By
Glenn Glover
A professional
paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master
In
Public
Administration
Department of
Public Administration
University of
Nevada, Las Vegas
December 1999
Defining Key Concepts and Terms
Board: A group of persons having managerial,
supervising or
investigative
powers.
Citizen: A member of the public or a member of a city
or town.
Citizen Review Process: An effort to involve select members of
of the
community in the monitoring of
their police department and
varies
according to structure, size
and strength
Credibility: Worthy of belief or trust.
Panel: A group of persons selected for some service
such as
investigation or arbitration.
Review: The act of inspecting or examining: to
reexamine
Judicially.
ABSTRACT
A Comparison of The Establishment of the organizational structure a Citizen Review Board At The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the City and County of Denver Public Safety Review Commission
by
Glenn Glover
Dr. Karen Layne, Committee
Chairperson
Professor of Public
Administration
University of Nevada, Las
Vegas
The study focuses on the issue of establishing a citizen review board at the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) for the purpose of reviewing allegations of misconduct. With the recent increase of police officer misconduct the LVMPD has come under a great deal of scrutiny by residents of the community. The credibility of the department has been jeopardized as a result of the current complaint investigations process which is conducted by the Internal Affairs Bureau. Community activist have demanded that a citizen review board be established to investigate complaints of police misconduct. The purpose of setting up a citizen review board is to allow for the use of an external independent form of oversight that is to be perceived by the public as an approach to restore credibility to the review process.
The method of this study includes reviewing the most current literature on the topic, and analyzing the data and facts that have been gathered on the establishment of Citizens’ Review Boards in other cities. The ordinance used to establish the City and County of Denver Public Safety Review Commission was reviewed as well as the ordinance used to establish the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Citizen
Review Board in an effort to compare and formulate conclusions based on their organizational structure.
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
Purpose of the Study 3
Scope and Limitations 4
Research Questions 5
Significance of Study 5
Organization of the Study 5
Definition of
Citizens Review 6
Description of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police 7
CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF
RELATED LITERATURE 9
History of Citizen Review 9
Background 10
Membership
qualifications 12
Training 12
Timing 13
Adequate Funding 14
Establishing Board Authority 15
Organizational Structure of Review Boards 17
Public Perceptions of the Internal Complaint 21 Investigation
Process
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 24
CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS OF THE
STUDY 26
The
History of External Oversight in Denver 26
Denver Public Safety Review Commission 30
Denver PRSC Caseload Statistics 31
The History of the Establishment of the Clark 32
County Citizen Review Board Ordinance
Political
Opposition to the Establishment of 33
a Citizen
Review Board in Clark County The
LVMPD Citizen Review Board 35 Comparison and Contrast of the PRSC
and LVMPD 36
Review Boards
CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND
CONLUSIONS 38
REFERENCES 41
APPENDICES 43
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Citizen oversight of police
exists in most major metropolitan
areas in the United States. When dealing with the notion of police
behavior, a question that arises is how can police be held accountable for
their actions? The current system is perceived to be unjust and biased to the
public. In the last 5 to10 years Clark
County residents have called for some form of external oversight of the police
when dealing with allegations of misconduct.
Currently, at the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD), complaint investigations are
conducted by the Internal Affairs Bureau or by the area command supervisor of
that particular office. However, members
of the community are discontented with the past outcomes of the complaint investigation
process, which in most instances clears the police of any wrongdoing. The complainants believe that their
complaints are not investigated thoroughly because they are investigated by the
police themselves. In an effort to
curtail this belief and to keep positive relations between the police and the
community in which it serves, community activists, local politicians and law
enforcement officials have established a citizen review board ordinance through
the enactment of Senate Bill No. 39, which was introduced in 1997 by senator
Joe Neal and assemblyman Wendell P. Williams.
The original draft was formed by a panel of community leaders. One of the most vocal advocates of citizen
review has been Dr. James Tate, a trauma surgeon and executive director of the
National Alliance Against Racism and Political Oppression. According to Tate, Las Vegas is becoming
somewhat of a joke, when considering the nature of the police misconduct that
has taken place in the last three years( Schoenmann, 1997, Oct 21).
