spent so many millions of dollars trying to get our Police Department to behave, to reach and do what they are supposed to do responsibly," said Gwen Hardy, an Oakland resident and c0-founder of PUEBLO. "I do not understand why we would not want to have police accountability."
But the plan has powerful critics, notably police officials and the police union.
It would also face a number of hurdles to take effect.
Review, OK needed
The plan would have to be approved first by a majority of the City Council by early August, then by a majority of voters in November.
The plan must also be reviewed by the city attorney and city staff, who only learned of the proposal late this week.
"I think it is best to slow it down if you want to get to where you want to get to," said Councilman Larry Reid, who sits on the Rules Committee that reviewed Gallo's proposal Thursday. "I think this is just being thrust on the council."
Police Chief Sean Whent said he thought creating a commission to oversee the Police Department is unnecessary because the Police Department has "demonstrated an ability to police ourselves."
"I think that we have a fair amount of oversight already here in Oakland given that we've been under federal oversight for the last 10 years," Whent said.
Barry Donelan, head of the Oakland Police Officers' Association, accused Gallo of abdicating his responsibility to oversee the Police Department.
"It is clear that Noel Gallo doesn't want to take responsibility for public safety in his district, so he wants to create a commission instead," Donelan said. "A classic political move - create a commission."
Gallo, who called the current operations of the Police Department "below basic," said increased oversight is necessary.
But he agreed it may be difficult to push the full proposal through the council in the next two months.
Instead, he said, the city might use the debate about the citizens commission to find other ways to keep the Police Department accountable



City to get federal monitor to oversee APD


By: Stuart Dyson, KOB Eyewitness News 4


A big task now facing the city of Albuquerque is the selection of a federal monitor to oversee the police department’s compliance with new reforms aimed at reducing the excessive use of force by city cops.
Negotiations are under way on those reforms, but already community leaders are thinking about the qualifications for the person who will oversee that compliance for years to come.  It’s going to be a tough job and it’s going to take a remarkable person. Other cities in similar situations have chosen high profile community leaders with experience and expertise in both law enforcement and civil rights. They don’t always go together. Nobody knows that better than Edmund Perea, a retired 24-year APD officer who is now a lawyer.
“There has to be some level of understanding and sensitivity to the role that a police officer performs on a day-to-day basis,” Perea said. “ On the other hand they have to have a clear understanding of constitutional rights issues as it relates to how police officers do their job.”
City Council President Ken Sanchez called for the appointment of a federal monitor a year and a half ago.

“I think it’s got to be someone who has a great knowledge in constitutional rights, civil rights, who also understands municipalities that have been through these problems.”
Legislative leader Moe Maestas, who serves in the state House of representatives, likes that idea of experience.
“Maybe some who’s done it before,” Maestas said. “Someone who’s had success. Someone who understands what cops go through but also understands civil rights, and maybe somebody who has familiarity with Latino populations.”
One more key requirement – that person must have no ties to the police agency involved. The federal monitor could be at work here for up to five years, and maybe even longer. In the negotiation process, the Department of Justice and city leaders will figure out how the monitor will be selected.




Police oversight commission questions APD on lapel cameras


By: Erica Zucco, KOB Eyewitness News 4

Since the James Boyd shooting caught on lapel camera sparked outrage in Albuquerque, critics have demanded the police department enforce its policy that officers record every call.
“We feel like every encounter should be taped,” ACLU-NM Executive Director Peter Simonson said in April.
“If we don't have that documentation then we don't have that evidence,” Barry Porter of the New Mexico Criminal Defense Lawyers Association said in April.
In their findings letter released April 10, 2014, the Department of Justice wrote “we reviewed numerous reports where officers and supervisors on the scene failed to turn on their lapel cameras or belt tapes.”
Thursday Police Oversight Commissioners asked Deputy Chief William Roseman what the Albuquerque Police Department’s discipline policy is for officers who don’t turn on their cameras, and asked if they plan to strengthen it.
Roseman said the department is waiting until the city’s agreement with the DOJ is drawn up.
“It'd be premature for us to put something out and then if they came out and said nope, we want you to do it this way…so at this time, everything's in a holding pattern,” Roseman said.

But he says the department is open to discipline changes; they just want to wait. He says he also wants a policy change that would separate officers whose equipment fails and those who intentionally don’t turn on their cameras.


The Battle for Police Oversight: Buffalo Common Council Unanimously Reinstates Poli...

