Nearly 10 years after its creation, the Citizen Review Board elicits praise, criticism
Had Las Vegas police been left alone to investigate when an armed, off-duty officer is alleged to have threatened an umpire after a softball game, what might have happened?
The officer's supervisor questioned only the officer and the officer's friend before clearing the officer of wrongdoing. The supervisor tried to question the umpire by phone about his complaint, but hung up after deciding the umpire was drunk and uncooperative.
But then the Metropolitan Police Department's Citizen Review Board stepped in. It concluded that the officer acted inappropriately, that the internal probe was a whitewash and that the umpire was not intoxicated. Instead, he had a speech impediment, board findings show.
The July 2000 incident was one of the first taken up by the review board after it was formed nearly 10 years ago. The case led to improved internal police investigations, just as subsequent review board complaints have prompted the police to improve policies on traffic stops, search and seizures, medical treatment of inmates at the county jail, surveillance videos at the jail, and community and race relations.
Most important, the review board has held accountable an Internal Affairs Bureau that in the past has been perceived as covering for its own, said Andrea Beckman, executive director of the review board.
"The mere presence of an oversight board, and the knowledge that someone is going to review your investigation, ultimately provokes internal affairs to make sure their investigations are complete, objective and that they interview all parties," Beckman said. "I think the Internal Affairs Bureau has become a more professional bureau, but I think issues of police misconduct need monitoring. And it is important for the public to know someone is monitoring these investigations and these investigators so we don't go back to that good ol' boy day."
The police department, which has had three elected sheriffs in the past 10 years, has learned to accept the prying eyes of the review board. However, the union that represents officers repeatedly has challenged the board's authority.
The Las Vegas Police Protective Association has advised its members to not cooperate with board inquiries, and the state Supreme Court in 2006 reaffirmed the board's authority to subpoena officers after the union challenged the board's power in District Court and lost.
"I don't know that it (the Citizen Review Board) does any harm, but, in my opinion, it certainly doesn't do any good," said Detective Chris Collins, executive director of the association. "Just because you don't like the outcome of a (internal affairs) complaint doesn't mean the case was not adjudicated properly. I don't think you should get a second bite of the apple at the Citizen Review Board."
'FULFILLING ITS MISSION'
While the Las Vegas population has skyrocketed, and police department staffing has increased more than in any previous decade, the number of complaints filed with the review board has hovered between 80 and 120 a year.
Year after year, the review board has seen only 10 percent to 15 percent of the complaints filed with the Internal Affairs Bureau, which means the people filing the complaints are not also filing them with the review board.
"Either people don't know who we are, so they are not filing complaints with us, or Metro officers are doing a great job and there is nothing to complain about," said Beckman, the only administrator in the board's history. "My concern is that the Citizen Review Board cannot determine if there are patterns of misconduct, like we saw with the pattern of unlawful searches and of detaining people during traffic stops, because we are seeing only a tenth of the complaints being filed with internal affairs."
Beckman last month embarked on a bold proposal, not seen in many departments across the country, which could open up to outside scrutiny past internal police investigations and help the board identify such patterns of misconduct.
Beckman is proposing that the review board establish an "audit board," consisting of a handful of board members, to randomly review past internal investigations.
The intent would not be to reopen past probes, revisit findings or revise disciplinary measures already doled out. Names of officers or their accusers would not be released, she said. Instead, the audit board would review random investigations to see how they were handled, identify problematic patterns in investigations and make recommendations for improving department oversight of officer misconduct.
For instance, Beckman said, the board might review whether all witnesses were interviewed, or whether investigators asked officers leading questions, as the review board found last year after a jogger complained that an officer harassed him during a traffic-safety stop.
The disparity in the number of complaints concerns review board members and supporters, especially considering research has shown that the public is more comfortable lodging police complaints with a civilian panel than with the police department itself.
"If there is something amiss, it should be looked into," said Dick Geyer, a six-year member who was one of the first appointed to the review board. "The review board should be aware of what's being filed with internal affairs. If the board is only seeing 10 (percent) to 15 percent of the complaints, I don't feel it is fulfilling its mission to investigate these internal affairs complaints in a thorough manner."
