Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Who Polices the Police?
The San Jose Police Department has been featured almost weekly in news reports of six taser deaths since 2005, racial profiling, selective vehicle stops, and drunken arrests. An October Mercury News report that San Jose police arrested 4,600 in one year for public intoxication, and a disproportionate 56% were Latinos, resulted in hundreds attending a public hearing. If Chief Rob Davis cannot restrain aggressive officers quick on the draw with tasers or firearms, arresting non-violent inebriated individuals with sober designated drivers, then who can police the police?
By Gil Villagrán, MSW
gvillagran [at] casa.sjsu.edu
San Jose, April 18, 2009
The San Jose Police Department has been featured almost weekly in news reports of six taser deaths since 2005, racial profiling, selective vehicle stops, and drunken arrests. An October Mercury News report that San Jose police arrested 4,600 in one year for public intoxication, and a disproportionate 56% were Latinos, resulted in hundreds attending a public hearing. After hours of angry and some tearful testimony of unjust arrests, mistreatment by officers, and a woman whose father was killed by police taser.
City Manager Debra Figone initiated a task force to study the issue and find a just resolution. The task force of 25, selected by Figone, has a fair representation of stakeholders, including Asian, African-American and Latino communities, Police Chief Rob Davis, the District Attorney and Public Defender, downtown business, city and county government.
I have attended most of the 6-9 pm Thursday meetings, and here is my review: Chief Davis diplomatically explains that what seems as targeted arrests are in fact compassionate efforts "to protect the public, especially downtown club-goers, from injury by falling down, getting hit by cars, or aspirating their vomit." Davis cheerfully related, "in some cases officers even give the inebriated a ride home to ensure their safety." When asked how often officers provide such front door service, he offered to try to get the data.
But the reality is that club-goers are ushered out of clubs at closing time, channeled by the 60 or more police on crowded sidewalks, and arrested when showing signs of inebriation-such as walking clumsily, bumping into others, jaywalking (even on streets closed to traffic by police), shouting, slurring speech. More egregious offenses are failing to follow orders from officers, asking questions, talking back or videotaping arrests. Community advocates call these "failing the attitude test" or "annoying an officer" arrests that often include the serious additional charge of "resisting arrest," which may be elevated to a felony. Adults out for a night of music, dancing, drinking, and generally having good time, all legal inside a club, may be startled to realize that the moment they exit onto public property-the sidewalk, they are in another world owned by police. The alcoholic beverages for relaxation and to cool off from the crowed dance floor are suddenly converted into penal code 647(f)--public intoxication. By officer discretion alone, one may end the evening in a jail cell, possibly injured by a police club or taser. One man was shot in the face after he "interfered with an officer" as he tasered his wife.
The question asked by the task force is: are these arrests necessary, especially when the DA deems only 15% prosecutable? In prior times, inebriated individuals were offered a taxi home, allowed to call someone to pick them up, or taken to a "drunk tank" to sleep off their drunkenness. Davis pleads, "arrests are the only legal way to taken them into custody and save them from greater harm to themselves or others."
But contacts with police and city hall insiders and community groups offer these observations: "The Chief is stubborn, will never admit a mistaken policy damaging police-community relations." "Davis fought the Police Auditor, not realizing she was his loyal opposition whose recommendations could save his job." "The chief sets the tone for officers, or fails to do so, and they whatever they want." "Davis is not a cop's cop, never a street officer, doesn't have respect of street cops, so he can't push too much." "The support he has is because they have plenty of overtime pay, and force and arrest policies work for them, and he muzzled the Police Auditor." "Davis has the support of Mayor Reed, the council, and the city manager-as long as they're happy with Davis, he stays, the public be damned!"
The question for Mayor Reed, City Council and City Manager Figone and most importantly, our residents, is: If Chief Davis cannot restrain aggressive officers quick on the draw with tasers or firearms, arresting non-violent inebriated individuals with sober designated drivers, then who can police the police?
gvillagran [at] casa.sjsu.edu
San Jose, April 18, 2009
The San Jose Police Department has been featured almost weekly in news reports of six taser deaths since 2005, racial profiling, selective vehicle stops, and drunken arrests. An October Mercury News report that San Jose police arrested 4,600 in one year for public intoxication, and a disproportionate 56% were Latinos, resulted in hundreds attending a public hearing. After hours of angry and some tearful testimony of unjust arrests, mistreatment by officers, and a woman whose father was killed by police taser.