The Battle for Police Oversight: Buffalo Common Council Unanimously Reinstates Poli...: By: Meg Rossman BUFFALO, N.Y. — Buffalo's Common Council unanimously reinstated a police oversight committee Tuesday. This follows se...

Buffalo Common Council Unanimously Reinstates Police Oversight Committee


By: Meg Rossman BUFFALO, N.Y. — Buffalo's Common Council unanimously reinstated a police oversight committee Tuesday. This follows several recent incidents of alleged misconduct by Buffalo police officers.
Following its reinstatement, council discussed what the committee is not.
"It should not be a witch hunt," said council member David Franczyk.
Council President Darius Pridgen stressed it is not to regulate the department’s daily operations.
"This oversight committee is not, as some have reported, overseeing day-to-day operations of a police force."
Instead council members, including committee chairman David Rivera, want the focus on what it will be.
"We're there to assist, help through the legislative process. That's our goal as council members."
It's also to regain the public's trust in the Buffalo Police Department after two incidents of alleged police brutality in the last several weeks. Although they won't investigate specific cases, they will review policies and look into sensitivity training to make sure it doesn't happen again.
"Policies. Can you take a cell phone from someone? Can you say give me your cell phone? Buffalo Police Department, what is the policy? We want it clear," said Rivera.
Council member Michael LoCurto says the goal is to eliminate future problems.
"Generally, the police are doing a good job. But when there are incidents, we want to try to understand why that happens and try to prevent it from happening again," LoCurto said.
After a five-year hiatus, the committee is also meant to mitigate the city's liability, because when incidents happen, you pay for it.
"It's not uncommon that we'll see claims from people against the city based on police actions," said LoCurto.
There is no word on who will sit on the committee, but Rivera said members will be tough on police when it comes to questioning. He said the public is welcome at their first meeting, but asks that they remember one thing.
"We have a great Buffalo Police Department, fine men and women who go out every single day and sometimes a few of them, tarnish the image of the majority of them."
The police oversight committee is set to meet some time the second week of June.


Common Council Begins Forming Police Oversight Panel


BUFFALO, NY - Buffalo Common Council has started forming a committee that will oversee the Buffalo Police Department's training and compliance with state laws.
This comes after two recent incidents of alleged police misconduct.
Last month, a Buffalo police officer was caught on video slapping and kicking a suspect. That officer has been suspended without pay.
About two weeks ago, two off-duty officers working security at Molly's Pub on Main Street were present when a man was beaten inside the bar.
"If we do nothing, we're guilty, and if something else happens and we don't have a vehicle that is already in place, then I think we have not done our duty," said council president Darius Pridgen.
That something is to reinstate the police oversight committee, which a majority of council members support. On Tuesday, Pridgen named council member David Rivera to chair the committee.
"Our goal is to find out how we can remedy this -- how we can prevent incidents like this from reoccurring," Rivera said.
The committee's purpose is to make sure police are following state laws and rules within the the state liquor authority. It would also review use of force and search and seizure training of officers, and the outside employment of officers at bars or restaurants.
"What is the situation on outside employment, because some of those officers were allegedly violating state law when they were inside Molly's pub," said council member David Franczyk.
In the past, the Common Council did review issues within the police department.
Former council member Brian Davis used to chair a police oversight committee. But, in 2009, Davis admitted to using city funds for personal use. Davis resigned from office and Franczyk, the former council president, never appointed anyone to continue the committee.
Meantime, the investigations into the officers continue.
The city already has what's called the commission on Citizen's Rights and Community Relations. The panel reviews and monitors police training and investigation procedures. So there is some overlap between the commission and the oversight committee.
Pridgen tells 2 On Your Side that he plans to name members of the committee later this week. The panel could call for hearings to get answers from police on what the department's policy is on various issues.


