Seattle hires new police oversight director

SEATTLE (AP) — Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn has announced the hiring of a new police oversight director.

The hiring of Pierce Murphy to lead the Office of Professional Accountability was announced Friday. The office is responsible for investigating police misconduct. Murphy was one of eight finalists for the post.

Murphy's arrival comes at a time the Seattle Police Department faces a court-overseen monitoring plan to address the use of force by officers. The department has entered into a settlement agreement with the U.S. Justice Department that requires an overhaul of supervision, training and reporting of uses of force.

McGinn says Murphy will help implement a long-term plan to restore public trust in the police.

The City Council will have to approve Murphy's appointment.

Murphy serves as the city of Boise's Community Ombudsman.

Candidates must address police corruption

(Pitts. Pa) A March 23 Post-Gazette headline says it well: "How Did More Than $70,000 in Stolen Checks Go Unnoticed?" Indeed, how did years of Pittsburgh police abuse of the public trust go unnoticed, unchecked and unpunished?

We should not forget that the current headline-grabbing stories about police moonlighting, multiple jobs, slush funds, personal "bodyguards," parasitic insider businesses, Wild West ambushes of traffic violators and unprovoked beatings of youth have produced barely a rise from the elected watchdogs and political aspirants. It's a sad commentary on the integrity and courage of elected officials and those who have jumped out to vie for the soon-vacant mayoral seat that they will not take the lead on this question. Or are they waiting for the toothless, pathetic Citizens Police Review Board to step up?

And the Pittsburgh media can take no credit from this fiasco. The federal authorities -- and likely inside whistle blowers -- exposed the corruption rotting away the highest levels of the police department with the media only tailing distantly.

Those who so self-righteously place public safety on their agenda must step up and call for a complete and thorough reform of the Pittsburgh police. Only then will citizens be confident that there will be no more slush funds, crony deals, job distractions and Jordan Miles incidents. No city council or mayoral candidate should be allowed to duck this issue.

Battle Creek City Leaders Talk About Police Corruption Claims

 BATTLE CREEK, Mich. – Rumors of corruption and cover-ups within the Battle Creek Police Department were not on the agenda of Tuesday night’s Battle Creek City Commission meeting.

After the meeting, FOX 17 asked city leaders if there was anything they can do to affect the public perception and clear up some of the mystery surrounding claims of corruption.

The meeting was held just hours after Battle Creek police officer Jennifer Appl was charged in connection with driving to work drunk and carrying a police issued gun while intoxicated.

We asked Battle Creek Mayor Susan Baldwin if she was aware if the rumors were affecting the morale of the department.

Mayor Baldwin said, “I think any time you have questions about your work, whether you work for the city, Kellogg, or any company, it’s challenging when you have some folks that are not happy with what they are seeing you do.”

Chief Jackie Hampton admits he’s heard complaints from within the department.

The allegations of misconduct stem from a request by Commissioner David Walters and Commissioner Jeff Domencio to the Michigan State Police and the Attorney General’s office to look closely at the department.

Commissioner Andy Helmholdt said, “I haven’t seen any proof of corruption in our police department.”

It was the lack of concrete evidence that put an end to an FBI investigation of the department before it ever started, according to City Manager Ken Tsuchiyama.

“There’s nothing to investigate because there is nothing specifically identified,” he said.  “That’s really the position we are in.”

City leaders admit talk of a corrupt police force is damaging to public perception.

According to commissioners, the rumors of corruption ramped up shortly after two off duty police officers were involved in a drunk driving crash this summer.

The passenger in the crash was officer Appl, the same officer charged Tuesday.

Last month, a police officer was investigated by MSP over claims that she was stealing from other officers and the acts were caught on video.

Commissioner Walters said, “I think there is a perception right now that the commission does not support the police force and I think that’s incorrect.”

At this point, without specifics to go on, the commission said corruption allegations are not currently investigated by anyone.

FOX 17 spoke with Commissioner Domenico, who claims to have proof of police misconduct within the department.

He told us he has nothing to say at this point, and he’s hoping to let the issue play out, assisting as he is needed.