Gary Peck, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada and a vocal critic of the police department, said internal affairs should share with the board a random sampling of its investigations.
"I believe there are still problems at the Internal Affairs Bureau, but the Citizen Review Board has been a force for correcting these problems when they are identified," Peck said. "We absolutely believe the ability to audit Internal Affairs Bureau files would be a step in the right direction. ... That would allow the Citizen Review Board to unearth problems that are systemic."
Sheriff Doug Gillespie referred questions on Beckman's proposal to Assistant Sheriff Ray Flynn, who oversees the Internal Affairs Bureau. Flynn said he knows little about the proposal but has a meeting scheduled with Beckman to discuss it further.
With regard to internal affairs receiving far more complaints, Flynn said the police department is doing what it can to raise public awareness of the review board and that some complaints filed with internal affairs aren't within the review board's jurisdiction.
All of the roughly 1,000 to 1,200 people a year who complain to internal affairs are informed in writing that they can forward their complaint to the review board for follow-up consideration, Flynn said. Also, the internal affairs page on the police department's Web site provides contact information for the review board and a link to the board's Internet site.
Flynn surmised people who file complaints are content following the police department probe results, and therefore don't make follow-up complaints with the review board.
Flynn said that about 30 percent of complaints against police personnel are filed by colleagues. Some are filed by officers against other officers, and others are filed against officers or civilian employees by their supervisors.
"It (employee complaints) tells me we have a culture whereby we will not tolerate improper behavior. There is nobody out there who dislikes a bad cop more than a good cop," Flynn said.
Employees are not prohibited from filing a review board complaint against a colleague, but Flynn could not recall the review board ever receiving one. "Our employees are satisfied with the internal process that we have here," he said.
Other complaints that do not fall into the review board's jurisdiction, but are reviewed by internal affairs, include complaints against the department's civilian employees, such as dispatchers, jail staff and others, Flynn said.
The review board only has jurisdiction over Las Vegas officers, and cannot take complaints about officers with the Henderson, North Las Vegas, Clark County School District or other police departments.
Beckman said the review board has tried to raise public awareness of the panel's operations, but risks being seen as soliciting police complaints if it goes too far. For instance, some board members suggested erecting a highway billboard, but Beckman opposed the idea.
When the review board was starting up, Beckman went on local radio and television shows and to service clubs such as Lions and Kiwanis, she said. Review board literature is available at local libraries, community centers, schools and at each Las Vegas police substation, Beckman said.
"We are not here to solicit complaints," she said. "We have to let the public know we are another avenue of redress, where they can come and file a complaint about the conduct of Metro."
'GOOD WORKING RELATIONSHIP'
The police department in 2008: had 5,000 employees, including 2,800 police and 700 corrections officers; handled 3.5 million phone calls, including 486,000 calls for service; issued 450,000 traffic tickets and initiated about 100,000 pedestrian stops. Despite more than 4 million encounters with the public, 1,006 complaints of misconduct were investigated by the department and only 95 complaints were filed with the review board, Flynn said.
As in previous years, the review board concurred with the findings of the Internal Affairs Bureau in more than nine out of every 10 complaints.
And, whether or not the review board impacted the number of lawsuits pending against the department, that number dropped from 178 in 2002 to 107 in 2008. Also, nearly 70 percent of lawsuits in recent years have been dismissed on motions filed by the department's attorneys, according to the department's Risk Management office.
"A private agency (such as a utility company) would be hard-pressed to have that many contacts with the public and have so few complaints about their service," Flynn said. "I think we (the police department) do a good job in terms of how we select, recruit, train officers and the whole gamut of discipline" of officers.
Given the department's recent track record, and the fact that the 10-year contract between the city of Las Vegas and Clark County to fund the review board will expire this year, is it time for the review board to close its doors and hoist a "Mission Accomplished" banner overhead?