Berkeley: Leak shuts down confidential police hearings


By Judith Scherr
BERKELEY -- The city has had civilian review of its police since 1973.
But on May 1, the city manager halted all hearings into alleged police misconduct, citing the disclosure of confidential Police Review Commission findings leaked to UC Berkeley's Daily Californian newspaper.
"This breach of confidentiality is not only outrageous, it is a crime," Berkeley Police Association attorney Harry Stern wrote to the city manager May 1, when it came to light that the newspaper would soon publish leaked information from a closed-door hearing on alleged police misconduct in the February 2013 in-custody death of Kayla Moore, an African American transgender woman with a history of mental illness.
Stern called for action to "suspend all pending PRC investigations until the source of the leak is found."
City Manager Christine Daniel reacted to the pending disclosure -- the Daily Cal had informed Daniel of the leak when it contacted her asking for comment -- by suspending the city requirement for police officer attendance at hearings.
"Until the city has had an adequate opportunity to ensure that the required confidentiality will be maintained, I will not direct officers to participate," Daniel wrote to the City Council on May 1.
Attorney Jim Chanin, who helped write the law establishing the PRC through an initiative passed by voters, and who served as PRC commissioner, also said the breach of confidentiality is wrong.
However, he said that should not disrupt civilian oversight of the police.
"To punish the voters who passed the PRC (ordinance), by prohibiting police officers from testifying in front of the PRC because of what one person may have done, one time, is not only unprecedented and morally wrong, but it thwarts the will of the voters who voted for the PRC," Chanin said.
The police misconduct allegations that were the subject of leaked information revolved around a Feb. 2013 incident that began with a call to police from Moore's roommate, saying she needed a 72-hour psychiatric hold. Struggling to place Moore in handcuffs and leg restraints, police straddled the 347-pound woman face down on a mattress. Moore stopped breathing during the struggle.
The coroner attributed her death to drug intoxication, obesity and an enlarged heart.
The May 7 Daily Cal article by Executive News Editor Kimberly Veklerov, written with the UC Berkeley journalism school investigative reporting program, revealed, among other confidential data, that the PRC found unanimously that an officer failed to constantly monitor Moore's vital signs while restrained face down, as required by Berkeley police regulations.
PRC hearings were held in an open format until 2006. But a California Supreme Court decision and a Berkeley Police Association lawsuit against the city resulted in PRC investigations, hearings and findings going behind closed doors.
It's not clear when PRC hearings will resume.
The city has taken steps toward that end.
It has investigated all staff with access to PRC records, and "concluded that no staff member released the records," Daniel wrote in a May 9 memo to the PRC.
Daniel further asked the commission to reaffirm its commitment to confidentiality, which it did at its March 14 meeting.
These steps are good, BPA attorney Stern said in a phone interview. But he noted that they stop short of identifying the individual, which he believes is a commissioner, who leaked the information.
While Police Review Commission Officer Katherine Lee said the city manager doesn't have the authority to investigate commissioners, Stern contends the city can "have an outside party do that."
Asked if the city would hire an outside investigator, city spokesman Matthai Chakko responded in an email that "We will be working with the PRC and the BPA on the next steps."
In his letter to the city manager, Stern warned that "the release of a California peace officer's personnel records is a criminal offense" and that "the PRC is subject to civil liability for this invasion of privacy and defamation."
Asked whether that indicated a lawsuit is in the offing, Stern underscored his respect for the civilian review process and said he would prefer not to resolve the issue in court.
"That would be the last resort," he said.



