The thought that keeps popping up to me is how did the Department of justice provide these recommendations. More specifically, how did these issues come to light? Did these come become the San Diego police department and the City Attorney caught an issue and said it needed to be changed? If you go back and review you will see these local agencies deny any wrongdoing and defend actions.
It was criminal defense and civil rights attorneys who battled to finally give the government no choice that the status quo was wrong. When I see SDPD claiming to make changes did they lead the way or did they go kicking and screaming?
Failures in the hiring and supervision of San Diego police led to a series of misconduct cases, but the Police Department remains “progressive, sound and very effective,” according to a federal review released Tuesday.
Many of the department’s problems can be traced to the city’s ongoing financial problems and a lack of personnel that led to inadequate supervision and poor communication between various levels of command, said Ronald Davis, director of the Department of Justice’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
The department has had “a failure of leadership at many levels” that caused a “failure to hold people accountable,” Davis said.
San Diego police chief gives public a role in her reform strategy
The 85-page report contains 40 recommendations, many of which have been implemented in the last year under former Chief Bill Lansdowne and current Chief Shelley Zimmerman with the support of Mayor Kevin Faulconer and the City Council.
The recommendations include more-rigorous background checks of police applicants, a consistent hiring process, more openness with community groups, a quicker and more in-depth review of citizen complaints, and better supervision of officers by sergeants and lieutenants.
“The good news is that we are already making progress on many of the recommendations,” Faulconer said.
No single failure led to the 17 cases of misconduct over five years that were examined, Davis said. The managerial audit was requested 12 months ago by San Diego city officials, including Lansdowne, Zimmerman and Faulconer.
Zimmerman said she supports all the recommendations.
A key criticism in the report involved a failure to detect problem officers at the earliest moment. The system meant to do that was ineffective, the report said.
For example, the report said, in many cases an acting sergeant will see an officer under his command only once a week.
“We are completely revamping that system,” Zimmerman said. “That’s one that’s going to take some time and some money.”
Brian Marvel, president of the San Diego Police Officers Assn., said that given a decade of budget cuts, severe constraints on hiring and retention of officers, and declining morale among officers, it would be “naive … to assume there wouldn’t be the types of negative consequences” mentioned in the report.
City Council members responded positively to the review.
“I look forward to additional measures for true accountability and transparency that will help rebuild the trust that was tarnished by the egregious and illegal acts by some and the poor management by others,” Councilman Todd Gloria said.
An attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union said that although the recommendations seem good, the report was “too narrow to be a real comprehensive review of the department.”
ACLU attorney Kellen Russoniello said the report’s “failure to address broader issues such as racial bias in policing is inexplicable” in the aftermath of the incidents in New York and Ferguson, Mo.
He noted that a recent study of traffic stops in San Diego showed that black and Latino drivers were stopped and searched in high percentages – but that the issue is not addressed in the report.
When the Department of Justice review was requested, allegations of racial profiling were not as high profile as other concerns about the Police Department.
An outside study years earlier had been inconclusive about whether profiling exists. Only recently have figures shown a disparity among racial and ethnic groups, leading City Council members this month to call for a study by academics.
Zimmerman has warned officers against racial profiling in traffic stops and has taken a tough stand against officers “guilty of misconduct and betrayal of our badge and profession.”
She has visited dozens of community gatherings in hopes of regaining trust for the department damaged by the misconduct cases, which include off-duty domestic violence and drunk driving as well as on-duty sexual assault of female motorists.
Among the changes made in the last year: An increasing number of patrol officers are wearing body cameras, and a professional-standards unit has been reestablished to investigate potential misconduct. Officers have been told they must report potential misconduct by others, that the “blue wall of silence” will not be permitted.
Officers have been told not to routinely ask motorists during traffic stops if they are on parole or probation. They have also been told not to order motorists to sit on the curb during questioning.
Whenever a woman is taken into custody, two officers must be in the police car.
Anthony Arevalos was an 18-year veteran of the department sentenced in 2012 to eight years in prison for demanding sexual favors from women stopped for driving infractions.
“I never want to see another Anthony Arevalos be employed by us or any other city,” City Atty. Jan Goldsmith said at a news conference unveiling the report.
At the behest of the Department of Justice, the review was done by the private nonprofit group Police Executive Research Forum, which has done numerous studies of policy and tactical issues involving law enforcement in the United States.
The full article can be found here.