These
lawmakers are concerned with issues that have been raised regarding the
treatment of minority groups by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police
Department. The impetus for citizen
review began in 1990 after the widely publicized case of Charles Bush. Bush, a casino worker was strangled by Metro officers who entered
his apartment without a search warrant.
At the time of entry Mr. Bush was sleeping. When he woke up to find that someone had entered his home a
scuffle ensued with police and he was placed in a chokehold. The case ended with a Metropolitan police
officer being terminated and the family of Bush receiving 1.1million dollars in
a settlement (www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/…es/text/1997/mar/06/505664126.html).
The push for citizen review has been driven by other cases of
misconduct. The most notable being the
Ron Mortensen and Christopher Brady case which occurred in 1996. These Metro officers were involved in the
drive-by-shooting death of a Hispanic gang member. Mortensen was the alleged gunman that was accused of firing six
shots from a pickup truck and killing Daniel Mendoza as he stood by with a
group of people. Mortensen was
convicted of murder in the case and sentenced to life in prison
(www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/…es/text/1997/mar/06/5056644126.html).
Another incident involving
Henry Rowe, a homeless man whom was shot to death and had his throat slit by
Officer George Pease of the Metropolitan police department. A corner’s inquest later ruled that the
homicide was justified. This was not
the first incident of a homicide involving officer Pease which gave way to
suspicion on the part of the public
(www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/…es/text/1997/mar/06/5056644126html).
Citizen
review is a very controversial issue.
The debate is based on its effectiveness for holding police accountable
for their actions. Citizen review
policies require that policymakers from various backgrounds are familiar with
the policies and procedures that have been established at police departments
across the country (Walker and Wright, 1995).
Traditionally,
citizen complaints have been reviewed by police officers of the internal
affairs department. Once the
investigation has been completed a final recommendation is made and submitted
to the chief executive law enforcement officer. But nationally, municipal law
enforcement agencies sustain an average of only 10.1 percent of all citizen
complaints reviewed internally (Pate and Fridell 1993: 113-120, as cited in
Walker, 1995).
Community
groups have long demanded that some form of external or citizen review be
established because many citizens have been dissatisfied with the compliant
review process. After years of controversy and conflict, external review has gained acceptance. In late 1994, there was an estimated 66
external complaint review bodies in the United States. This represents a 400 percent increase over
the 13 that existed in 1980(Walker and Wright, 1995). Today, there are an estimated 94 review bodies in the United
States (www.pressdemo.com/polandpub).
The purpose of this research
is to focus on the composition of an external review board at the Las Vegas
Metropolitan Police Department. This
study will review the process that was taken to establish this board. As mentioned earlier, the result of numerous
incidents of police misconduct and public dissatisfaction with the police
internal complaint investigations process, members of the community are seeking
some form of external review. Members
of the community and law enforcement officials are challenged with the task of
establishing a board that will attempt to bring credibility to and change the
perceived effectiveness of the review process.
This
study will also discuss the classification systems for citizen review which are
categorized according to who (citizens, sworn police officers, auditors or
appellate review) is conducting the investigation. This notion of who is
conducted the investigation is deals with the issue of independence which will
also be addressed in this study. It
should be noted that not all forms of citizen review entail boards.
It is essential to understand that each community is unique as
well as each police department. The
uniqueness of the community usually dictates the need as well as the
composition of such boards. In terms of
police departments and review boards, the policies and procedures that are used
to establish and govern these boards varies from department to department.
Therefore, there is no standardized model for establishing a citizens review
board.
The scope of this study includes contrasting and comparing the establishment of a citizens review board at the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department to that of the Denver, Colorado Police Department. The external oversight system that the Denver Colorado police department uses is remotely similar to what the LVMPD will be using. The primary areas of examination will include the following: membership qualifications, sources of funding, authority or jurisdiction and training of non-police members. The issue of independence will also be discussed in this study.