Jeff Mitchell: Oversight board needed for Salinas PD


On Tuesday I saw a fellow Salinan shot to death by police.
The hard, no-compromises impact of the four or five bullets that slammed into his body dropped him onto the concrete like a sack of potatoes.
Now, in my 24th year as a journalist in California, it's not the first time I've seen a person killed by gunfire – not even close. It's not even the first time I've seen cops kill a person.
But make no mistake, the viral video that I and so many others have seen is hard to watch because every time you play it, you feel like a little bit of your soul is getting shaved away.
I don't want to watch it anymore.
The problem with officer-involved shootings – besides being tragic and awful – is that we never know all the facts.
We don't know what the officers were being confronted with. We don't know their decision-making in the escalation of use of force and we certainly aren't in a position to know what kind of threat, in this incident, the man with the garden shears posed to them or to the public.
These are just some of the factors that went into their decision to pull their triggers Tuesday at noon in front of that Sanborn Road bakery.
What the public does know is this: They've seen one of several shaky, slightly out-of-focus iPhone videos on the Internet showing a man carrying garden shears staggering down the street. At one point the video I saw shows him turning and advancing on the trailing officers. Then, almost just as quickly, he turns and continues to walk down the street.
Apparently he disregarded the officers' verbal commands, and they tried to Tase him. It didn't work and the guy keeps walking with the two cops following him.
But as the man approaches Sanborn, the officers clearly make a decision that he must be stopped and they fire on him. The man falls to the sidewalk and dies at the scene.
Now again, minus all the facts, I'm not going to pass judgment on these cops.
I'd hate to be a cop – in this or any other town. It has to be one of the world's most challenging and thankless (but most critically needed) jobs that we have in our society.
Cops get second-guessed relentlessly (maybe even now in this column). We hate their tickets, their sometimes arrogance with the public and their pay and retirement benefits.
But when someone is breaking into your house at 2:30 a.m., there's nothing better than the sound of an approaching siren and those flashing lights on a radio car.
It means someone's coming to save your bacon.
And despite what some might think, we don't pay cops to get stabbed or shot. Ever. There's no extra pay or incentive to "take one for the (public) team."
Moreover, we train police carefully to deploy the use of force along a well-established, well-practiced escalating arc of force that starts with verbal commands and ends with the use of lethal force, i.e. gunfire.
And when conditions have escalated to the use of lethal force, police are trained to fire their weapons into the subject's center mass and to continue firing until the threat to them or the public is "neutralized."
There's no "winging" the guy in the arm or the leg in the real world. That stuff's just pure Hollywood fantasy.
In real life this stuff ain't pretty. In fact, as I said, it's tragic and it will impact lives for years to come.
But here's the problem in Salinas.
This city's police department has a major trust problem going on with the bulk of its citizens – especially with Spanish-only speakers on the east side.
Now after three officer-involved shootings in the first six months of 2014, Chief Kelly McMillin, his police department and Salinas City Council have a real problem on their hands.
Simply put, there is no trust out there now and that can end up being crippling and polarizing to this chief, this department, to the council and to the city as a whole.
And, frankly, at this point, it just doesn't matter if all three of these officer-involved shoots this year come up "clean" – meaning that the cops involved did their jobs by the book and that the DA rules they were all legal, justifiable homicides.
That doesn't matter a whit to a populace that is starting to see the police as just another rival gang – albeit a gang with better uniforms and resources – but, in their eyes, a gang nevertheless.
So, how do we, as a community, fix this situation?
A couple of ideas:
• Have Salinas City Council direct that Salinas Police Department no longer investigate any of its own officer-involved shootings. Instead, those shootings must be investigated by an independent authority – whether it be the Monterey County District Attorney's Office or the Monterey County Sheriff's Department or maybe some rotating mutual aid network of Monterey County law enforcement agencies. The point here is that if a big chunk of the populace doesn't trust SPD on the street, what are the chances that the people will trust the department to properly investigate its own officer-involved shooting cases?
• Have Salinas City Council create a seven-member independent Civilian Police Oversight Commission to review officer-involved shootings and other, less-than-lethal incidents and complaints involving the department. This new body needs to go way beyond the current police advisory body that's in place now. It cannot be just another pet paper tiger.
And by the way, the new body needs to be fully staffed and fully brought under the Brown Act. It should meet publicly monthly in the Rotunda.
I think such an oversight board – one with real teeth to make hard, written recommendations directly to City Council – would be an important first step to restoring citizen confidence in this law enforcement agency.
So, dear Dome reader, that's where I'd start. What about you? What do you think we should do?
Here are some questions I'd like you all to ponder:
• Do you agree that it's now time to establish an independent civilian police review board in Salinas? Yes or No?
• If no, why not?
• If yes, how would you structure such a body?
• If yes, would you consider applying to serve on the board?

Send your responses and related thoughts to my usual email address: jemitchell@thecalifornian.com.
Let's get a conversation going on this, folks.

Jeff Mitchell covers Salinas Valley politics and government. Under the Dome, an opinion column, appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday in print and online. Email him at jemitchell@thecalifornian.com. For quick political hits, check out Under the Dome – The Blog, available most every day at: www.theCalifornian.com






False-arrest verdict against Jacksonville Sheriff's Office leads to calls for citizen review boards