Collins, spokesman for the police officers union, said the Internal Affairs Bureau holds officers accountable for misconduct, that the review board unnecessarily hurts officer morale by prolonging internal investigations and that tax money allocated to the board could be better spent elsewhere.
"There is nobody harder on the cops than the cops," Collins said. "I don't believe there should be a Citizen Review Board because our department investigates complaints against officers."
Review board members, supporters of the panel, such as the ACLU, and the police department itself do not agree with the union.
"It has definitely evolved," Flynn said of the department's relationship with the review board. "When they were first created to say there was tension and stress between the two organizations would be an understatement. I would say that today we have a good working relationship."
Flynn declined to give the review board credit for the decline in lawsuits against the police.
Instead, he said, the department has aggressively tackled such problems, and has revised training or policies in response. For instance, the number of traffic accidents involving officers dropped after the department established new pursuit policies, and the department is one of the few in the nation that prohibits officers from using Tasers to subdue handcuffed suspects, he said.
Peck said the police department has improved since the review board was established, but recent review board findings demonstrate there still is work to be done.
In one case, a jogger last year complained that an officer was rude during a routine traffic-safety stop. The review board found that internal affairs investigators inappropriately asked leading questions intended to illicit particular responses from the officer before exonerating him of wrongdoing. The police department concurred with the review board, changed the outcome of the police investigation and agreed to provide new training for internal affairs investigators. The new training started earlier this month, Flynn said.
Another case, Peck said, involved an inmate's complaint that four correctional officers used offensive language to describe his Islamic background, such as "Mad Muhammad" and "Insane Hussein," according to board findings. The officers denied making the statements, and internal affairs determined the complaint "not sustained" because there was not an objective witness.
The review board agreed with the findings, but also found the department's orders against racial profiling were inadequate. They forbid officers from engaging "in any law enforcement action" based on a person's race. The order did not expressly prohibit racial comments until the review board recommended that it should. The department amended the policy in late January to forbid biased "statements."
"Having a place besides the Internal Affairs Bureau, where people can go to lodge complaints against police, has been good for the complainants, the public and the police themselves," Peck said. "The review board is here. It's here to stay and it is a real positive for our community."
Contact reporter Frank Geary at fgeary @reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0277.
HOW TO FILE A COMPLAINT
Step-by-step process
1) A victim of police misconduct, a victim's parent or guardian, or a witness files a complaint form.
2) A review board screening panel determines whether the board has jurisdiction and whether the complaint has merit.
3) A screening panel dismisses complaints that don't have merit and refers remaining complaints either to the department's Internal Affairs Bureau or to a review board hearing panel.
4) Complaints forwarded to internal affairs are investigated and findings are sent to the screening panel. The screening panel can dismiss the complaint or forward it to the hearing panel.
5) The hearing panel reviews the complaint, releases its findings and makes recommendations to the department that could include disciplining an officer or revising policies.
SOURCE: Citizen Review Board
COMPARING COMPLAINTS
Year after year, the Metropolitan Police Department Citizen Review Board has received only a fraction of the complaints filed with the department's Internal Affairs Bureau.
YEAR REVIEW BOARD INTERNAL AFFAIRS
Complaints Complaints Allegations
2001 103 N/A N/A
2002 66 N/A N/A
2003 78 926 1,427
2004 119 839 1,310
2005 125 759 1,244
2006 107 711 1,315
2007 100 1,153 2,299
2008 95 1,006* 2,515*
A single complaint can include multiple allegations of misconduct against one or several officers.
* 2008 figures are preliminary according to Metropolitan Police Department Internal Affairs Bureau.
SOURCES: Citizen Review Board and Internal Affairs Bureau
CITIZEN REVIEW BOARD TIMELINE / HIGHLIGHTS
1997
The Nevada Legislature enacts a law allowing local communities to establish civilian review boards for police departments.
1999
Despite opposition from the Metropolitan Police Department and the officers union, the Clark County Commission and the Las Vegas City Council vote to establish the Citizen Review Board.
2000
The City Council and County Commission hire an executive director for the Citizen Review Board and appoint board members from a field of 350 applicants.