The establishment of a board
of this magnitude or type entails a great deal of planning and was subject to
several changes prior to the final outcome.
Limitations of this study will include the amount of information that was available regarding review boards during the time this study was conducted. At this time the ordinance governing the review board is in its final stages of completion. However, it is still subject to some minor administrative changes that may differ from the current ordinance that is being discussed in this study.
The questions that will attempt to be answered from this research are as follows: Why should a Citizens Review Board be established at the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department? How should a Citizen Review Board be established at the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department in an attempt to make it perceptually effective to the community and what are the major political issues that have to be addressed prior to the establishment of the citizens review board? Who should serve on a Citizen Review Board and what is the selection criteria?
Significance of the Study
This study is significant for several reasons. Recently, there have been several incidents of perceived misconduct involving officers of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. As a result of these incidents community activist have demanded that some form of external oversight be established.
This study will attempt to explain the process as well as address the issues involved in establishing a citizens review board.
Organization of the Study
Chapter 1 of this study introduces the purpose of this study and addresses the questions of why a citizen review board is needed and how a citizen review board is established.
Related literature on the subject of citizen review boards will be explored in Chapter 2. This chapter will also establish the framework of the study.
Chapter 3 will discuss the
methodology used to collect the data for this study. This section will discuss the steps taken to conduct this
research. An extensive research effort
on this topic was conducted on this topic that included obtaining various
documentation, publications, journals, periodicals, Internet databases, and
world wide web search engines.
Additionally, interviews were conducted.
The findings on the Denver,
Colorado police department citizen review board and its effectiveness will be
discussed in Chapter 5. Also
the steps that were taken to establish a citizen review board at the Las
Vegas Metropolitan Police Department will
be summarized. A summary of the
ordinances governing citizen review boards for both the Denver, Colorado Police
Department and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department will be compared
and discussed in this section.
The summary and conclusions of this study will be discussed in Chapter 6. This section will take a look at future efforts of the police and the community in relation to citizen review boards.
Defining Citizens Review
It should be noted that there is not a universal term for external review. When referring to external review, citizen review, civilian review and civilian oversight are used interchangeably. The term citizen is used as opposed to civilian review for the simple fact that the latter suggest that there is a civilian-military dichotomy. When discussing American policing, it is inappropriate to substitute one term for the other (Walker and Wright, 1995).
The term citizens review can be defined as a procedure for handling citizen complaints regarding police officer misconduct. These complaints are usually investigated by citizens of the community who are not sworn police officers (Walker and Wright, 1995).
It is the involvement of people who are not sworn officers that is most essential to this complaint process. The reason for this is that the perception of the process as being external or citizen in character is what aids in the credibility of the complaint investigation process. Secondly, there are many different ways in which people who are not sworn can participate in the review process (Walker and Wright, 1995).
Description of the Las Vegas Metropolitan
Police Department
The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department was formed in July of 1973. A Nevada legislative action merged the Las Vegas Police and the Clark County Sheriff’s Departments. The LVMPD is a separate political entity administered by a elected sheriff. This agency currently
serves the residents of the City of Las Vegas and unincorporated areas of Clark County plus an
annual influx of visitors.
This jurisdiction includes 7,554 square miles bordered by Nevada’s Nye and Lincoln Counties and the neighboring states of Arizona and California.
The Department operates under the Civil Service system with more than 97 percent of all positions falling within the system. The organization is currently divided into six divisions. The sheriff is the department head; there is one Undersheriff and six Deputy Chiefs. In addition the department has the ranks of police captain, police lieutenant, police sergeant, police officer, and numerous civilian support positions.
This chapter will discuss
the current literature regarding the establishment of citizens review
boards. The first section of this
chapter will provide a brief history on citizen review. The next section will then provide the
reader with information regarding the various classifications of external
oversight systems that have been used in jurisdictions of comparable size. Finally, the related literature will address
issues such as membership qualifications, funding, authority, training and
timing.