Prior to trial, JSO said it found no reason to investigate officers' conduct

By Topher Sanders

Germaine DuBose recounts his arrest in 2004 by the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office. Dubose fought back with the assistance of Fallis and Slama and in a jury trial DuBose was awarded $372,860 for his false arrest and battery by JSO officers.
Jacksonville police said they stopped a Northside man in 2004 for illegally tinted windows. They ultimately charged him with fleeing and eluding and resisting arrest without violence.
Germaine L. Dubose’s attorney said his client, now 40, should have never been stopped by police at all and suffered two ruptured vertebrae during his arrest.
“The crime is really DWB,” said Thomas Fallis, who along with Robert Slama is representing Dubose. “Driving while black.”
The Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office reviewed Dubose’s arrest and determined “an investigation was not warranted.”
That’s not unusual considering only one in 20 of about 3,600 complaints filed with the agency during the past six years resulted in a finding of a violation of rules or regulations.
Those results prompt attorneys and community groups to say the sheriff’s office needs a citizen board to review complaints and police shootings.
At issue is whether the sheriff’s department adequately investigates complaints against its officers. Based on the Dubose case and internal affairs statistics, critics say, it doesn’t. One community advocate says citizens don’t have a voice and are forced to accept the sheriff office’s decision.
But Sheriff John Rutherford, who declined an interview request for this story, said in a statement that citizen boards are not fact-finding or bound by law. He said the boards do little but politicize the process.
Additionally, Rutherford’s statement said, civil courts can provide a remedy for “aggrieved citizens.”
While a city attorney said the officers were justified in the arrest, Dubose took his case to the courts.
Last month, a jury decided that two Jacksonville sheriff’s officers falsely arrested and battered Dubose during his July 2004 arrest. The jury awarded him about $370,000 — more than he asked for and also more than the law allows him to receive.
“This proves, as we argued in trial, that we need some kind of civilian oversight,” Fallis said. “You need some kind of civilian oversight otherwise it’s out of control.”
Local political leaders are split on the value of a formal citizen review process, but the majority of sheriff candidates said they are open to some formal citizen involvement.
From 2008 to 2013, 3,684 citizen complaints were filed with the sheriff’s department. Those complaints can range from allegations of officer rudeness to excessive use of force.
In that period the sheriff’s office determined there was a violation of agency rules or regulations in about 5 percent — or 182 — of the complaints.
“That seems significantly low,” said Opio Sokoni, president of the local branch of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. “There’s no way that if you’ve got 3,600 complaints coming from our citizens, that only 180 of those would be considered legitimate.”
He said the numbers were so rare he likened the sheriff’s department finding a violation of rules or regulations based a citizen complaint to a unicorn sighting.

THE JURY SPEAKS
Dubose, 40, who said he is not related to the three Dubose brothers tried for the 2006 killing of DreShawna Davis, was arrested after he was stopped near the intersection of Canal Street and Broadway Avenue for what police said were illegally tinted windows.
“You don’t come out showing your guns for window tint,” Fallis said. “That’s what they did. They just pounced on him.”
As Dubose stopped, a passenger in his car ran from the vehicle.
Attorneys Slama and Fallis said the police prejudicially stopped Dubose because they assumed a young black male driving a 1998 Lincoln Continental on the Northside likely is doing something illegal.
One of the first questions police asked Dubose after he was arrested, Fallis said, was how could he afford such a nice car.
Rutherford declined comment on the case because the Office of General Counsel has said it will appeal the matter.
Jon Philips, with the general counsel’s office, said the jury’s verdict was “mystifying.”
“We believe that the evidence showed that the officers had probable cause to stop and arrest Mr. Dubose, and that is a complete defense to false arrest,” he said.
Dubose said the officers pointed their weapons at him, handled him roughly, threw him to the ground and put an unnecessary amount of body weight on his back and neck for which he has sustained permanent injuries.
The jury awarded Dubose $372,860 for personal injuries and the false arrest, but because of state law, Dubose’s award is capped at $100,000.
The sheriff’s office said it has no public records related to the Dubose complaint because the records have been destroyed. It’s not clear when the records were destroyed, but the sheriff’s office is allowed by law to purge complaint records within a year when the case is not sustained, unfounded or the officer is exonerated.
However, the sheriff’s office does maintain electronic records, called a concise office history, listing information about complaints, discipline and vehicle accidents for every officer.
Mark A. Flores and Frederick M. Fillingham, the arresting officers, have 14 citizen complaints combined in their records since 2001, according to their concise officer histories. Twelve of the citizen complaints were against Flores, the other two were against Fillingham. The complaints range from excessive force to rudeness.
None of the complaints against the officers was sustained.