2001
The board reviews a complaint from an amateur umpire that an off-duty officer threatened him with a gun following a disagreement at a softball game. The review board determines an internal investigation by the officer's sergeant was a whitewash and that the officer should not have been cleared. An internal affairs commander agrees and recommends the supervisor be fired. Instead, the department suspends the sergeant temporarily.
2003
The review board investigates a claim involving an off-duty officer who engaged in a high-speed chase as part of an ongoing feud with a teenage neighbor. Internal affairs investigates a claim that the officer cursed at the teenager, but an investigator tells the board that he dismissed the complaint because he knows the officer is a devout member of his church and would not curse at anyone. The board recommends that internal investigators excuse themselves from cases involving officers they personally know. The police department does not revise policy as recommended, but officers now are required to contact their supervisors immediately when involved in an off-duty dispute.
The review board recommends that the police department suspend two correctional officers for throwing a firecracker into a cell holding inmates. The officers are not terminated.
Despite lacking jurisdiction over the police department's civilian personnel, the board recommends that dispatchers treat all phone callers with courtesy and respect. However, no formal change in policy results.
In response to a complaint from a jail inmate, the review board recommends that jail administration not destroy surveillance video for at least 90 days. Previously, the jail had kept footage for 30 days. The police department follows the recommendation.
The review board investigates a complaint that a correctional officer forged and cashed his girlfriend's last paycheck after she died; the $3,700 should have gone to her parents. Internal affairs explains that the officer was simply going through a difficult period, and declines to punish. The review board disagrees and recommends punishment. Sheriff Bill Young is prepared to suspend the officer without pay for two weeks, but the department's Labor Management board overturns the suspension by 3-2 vote. The latter board consisted of two deputy police chiefs, two police union officials and a citizen.
2004
A judge determines longtime petty thief Sheila Green is a habitual criminal and gives her five life sentences. The review board determines her arrest was unlawful, and that the arresting officer's court testimony was misleading after a casino videotape shows she did not consent to his searching her purse and that he did not read Green her Miranda rights as he had testified. Moments before the state Supreme Court is scheduled to hear her appeai in January 2005, the district attorney agrees to release Green. Internal affairs investigates but doesn't view the videotape. Sheriff Bill Young agrees with the review board findings, disciplines the officer, criticizes the internal investigation and revises the department's "vague" policies on searches.
The Las Vegas Police Protective Association in District Court challenges the review board's authority to subpoena officers to testify in connection with a complaint against an officer accused of conducting an unlawful search of a jailed suspect's apartment. The union appeals a District Court ruling in favor of the review board, but the state Supreme Court in 2006 upholds the board's authority to subpoena officers.
In response to a complaint from a jail inmate, the review board recommends that jail administrators curtail delays between the time an injured or ill inmate is diagnosed and the time they receive treatment. But formal policies reflect no such revision, according to the review board.
2005
The review board recommends officers be terminated after a man is charged with possession of drugs that a canine officer had placed in the man's car as a training exercise for his drug-sniffing dog. The review board finds that two arresting officers knowingly filed a false report and provided misleading testimony. Canine officers claim the training is invaluable for dogs, but Sheriff Bill Young stops the exercise permanently and the police department revises policies regarding vehicle searches.
2008
Reflecting the review board's growing frustration with internal affairs investigations, the review board rules that the internal investigator asked leading questions to an officer accused of being rude and argumentative with a jogger during a traffic-safety stop. Internal affairs investigators, who originally exonerated the officer, were called to testify before the review board about their investigation. The review board determined that lacking an objective third-party witness, internal affairs should have ruled the accusation was not sustained rather than exonerate the officer. The police department agreed to provide more training to investigators.
2009
In a bold move not seen relating to many police departments, review board Executive Director Andrea Beckman proposes that the review board establish an "Audit Committee" consisting of a few members. If the proposal takes root, the committee, on a random basis, would review a handful of internal affairs investigations to see whether there are patterns of police misconduct or if investigative techniques could be improved. The committee would not release the names of officers, or open old investigations.
Metropolitan Police Department Citizen Review Board Web site