Citizen review is not a new concept. It is both a national and international
phenomenon. As stated in the beginning
of this study, most major cities in the United States have adopted this
concept, and medium size and small cities are rapidly adhering to this pattern
as well (Walker and Wright, 1995). The
city of Las Vegas is currently dealing with this concept of citizen review. In an attempt to establish a citizen review
board ordinance that will be effective in the community, researchers have found
that when looking at other cities and police departments of comparable size,
there is no one standard model that best fits the city (Walker and Wright,
1995). A hybrid will be used to
establish a review board that will serve the citizens of the Las Vegas
community and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police department. However, according to Undersheriff Richard
Winget, of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Denver is the city
that most closely resembles the form of citizens review that is being
established in Las Vegas (Richard Winget, personal communication, July 14,
1999).
The concept of citizen
review was initially proposed in 1935, however it was not implemented until the
1940s and 1950s in cities such as New York and Philadelphia. It was during this time that citizen
involvement with the police began to rise.
The United States Supreme Court also began to take a closer look at the
cases that were brought before them regarding police misconduct, and as a
result became critical of police behavior of this type (Peak, 1997).
The
1960s, along with the riots and protest of this time, brought even more concern
for citizens review. However, it is
important to note that this concept of citizen review boards received a strong opposition from the police, politicians
and some citizens (Roberg and Kuykendall, 1993).
During
the 1970s there was more public concern and support for citizen review boards
and the notion of reform was surfacing.
Finally, during the 1980s and 1990s, police scandals began to rise in
cities across the United States. Many
of these incidents of misconduct were now more convincing to the public than
those that had occurred in the past because some of them had been videotaped or
witnessed by citizens themselves. For
example, the Rodney King incident, which occurred in Los Angeles in 1991 and is
the most notable incident of the decade.
The Los Angeles police were videotaped by a citizen, beating king
excessively after he was stopped for being in violation of several traffic laws
such as speeding and driving while under the influence of drugs and/or
alcohol. The acquittal of the officers
involved in the king beating resulted in three days of civil unrest that left
fifty-three people dead and caused one billion dollars in damage (Goldsmith,
1996). In the past police had been more
discrete with their incidents of misconduct.
The media gained access to these tapes and as a result the interest in
the complaint review process began to spread according to Roberg and
Kuykendall.
Today
this concept of external review of the police has gained a respectable
following throughout many cities in the United States (Terrill,1990). In 1980 there were approximately 13 police
oversight agencies or procedures in place.
As of 1996 there were more than 80 (Walker and Wright,1994). Today there
are 94 police review procedures in the United States
(www.presdemo.com/polandpub). One
predominant factor contributing to this growth in external review has been the
increase in African-American political activity, which has increased the number
of mayors and city council members who hold these offices. The African American community has been the
leading advocate of citizen review primarily because incidents of police
misconduct have involved African Americans in many instances. As a result external citizen review is often
found in cities with large minority communities and effective local civil
rights organizations. It should also be
noted that cities with small minority populations have also begun to establish
various forms of external review (Walker and Wright, 1995). Citizen review was proposed as an attempt to
reduce conflict between police and minority communities in the United States (www.nyclu.org/fiveyears.html). The concept of citizen review will remain a
critical issue in the future of policing in the United States (Terrill,
1990). Chief law enforcement
executives are now able to recognize this fact, as can be seen by the decline
in opposition from the initial mention of citizen review. The effectiveness of responding to the
concerns of citizens complaints of the community depends on the support that it
receives from police officials (Walker, 1995).
Citizens review is most commonly found in municipal police departments although county sheriff’s departments have been known to have them in place (Walker and Wright, 1995).
A properly trained citizen review board will serve the community more effectively than one that has not received training. The credibility of the review boards will be enhanced as a result of a thorough training program. Training such as this can be seen as beneficial to both residents of the community and the police.
Literature
on training for review boards suggest that programs by design, provide board
members with the same training and street experiences of police officers. It should also familiarize board members
with departmental policies as well (Tyre and Braustine, 1994).