NO INVESTIGATION
Dubose’s attorneys said they routinely file complaints prior to filing a lawsuit, but Slama said that they were never notified that the complaint was not being investigated. However, they said they were told by the city’s lawyers that an August 3, 2004, complaint of unnecessary force that appears on both the officers’ records was the Dubose incident.
When the Times-Union asked for an interview with Rutherford, the paper noted that the sheriff’s office had determined the Dubose case didn’t need to be investigated.
Lauri-Ellen Smith, special assistant to Rutherford, said in an email to the Times-Union: “This is not the same as a determination that the case didn’t need to be investigated, as you assert. It is a determination that this specific allegation should be addressed via the legal process, not the IA [internal affairs] process.”
Slama disagreed with Smith, saying the internal affairs process is more than suited to evaluate a case like Dubose because the question is whether the force was reasonable and necessary under the circumstances.
The concise history reports for the officers who arrested Dubose identify the August 3, 2004, complaint’s disposition as “Information-Letter Sent.”
The sheriff’s purge schedule defines “Information-Letter Sent” as “a review by Internal Affairs shows that an investigation was not warranted. The complainant was sent a letter advising of this. No discipline or formal counseling is imposed on the officer.”
In most complaints against Fillingham and Flores, the sheriff’s office determined “that an investigation was not warranted.”
Six-hundred-thirteen citizen complaints were filed with the sheriff’s department in 2013, according to sheriff reports. The sheriff’s office determined there was a violation of rules or regulations in 26 of those complaints or about 4 percent of the complaints filed.
The sheriff’s office has an internal affairs office to receive complaints against officers. Plus, the office has a Response to Resistance Board that reviews police-involved shootings.
The Times-Union has asked for all materials, including audio and video interviews, for the police involved shootings review boards that occurred in 2013.
The sheriff’s office said there are nine files related to 10 police shooting review boards from 2013. The estimate for providing public records in those files is $2,243 or about $71 an hour at 31 1/2 hours to pull, review and redact the material.
That $250 a file cost does not include photocopy fees or any potential redactions from the audio or video files. The sheriff’s office is continuing to review if it can reduce the number of hours.
The public isn’t allowed in the review board meetings since they are held behind closed doors after the Fraternal Order of Police won a lawsuit in 2010 against Rutherford to close the proceedings.
The Times-Union also asked the department for all internal affairs files completed in March and April. The sheriff’s office estimated it would cost $83 per file for the 11 cases concluded in the two months.

CITIZEN REVIEW?
Community groups like MAD DADS and the local branch of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference agree the Dubose case is an example why the system needs citizen input.
“You had a jury look at everything and believed that this guy was wronged. Now if you have police officers that said not even an investigation was warranted, you have a major problem there,” said Sokoni, head of the local branch of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.
A citizen group would build trust with the community, Sokoni and Fallis said.
Rutherford, who opposed a push for a citizen group in 2009 amid a rise in police shootings, stood firm last week.
“The same people who do not trust the criminal justice and legal systems, which are bound by evidence, fact, and state law, will not trust a civilian review system,” Rutherford said in his statement.
Sokoni said the sheriff’s department’s determination in the Dubose case calls into question the agency’s internal review practices. He would like to see a board with investigative and subpoena powers.
Political leaders offered mixed opinions on whether a formal citizen perspective was needed in the sheriff’s complaint or police shooting review process.
Mayor Alvin Brown stressed that the sheriff is an elected official and citizens can directly voice any of their concerns to the sheriff directly. Incoming City Council President Clay Yarborough said there were still too many questions around review panels.
“It would concern me to defer to a citizen review panel because there is no requirement for the panel to be held to laws, policies, evidence, etc.,” he wrote in an email.
Current City Council President Bill Gulliford said he could see both sides of the issue. But in regards to the police shooting review board, he said a middle ground could be the appointment of citizens to the current Response to Resistance board.
“They may be pledged to secrecy on specific issues but could certainly convey publicly their perception as to whether or not the process is fair,” he said. “I think it gives you some credibility with the public at least.”
Of the seven candidates running to succeed Rutherford, four are open to some citizen involvement at least after the review process.
Sheriff’s candidates Tony Cummings and Jay Farhat each said they are open to some formalized citizen involvement, but they would want citizens to be objective and receive training. Both candidates said they wouldn’t want the citizen group to disrupt current investigative and legal processes. They used words like “advisory” and “recommendations” to describe the limited scope they’d want the group to have.
Candidate Mark Kerrin also was open to a citizen review group and said he would be willing to discuss the group’s exact powers. “If you do things right,” he said, “you don’t have to worry about someone looking over your shoulder.”
Candidate Mike Williams sent a short email saying law enforcement review of shootings is more effective than citizen review. But Williams said transparency about the process and outcomes is key to making the community comfortable.
Candidate Jimmy Holderfield also responded by email stating that the civil courts are the ultimate citizen review board.
The creation of some sort of citizen group to advise the sheriff’s department is a key point of Ken Jefferson’s campaign.
He said the citizen group wouldn’t have any decision making power, but the group would have access to internal affairs and police shooting reports without having to make a public records request or pay for the documents. He said the body could review those documents and make recommendations to the department on policy or systemic concerns.
“I think this is a start where we bring in people to help us better our practices,” he said.
Candidate Rob Schoonover did not reply to calls or emails for comment.