City Manager Debra Figone initiated a task force to study the issue and find a just resolution. The task force of 25, selected by Figone, has a fair representation of stakeholders, including Asian, African-American and Latino communities, Police Chief Rob Davis, the District Attorney and Public Defender, downtown business, city and county government.
I have attended most of the 6-9 pm Thursday meetings, and here is my review: Chief Davis diplomatically explains that what seems as targeted arrests are in fact compassionate efforts "to protect the public, especially downtown club-goers, from injury by falling down, getting hit by cars, or aspirating their vomit." Davis cheerfully related, "in some cases officers even give the inebriated a ride home to ensure their safety." When asked how often officers provide such front door service, he offered to try to get the data.
But the reality is that club-goers are ushered out of clubs at closing time, channeled by the 60 or more police on crowded sidewalks, and arrested when showing signs of inebriation-such as walking clumsily, bumping into others, jaywalking (even on streets closed to traffic by police), shouting, slurring speech. More egregious offenses are failing to follow orders from officers, asking questions, talking back or videotaping arrests. Community advocates call these "failing the attitude test" or "annoying an officer" arrests that often include the serious additional charge of "resisting arrest," which may be elevated to a felony. Adults out for a night of music, dancing, drinking, and generally having good time, all legal inside a club, may be startled to realize that the moment they exit onto public property-the sidewalk, they are in another world owned by police. The alcoholic beverages for relaxation and to cool off from the crowed dance floor are suddenly converted into penal code 647(f)--public intoxication. By officer discretion alone, one may end the evening in a jail cell, possibly injured by a police club or taser. One man was shot in the face after he "interfered with an officer" as he tasered his wife.
The question asked by the task force is: are these arrests necessary, especially when the DA deems only 15% prosecutable? In prior times, inebriated individuals were offered a taxi home, allowed to call someone to pick them up, or taken to a "drunk tank" to sleep off their drunkenness. Davis pleads, "arrests are the only legal way to taken them into custody and save them from greater harm to themselves or others."
But contacts with police and city hall insiders and community groups offer these observations: "The Chief is stubborn, will never admit a mistaken policy damaging police-community relations." "Davis fought the Police Auditor, not realizing she was his loyal opposition whose recommendations could save his job." "The chief sets the tone for officers, or fails to do so, and they whatever they want." "Davis is not a cop's cop, never a street officer, doesn't have respect of street cops, so he can't push too much." "The support he has is because they have plenty of overtime pay, and force and arrest policies work for them, and he muzzled the Police Auditor." "Davis has the support of Mayor Reed, the council, and the city manager-as long as they're happy with Davis, he stays, the public be damned!"
The question for Mayor Reed, City Council and City Manager Figone and most importantly, our residents, is: If Chief Davis cannot restrain aggressive officers quick on the draw with tasers or firearms, arresting non-violent inebriated individuals with sober designated drivers, then who can police the police?
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
The problem isn't exactly that there is no self policing of police by police. The problem is that the focus of typical "internal affairs" divisions are on different sorts of abuses and criminal activities by police than the sorts you think they should be focusing on.
Since resources are always limited, go ahead and make your case that the "internal affairs" division should drop the sorts of things they do investigate and instead concentrate their efforts on these other things. Your arguements need to be based on "more important" and "more likely to result in prosecutable cases". Recognize that if this is done you'll have to be tolerating those other sorts of abuse that "internal affairs" is currently managing to suppress. Can't have both without a much larger "internal affairs" division.
Is that a trade you'd care to make? (say reduction in profiling, not completely justified violence, tasering, etc. but increase in shaking down instead of arresting illegal activities?)
Since resources are always limited, go ahead and make your case that the "internal affairs" division should drop the sorts of things they do investigate and instead concentrate their efforts on these other things. Your arguements need to be based on "more important" and "more likely to result in prosecutable cases". Recognize that if this is done you'll have to be tolerating those other sorts of abuse that "internal affairs" is currently managing to suppress. Can't have both without a much larger "internal affairs" division.
Is that a trade you'd care to make? (say reduction in profiling, not completely justified violence, tasering, etc. but increase in shaking down instead of arresting illegal activities?)
I don't understand why people rely on a police complaint system that requires any kind of city council approval or public funding. A privately organized 501c3 system could be much more effective in the long run.