Outside Authority Is Essential

John Burris is a lawyer in Oakland, Calif., specializing in police misconduct cases.He is the author of "Blue vs. Black: Let's End the Conflict between Cops and Minorities."

UPDATED APRIL 9, 2013, 6:03 PM

After 25 years of taking police officers to court for misconduct and after reviewing countless internal affairs' complaints and related investigations, I have concluded there is little evidence that the public should rely on the integrity of the police department to police itself.

The results are mixed for citizen review boards largely because their efforts are often undermined by inadequate financing, opposition by police unions and the lack of political will by public officials.

There is little evidence that the public can rely upon the integrity of the police department to police itself.

An inspector general within a department can be useful provided that he or she has the authority to independently evaluate the chief and command staff, and to assess and audit the department's compliance with its policies and procedures. Ideally, the inspector general reports directly to the chief and can assist the chief with fixing problems and conducting investigations into high visibility matters before they become a public problem.

But the inspector general will be ineffective if the chief doesn't respect the position and is unwilling to accept the findings or follow the recommendations.

I think an inspector general should be outside the department, reporting directly to the mayor, city administrator or a police commission that has direct control over the police department and the chief. Under these conditions, if given the authority, the inspector general can conduct investigations, review compliance with policies and address challenging matters of public interest.

To be successful, the inspector general must report directly to the public official or entity with the authority to carry out the findings and hold the chief accountable. Otherwise, the position will be powerless.

If used effectively the inspector general has the potential to facilitate compliance with departmental polices, hold the command staff accountable for the actions of the officers and solve systemic problems. But again the structure and the integrity of the person will ultimately determine the inspector general's success.

Oversight Without Animosity

 Merrick Bobb is the executive director of the Police Assessment Resource Center and serves as the court-appointed monitor overseeing a settlement agreement negotiated with the city of Seattle by the Department of Justice.

APRIL 9, 2013

Advocates for police reform contend that the police cannot be trusted to police themselves, while the New York police argue that no one but the police really knows what it is like to be an urban cop on the dangerous streets. Therefore, advocates want civilian oversight and the police, at least in more sophisticated venues like Los Angeles, have learned to live with it. In some places, even the ability even to investigate police misconduct is taken away from the police.

The trick is to construct civilian review of the police in a way that is respectful of all perspectives.

The trick is to construct civilian oversight in a way that is respectful of all perspectives. The Los Angeles model gives a civilian police commission the power to decide if an officer-involved shooting or other serious use of force is according to policy or not. The matter then goes back to a panel of two police officers and one civilian to decide whether an officer should be disciplined. The chief of police can order more discipline than the panel but cannot offer less.

Splitting the decision in this way has marked advantages: the community voice is heard through the commission, and the civilian perspective acts as a guarantor for the integrity of the internal investigative process while the police perspective is still honored. The commission itself has an inspector general, who is empowered to advise the commission whether a given shooting or use of force is or should be within policy.

Mixed models like this one provide reasonable oversight without stripping the police entirely of the ability to self-discipline.

With that ability come accountability and responsibility. Civilian oversight makes a judgment how well the department is acquitting itself. If given the further ability to share with the mayor the power to hire and fire the chief executive of the police, a good balance is struck among all the competing interests. The day when civilian oversight can be completely rebuffed is over. It's time to roll up the sleeves and figure out what form of oversight is best for New York.

Civilian oversight can also bring community perspective into police practices like stop and frisk. Wholesale and largely unproductive dragnets may erode community trust and goodwill at a much more rapid rate than they get criminals off street.

What Do Police Fear? The Truth?

Paul Butler is a law professor at Georgetown University and a former federal prosecutor. He is the author of "Let’s Get Free: A Hip-Hop Theory of Justice.''

APRIL 9, 2013

To show how much power the police have, my cop friend plays this game called “pick a car.” I’m in the backseat of his squad car on a “ride-along “ and I select a car, any car, and he finds a reason to stop it.

The N.Y.P.D. uses this kind of extraordinary discretion to harass African-American and Latino men, Muslims and minority gay teenagers hanging out in the West Village – basically groups other than middle class white people. These practices are authorized by a police chief who values displays of force over common courtesy, and a mayor who presumes to know what is better for blacks than they know for themselves.