POLICE FOUND NOTHING ILLEGAL
Officer Flores’ arrest report stated that Dubose did not come to an immediate stop after the officer turned on his lights and sirens. Dubose traveled another two and half blocks or a quarter mile, including at least one turn onto another street, before stopping.
Dubose said he didn’t initially realize the police were attempting to stop him.
As Dubose slowed, a passenger in Dubose’s car got out of the car and ran from the vehicle.
Police approached the car with their guns drawn and said Dubose was yelling and flailing about. Dubose said he had his hands up and was asking what he had done to prompt the traffic stop and guns.
DuBose said Fillingham opened the car door and pulled him from the car while cursing at him. Fillingham slammed him against the car twice, Dubose said. Fillingham and or Flores then slammed him on the ground while simultaneously driving their bodies into his back, he said.
“That wasn’t no cop then,” Dubose said. “That was just a guy wanting to pound on me.”
Fillingham said during his deposition that he didn’t know what possible weapons Dubose could have had in his car. He said he handled Dubose the way he did because Dubose wasn’t complying with his commands and to ensure his and Flores’ safety.
The officers searched Dubose’s car seven times and found nothing illegal, Dubose said, but then conferred with each other and told Dubose he was being charged with fleeing and eluding.
Fallis and Dubose’s other attorney, Robert Slama, said tinted windows are a civil infraction, not a criminal infraction, and the city’s lawyers produced no evidence at trial showing DuBose’s windows were illegally tinted.
Had a white male been driving a similar car with darkly tinted windows in Ortega, he wouldn’t have been treated the way Dubose was, Fallis said.
Fallingham, however, said in his deposition that he would have treated a white female the same way he treated Dubose given the same facts.
The city offered Dubose $500 to settle the case. The city raised that offer to $1,500 right before the trial started in April.
The jury ultimately awarded about $100,000 more than Dubose asked for.
Doing exactly what Dubose did, going to the civil courts, is what Rutherford said was available to any citizens unhappy with the department’s processes.
“The bottom line is: high functioning processes such as the homicide unit; the State Attorney; the Response to Resistance Board; and the Internal Affairs unit, all rely on evidence, fact and law,” his statement said. “It should not be compromised by the personal agendas of citizens appointed by another politician.”
The State Attorney’s Office also investigates police shootings, Rutherford said.
Donald Foy, president of MAD DADS, said citizens shouldn’t have to rely on the civil courts to be heard during the process.
“Right now, the community doesn’t have a voice,” Foy said. “It’s just whatever they say goes. And that’s it.”