Along with classroom instruction, citizen
review board members should receive hands – on training. This type of training is important in the
areas such as high-speed chases, and searches and seizures which is where the
officers risk injury and the potential lawsuits. Research indicates that hands-on training is important because it
allows board members to see events from the officer’s perspective. This
training also provides board members with a realistic view of police work (Tyre
and Braustine, 1994).
There are currently six ways to establish a
citizen review board. They are as
follows: municipal ordinance (LVMPD),
state statute, voter referendum, mayoral executive order, police chief administrative order, and memorandum
of understanding (Walker and Wright, 1995).
These
various sources of legal authority are exemplified in municipalities throughout
the United States with the majority being established by ordinances. For example, Iowa created a state statute to
establish what is known as the Citizen’s Aide/Ombudsman office to handle
complaints of misconduct by police. The
various sources of legal authority tend to reflect that there are obscure
differences in the nature of support for citizen advisory boards. The enactment of an ordinance to create a
review board usually indicates that the majority of the elected officials in
that particular jurisdiction are supporter of such a phenomenon. When looking at the initial establishments
of review boards, it is important to note that the “pioneers” of citizens
review (New York and Philadelphia) were created by mayoral executive orders in
spite of opposition from the cities’
respective city councils. Without the
political support council members these
boards became prime targets of attack
and were subject to heavy scrutiny.
Research also suggest that the creation of citizens review boards and
their procedures through the use of ordinances indicates that there is a
growing public support for citizens review (Walker and Wright, 1995). The citizens review board at the Las Vegas
Metropolitan Police Department has been established by an ordinance, which was
enacted by Senate Bill No. 39, which was introduced by Senator Joe Neal.
The goals, powers and
procedures are the key to establishing an effective review board. Recent literature suggest that it is the
goals of the review board that determine its powers and this in turn dictates
what procedures will be followed. These
factors should be considered separately and in direct correlation to one
another (Tyre and Braunstein, 1994).
The goals of a citizens
review board should be clearly defined so that board members know exactly what
they are. However, goals cannot be
effective unless they are attainable according to Tyre and Braunstein.
Past research indicates that boards that have been formed in response to protest have lacked the power to accomplish its goals (Tyre and Braunstein, 1994). The levels power or authority of the citizens review board can vary from examining decisions of the police of department to the power or authority to force the police department to take action on an issue (Davis, 1997).
The notion of citizens
review continues to be a debatable issue.
According to research on this issue, it has been argued by police that
without an internal review board to
conduct the investigations, departmental morale would decrease
significantly. The police also view this
as an opportunity for the public to bring false accusations against them for
simply carrying out their duties (Terrill, 1985) (Royberg and Kuykendall,
1993). Finally, police argue that
review boards interfere with the authority of the chief administrator. In an attempt to adhere to management theory
and apply the concepts of public administration, the view of the police is
supported by the notion that the chief administrative officer is responsible
for the conduct of his or her agency and therefore should have equal
authority. Any attempt to divide this
formal authority will create difficulty in the leadership of the agency and
make it virtually impossible for the individual in charge to control
disciplinary actions of the department (Terrill, 1985).
For purposes of this study, category I will be examined closely since this is the model in which the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department citizen review board will be primarily based on. Under Category I complaints are investigated by citizens. In examining jurisdictions that fall under this category it was found that investigative authority can take on various forms:
a. Independent investigative staff to conduct independent investigations of the police department; and/or,
b. Authority to issue subpoenas; and/or ,
c. Authority to conduct evidentiary hearings.
The ordinance used to establish the investigative authority of citizens’ review
at the LVMPD takes on form (a) listed above.
Advantages
and Disadvantages of Category IA and Category IB Procedures
As stated above, category IA and category IB oversight procedures conduct their own independent review of complaints by non-sworn officers. The advantage of this approach is that it is independent of the police department, which restores public confidence in the complaint review process. The fact that the investigation will be thorough and objective enhances the public’s confidence in the complaint investigation process (New York Civil Liberties Union, 1996).