Society has most to fear from armed agents who feel unaccountable. That police say they need no oversight is evidence they do.

Of course the police need oversight. Most urgently, young men of color need somebody to protect them from the police.

Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of federal district court recently found that a police training video about stop and frisk “misstated the law” and that police officers in the Bronx treated innocent citizens “with hostility” when they simply wanted to know why they were being detained.

A free society has the most to fear from armed agents who feel unaccountable to citizens. The fact that the police say they do not require oversight is even more evidence that they do. What is police leadership afraid that close inspection will reveal? And how can a mayor who thinks the city has the responsibility to stop people from drinking too much soda think that the city does not have the responsibility to ensure that the police obey the law when they enforce the law?

I was a public corruption prosecutor with the Department of Justice.The Federal Bureau of Investigation has inspectors with whom I worked closely. I believe that this level of oversight helps the bureau maintain its status as the world’s best law enforcement agency.

One of the strategies that N.Y.P.D. credits with reducing crime is deploying officers to the neighborhoods that have the most crime. The idea is that when people know they are being watched, and there are consequences for poor practices, people will be more likely to do the right thing. An inspector general would have the same deterrent effect on police misconduct and poor practices. What is good enough for the citizens of New York is good enough for the N.Y.P.D.

Poll: New Yorkers want more oversight for NYPD — split over stop-and-frisk

Protesters delivered petitions with almost 1,000 signatures to the office of Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. in an August  protest against police "Stop & Frisk" tactics.

He had the highest approval ratings of any citywide elected or appointed official, with a whopping 65% giving his job performance a thumbs-up. Some 25% thought he was not doing a good job.

Hours after a Quinnipiac University poll was released showing a majority of New Yorkers supporting the creation of an inspector general for the New York Police Department, Democratic mayoral candidate Bill Thompson unveiled his public safety platform.

He opposes the inspector general proposal currently before the City Council.

Speaking at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, Thompson said he wanted an inspector general "inside the police department." The current bill, he said, would put the inspector general "astride the department, between the commissioner and the mayor."

"In effect, it creates a second police commissioner," and would be "dangerously blurring the clear lines of authority critical to public safety," said Thompson.

Thompson, the only black candidate in the race, also said, "Nobody has to lecture me about the indignity of stop-and-frisk or blacks and latinos under this administration. I live with it."

Last month at a candidate forum, City Comptroller John Liu said he felt sorry for Thompson's 15-year-old step-son, who is black and therefore statistically much more likely than a white teenager to be stopped and frisked. Liu then asked Thompson to "join me" in calling to end the policy.

Thompson reacted strongly, and said that eliminating stop-and-frisk wasn't the way to protect his step-son.

Both Thompson and Liu had previously expressed support for the current inspector general bill, but both now oppose it. Another Democratic candidate, former councilman Sal Albanese, opposed it when it was introduced. City Council Speaker Christine Quinn and Public Advocate Bill de Blasio support the bill, which is strongly opposed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg and NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly.

According to Qunnpiac, voters support the idea of an NYPD inspector by 66-25 percent. Among Democrats, the numbers are 72-19 percent, and among blacks, the margin is even greater, 78-13 percent.

Interestingly, voters are split as to whether the new inspector general's office will make the city more safe: 43 percent say it will, and 43 percent say it will make no difference. Among Democrats, those figures are 49-40, and among blacks, it's 51-38.

In response to an audience member's question, Thompson said the inspector general bill "is really in response to stop-and-frisk. And the response to stop-and-frisk doesn't need an I.G. It needs a mayor who is going to accept accountablity and responsibility for stopping the way it is being used."

Other initiatives Thompson announced today: a plan to hire more police officers and flood high-crime areas with veteran officers. Currently, under the NYPD's Operation Impact, rookie officers are sent to those hot spots.

Thompson also said he wanted to return to a "community policing" model in which more officers patrol neighborhoods by foot. Thompson said he would also bring police and local residents together in order "to pressure drug dealers out of the drug trade.