Teaneck mayor calls for civilian board to review complaints against police



BY JIM NORMAN

As the township of Teaneck commemorated the 50th anniversary of peaceful desegregation of its public schools, the mayor took another page from the civil rights era by calling for the creation of a civilian complaint review board.
His call for a review board dealt with the hottest issue to hit Teaneck in years: the arrest of 63 students who were carrying out what they called a “senior prank” against the high school.
Although the police laid out a description of ransacking that went beyond the definition of prank, the community and school administrators countered that no damage had been done. And students said they had been mistreated by the police officers who took them into custody.
On Monday night, the day before municipal elections, Mayor Mohammed Hameeduddin promised an angry crowd of about 50 residents, high school students, parents and teachers that he would introduce a measure at the next municipal council meeting to reinstitute a civilian complaint review board.
Hameeduddin, who is not up for re-election this year, made the promise after listening to descriptions of the early morning prank that left halls in the high school filled with balloons and Silly String, some door knobs smeared with Vaseline and desks and tables overturned.
Requests to create a government-sanctioned body in Teaneck to monitor police are not new.
After a white police officer fatally shot a black teenager in 1990 – and set off months of racial turmoil that included marches through town led by the Rev. Al Sharpton – Teaneck established a civilian complaint review board to review police activity. The board was established amid widespread concerns that police singled out young black men for harassment.
But after several years of meetings, the board never brought any complaints to the township council for review. The Bergen County prosecutor, as well as the state Attorney General’s office, also reviewed policies and procedures by the Teaneck police and ruled that there was no explicit evidence of harassment of African-Americans.
The Teaneck police, however, embarked on a reform movement that included increased focus on community policing and recruitment of more minority officers.
That review board, called the Teaneck Community Policing Bureau, was disbanded in 2010 as a result of budget cuts. Hameeduddin said it had been discontinued for lack of interest, with no volunteers to fill its positions.
Controversy often accompanies civilian complaint review boards, which came into use in the 1960s. Supporters say that police agencies cannot be objective when they investigate allegations of misconduct against their officers, Dean J. Champion writes in his book "Police Misconduct in America: A Reference Handbook" (ABC-CLIO, 2001). They also say that independent citizen boards can clear officers of charges of misconduct. But, Champion adds, opponents of the boards say that civilians cannot appreciate the high level of risk associated with police work, do not understand the necessity of using force to subdue suspects and are biased against police officers who are accused of misconduct.
Many people in the crowd Monday night angrily charged that the police had overreacted to what has become a tradition in recent years, of seniors going into the high school and making their mark with good-natured mischief.
Acting Police Chief Robert Carney held a press conference the morning after the arrests, claiming that students had destroyed furniture and defecated and urinated in the hallways, a charge angrily denied by students, their parents and several teachers in the audience.
Schools Superintendent Barbara Pinsak also denied that any urination or defecation had taken place and said there was no damage – just a mess that took two hours to clean up.
Twenty-four of those arrested had passed their 18th birthdays and were charged as adults with burglary and vandalism.
Hameeduddin said he had asked three times to see the actual police report, which is cited in the criminal complaints as the basis for the charges, but had been denied each time. “I’ve been told that it’s an ongoing investigation and it’s classified and I can’t see the police report,” the mayor said.
Hameeduddin also said he was waiting to see security camera video recordings to see if they supported the police version of events.
Some students said they had been thrown to the ground by police from Teaneck and as many as 15 different surrounding communities, called to the scene by Teaneck police officials who said they feared the situation was getting out of control.
Handcuffed and held in cells at police headquarters, the students said they were wet, cold, hungry and afraid, and not allowed to call their parents for several hours. One student, 18-year-old Dejanee Archbold, who was charged as an adult, said a detective “came in with coffee and a bagel and called us a bunch of dumbasses.”
Another student, Maya Stripling, also 18, said police at no point advised students of their rights, a requirement when a suspect is arrested on a criminal charge.
Hameeduddin asked for patience while the charges are allowed to go through Bergen County Prosecutor John Molinelli’s office. “My main concern right now is getting them out of the county prosecutor’s office and move it back to municipal court,” he said.
“We all know about procedure,” shouted Isaac Combs, who said he was a parent. “But what about rights?”
Another parent, Claudia Montoya, who said her child was a high school student but not a senior and not involved in the prank, suggested that the group form a committee to file a complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice.
“We’re talking about civil rights here,” another parent shouted as the meeting heated up. “This is why I can’t support a celebration of 50 years of integration in Teaneck. We still have the problem.”
Patricia Butler, a parent whose daughter graduated in 2012, was the organizer of the meeting. She said she was “outraged that these kids were traumatized this way, and the next day they were told not to talk about it.”
Patricia Butler, a parent whose daughter graduated in 2012, was the organizer of the meeting. She said she was “outraged that these kids were traumatized this way, and the next day they were told not to talk about it.”
“All our kids were traumatized by this,” she said. “How dare you violate me and tell me I can’t talk about it?”
Across town, at the high school were people were celebrating the 50th anniversary of voluntary integration in Teaneck, Barbara Toffler, a former councilwoman and frequent critic of the mayor and the majority on the council, said she thought a civilian complaint review board was not a good idea.
“I think that what we have here is two very angry groups – the students, whose programs have been cut, and the police, who have lost officers and equipment to budget cuts,” Toffler said. “And I think that the police calling outside departments in to help was a way of making the point that they are being shortchanged.”
Olivia Betances, a teacher and dean of students at the high school, said she had arrived at the school at 4:30 a.m., and found only balloons, toilet paper streamers and a brownish substance “that looked like hair grease on one tiny area of a locker that police were taking pictures of.”
By 6 a.m., she said, “the entire building was spotless and the school was ready to be opened.”
“My living room was probably dirtier than that building at 6 a.m.,” she said. Betances added that the 2012 prank had taken “way more time to clean up,” and said that when she was a high school student in the Bronx “our senior prank was 90 times worse than this.”
Mike Kelly and Carla Baranauckas contributed to this report.