The other advantage to this approach is that it takes on the form of a multi-member board. This approach can ensure the broad representation of the diverse elements of the local community and act as a channel for voicing community concerns to the police department (New York Civil Liberties Union, 1996).
The disadvantages of the category IA and IB oversight procedures are that independent review of complaints are resented by police officers and may cause morale problems in the department. A problem that arises as a direct result of independent review of complaints is that of the quality of staff and the amount of resources available to conduct it. In regards to the selection, training and supervision of investigative staff, high standards should be in place to ensure the maximum effectiveness of the board. Those procedures that are deemed by the public as having insufficient power to conduct thorough investigations also lack credibility and therefore are less likely to be effective ( New York Civil Liberties Union, 1996).
According to an article written by Richard J.
Terrill, the greatest concern of the citizen regarding the complaint process is
that the police investigate the police as stated early on this study. Most of this concern has been voiced by
groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association for
the Advancement of Colored People, or by those who have had a great deal of
involvement with the criminal justice system (Terrill, 1985).
Another article authored by Andrew J.
Goldsmith goes on to say the problem with the police internal investigations is
that the public perceives them as lacking empathy, being too legalistic in
their approaches and unresponsive to the complainants concerns, and favoring
the police (Goldsmith, 1996).
According to Richard Terrill, research indicates that it is the investigative stage of any complaint procedure that is the key to reducing the criticisms of the review process from the public because it affects the integrity of the steps that come in the initial stages of review and the latter stages.
Perceptions of the police complaint procedures vary depending upon whom you talk to and their experiences with the complaint investigation process. The implication of cultural differences should be addressed due to the belief that there is a connection between the levels of dissatisfaction of certain of citizens of certain areas of the community and the review process. This dissatisfaction is found to be in areas of the community that are heavily policed. The minority population tends to make up the majority of citizens residing in these areas (Goldsmith, 1996).
Gary
Peck, who is the director of the Nevada American Civil Liberties Union, and
other supporters of a citizens review board, believes that an external review
board is capable of breaking down class and race stereotypes and attacking
double standards of the police department (Smith, April 1, 1998).
As indicated earlier by the research on citizens review boards,
citizens have desired to involve themselves in the complaint investigation
process for over three decades. It has
only been in the last 20 to 30 years that an increased effort to develop boards
of this type has been put into effect.
As more incidents of police misconduct occur, external oversight becomes
more and more of a critical issue for both the police and citizens alike, there
will be a continual drive to achieve some form of external review.
According
to Richard Terrill, citizens argue that having internal investigations of
complaints are pointless since the outcomes of these investigations tend to
rule in favor of the police. It is
primarily for this reason that the public believes those internal
investigations cannot be trusted (Terrill, 1990).
Citizens argue that
establishing an external review board would not only give credibility to the
review board but also improve relations between the community and the police
(Henry, 1997).
The approach taken by most
investigators when dealing with the complaint process is what Goldsmith labels
as forensic realism. Forensic realism refers to formalist and
legalistic method of investigating complaints.
The problem with this approach is that it does not address the
differences of perception, belief, value, and understanding among different
areas of the community (Goldsmith, 1996).
The approaches to gathering
this data entailed analyzing current literature on this topic and relating it
to the ordinance used to establish citizen review at the Las Vegas Metropolitan
police department. In addition to this
I interviewed several individuals who had some involvement in the process, LVMPD
Undersheriff Richard Winget, Clark
County Commissioner Dario Herrera, LVMPD Lieutenant Stan Olson in the
intergovernmetal affairs section, Clark County Assistant Manager of
Administrative Services Don Burnette and Nevada State Assemblymen Wendell P.
Williams.
I also contacted the Denver Colorado Police Department via telephone and spoke to a representative in the research and development department ,who was able to send me information pertaining to the department and a copy of the 1993 annual report taken from the City and County of Denver Public Safety Review Commission which is the oversight board for citizen complaints concerning Denver police officers and sheriff’s deputies.