Accreditation Approved for Fresno Police Department

ACCREDITATION APPROVED FOR FRESNO POLICE DEPARTMENT
By Diane Corbin

On August 24, 2005 the formal presentation of accreditation will be made at City Hall by CALEA (Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies) officials to the Fresno Police Department, thus affirming CALEA’s decision that the Fresno Police have become effective and efficient in the delivery of law enforcement services, and enjoy citizen and employee confidence in the goals, objectives, policies and practices of the agency.

What does this accreditation really represent? What changes have been made and will be made in the Police Department’s performance of its duties? This three year program run by CALEA is neither an official or a government program. the CALEA group which runs it was formed in 1979 by the International Association of Chiefs’ of Police, National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, National Sheriffs’ Association, and the Police Executive Research Forum, all various law enforcement organizations. And, according to The Fresno Bee, April 26, 2005, the total cost to Fresno citizens for this nonofficial accreditation is $90,000.

Some of the CALEA standards, contained in the “Standards for Law Enforcement Agencies”, to which the Police Departments are supposed to adhere, are: Chapter 1: Law Enforcement Role and Authority: “Clear, written policy on the use of force and deadly force are required”, Chapter 26: Disciplinary Procedures: training is listed as a form of discipline. Chapter 44: Juvenile Operations: no example given. Chapter 45: Crime Prevention and Community Relations: “Community relations standards require some minimum functions, and a survey of citizen attitudes.” and Chapter 52: Internal Affairs: The agency is required to investigate all complaints.

In its research the Central California Criminal Justice Committee has found a number of instances where items in these mentioned chapters have not been followed or have been ignored. There has been no comprehensive survey of citizen attitudes. According to Department of Justice figures, there is about one justifiable homicide by the police per year for every 700,000 in US population. The population of Fresno, according to the 2000 census is about 440,000 people from which we should expect about 0.63 justifiable Fresno PD homicides per year but in the years 1998-2004 there were 27 fatal Fresno PD officer-involved shootings which is an average of 3.85 justifiable homicides per year, over six times the per-capita national average. In the years 1998 through 2003 these killings cost the City of Fresno $844,576.38 in claims brought against the police for excessive force and wrongful death. What is Fresno Police policy on the use of force and deadly force?

Chapter 33: Training and Career Development: Entry-level, inservice, specialized and civilian training. Has there been any real diversity training? From 1998-2003 $248, 488.02 was paid by Fresno to settle lost Civil Rights cases. And $872,992.75 has been paid out for car accidents involving police personnel. When we add lawsuits the total goes to $2,876, 624.07. These monies do not come out of the police budget, which, this year, comprises 52% of the total city budget. And as for Chapter 52: Investigation of all complaints, complaint forms are illusive and difficult to obtain in Fresno and, when filled out and turned in are never heard of again according to reports to the CCCJC.

Are there any Police standards on how people, including children have a right to be treated and, if so, are they being followed? Then why is it that a black person in Fresno has over 2.5 times the chance of being killed in a FPD officer-involved shooting than a white person does?

How many of these problems could have been addressed effectively and a good deal less expensively by an Independent Police Auditor? The Central California Criminal Justice Committee has brought many of these problems to the attention of the police with no success.

My question is this: Fellow Fresnans, do we want to continue this expensive, ineffective, inhuman dealing with problems which, recently, have caused world wide expressions of horror at our treatment of a young limited English speaking girl. Is this the legacy we want to leave to the world? Treating people humanely does not cost money in lawsuits or cause world censure.

An independent police auditor can provide an impartial look at all situations, make recommendations, and make public reports to the City Council. And it can raise our town to one we can take honest pride in. Accreditation has not given us cause for pride. An independent police auditor can. This is what I opt for.