For example, if I wanted to form my own non-profit "Police Misconduct Reporting Center," then I and my volunteers (or paid employees if contributions are sufficient) could advertise the new business and receive and store complaints and make them available to defense and civil rights attorneys, or to anyone who wants to sue a cop, etc., and the city council or police could not do anything about it. It would be a more trustworthy operation than any city operated system, and people who have complaints would have more peace of mind that the info they're reporting would not "disappear" or be withheld for one reason or another when it became important to access it.
I've pondered doing this. It could be done anywhere. Cops would hate it, and so would the cities (or counties), because it would justly expose cops and municipalities to liability more often.
If a private complaint center were operated properly, it would become popular and citizens would prefer to report their complaints there. They could still go to internal affairs or city operated "civilian review" committees, but the private centers would have no city-imposed restrictions (though they'd have to be careful not to let their publicly disseminated records expose them to libel suits, etc.) .
Just a thought. If you have enough smart people interested in banding together and doing something like that, it could go a long way towards keeping the local cops honest and "under the gun." :-)
For example, if I wanted to form my own non-profit "Police Misconduct Reporting Center," then I and my volunteers (or paid employees if contributions are sufficient) could advertise the new business and receive and store complaints and make them available to defense and civil rights attorneys, or to anyone who wants to sue a cop, etc., and the city council or police could not do anything about it. It would be a more trustworthy operation than any city operated system, and people who have complaints would have more peace of mind that the info they're reporting would not "disappear" or be withheld for one reason or another when it became important to access it.
I've pondered doing this. It could be done anywhere. Cops would hate it, and so would the cities (or counties), because it would justly expose cops and municipalities to liability more often.
If a private complaint center were operated properly, it would become popular and citizens would prefer to report their complaints there. They could still go to internal affairs or city operated "civilian review" committees, but the private centers would have no city-imposed restrictions (though they'd have to be careful not to let their publicly disseminated records expose them to libel suits, etc.) .
Just a thought. If you have enough smart people interested in banding together and doing something like that, it could go a long way towards keeping the local cops honest and "under the gun." :-)
Perhaps misunderstanding the bulk of what an "Internal Affairs" division investigates?
What you suggest might address "in the public" sort of police offenses where the abused is innocent and so can come forward to complain.
You can scarcely expect that to address the typical situation where CRIMINALS are being shaken down or various criminal acitivties allowed to proceed as long as bribes are paid. You expect a criminal to come forward and complain to your organizaton "I'm in the business of selling drugs and the cops on the beat are taking too much a bribe to look the other way" or "I'm operating a brothel and have to pay X a week to be allowed to stay unmolested".
What you suggest might address "in the public" sort of police offenses where the abused is innocent and so can come forward to complain.
You can scarcely expect that to address the typical situation where CRIMINALS are being shaken down or various criminal acitivties allowed to proceed as long as bribes are paid. You expect a criminal to come forward and complain to your organizaton "I'm in the business of selling drugs and the cops on the beat are taking too much a bribe to look the other way" or "I'm operating a brothel and have to pay X a week to be allowed to stay unmolested".
There is a private organization that has been tracking police abuses for years.
PUEBLO:People United for a Better Life in Oakland
http://www.peopleunited.org
There's no need to reinvent the wheel. Support PUEBLO. Get involved today.
And civilian review boards are limited in what they can do because of the unjust california police bill of rights.
The Police Bill of Rights, Copley, and Where We Are Today in CA with Police Accountability:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/02/25/18573293.php
As for the police bill of rights, well, we all need to start pressuring state lawmakers by any means necessary because the only voices speaking to them really loudly is the very powerful police unions.
If we could get that one law rewritten, and support existing groups like PUEBLO, it would make all the difference in the world.
PUEBLO:People United for a Better Life in Oakland
http://www.peopleunited.org
There's no need to reinvent the wheel. Support PUEBLO. Get involved today.
And civilian review boards are limited in what they can do because of the unjust california police bill of rights.
The Police Bill of Rights, Copley, and Where We Are Today in CA with Police Accountability:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/02/25/18573293.php
As for the police bill of rights, well, we all need to start pressuring state lawmakers by any means necessary because the only voices speaking to them really loudly is the very powerful police unions.
If we could get that one law rewritten, and support existing groups like PUEBLO, it would make all the difference in the world.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$215.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network