Civilian Oversight: A People's Report 2020

Types of Oversight

Civilian Oversight has developed in three historical waves:

• Mid 20th Century--Civilian review of complaints against officers

• 1960s-1980s--More independence for review boards, greater budgets, some professional staff

• 1990s--Auditor/Monitor model focusing on patterns of complaints, critical incidents, policies and practices

(Cont'd)

Types of Oversight Cont'd

Civilian Oversight Agencies can be grouped roughly into three types, based on their powers:

• Independent Investigative Oversight--parallels or replaces Internal Affairs

• Review Model--reviews completed IAD investigations, hears appeals, and recommends discipline

• Auditor/Monitor Model--focus on organizational change through attention to broad patterns of complaints, policy and procedure recommendations

(Cont'd)

Types of Oversight: Strengths and Weaknesses

Struggle for Creation--A Timeline

(Use Space Bar to Reveal)

Feb 2020--New COB Commissioner sworn in

2007--COB bill passes but Mayor Slay vetoes

2000-State enabling statute allows for COB

2018--Subpoena Power Passed

2001--Intro by Alder Terry Kennedy of first bill

May, 2016-- First complaint filed

Jan, 2016--COB Board Sworn In

1999--CAPCR begins research on Civilian Oversight

April, 2015--COB Ordinance Passes

1980s and 90s--Annual State Bills by Charles "Quincy" Troope for Local Control

2013--St. Louis gets Local Control

Passage

• Headed into 2015, CAPCR and Alderman Kennedy were already poised to pass the bill for Civilian Oversight. The Ferguson Uprising created the final push, with the City leaders wanting to show they were doing something.

• Still, it took twelve hours of negotiation to come up with final language the mayor would support.

Passage

• In those negotiations we lost subpoena power, but got the requirement that all documents had to be turned over, all interviews were to be taped and the tapes turned over, and COB had the right to sit in on civilian interviews.

• We lost the right for COB to have its own attorneys, but got the requirement that the city attorney assigned to COB be separated from any other police-related work.

• We lost the right of Alders to appoint some COB members, but got a hybrid system where Alders recommend candidates, the mayor choses seven nominees, and the Alders have final right of approval.

Passage

• The bill creating the COB passed with a 17-8 vote on April 20, 2015

• It was signed by Mayor Francis Slay on May 6, 2015.

Board Selection

Staff

Training and Procedures

Civilian Compaint Review

Civilian Compaint Review

• When someone files a complaint, either with the COB or the police, it goes to the police Internal Affairs Division for investigation.

• COB investigators can sit in on civilian interviews and suggest questions.

• If you file with the police, however, you have to specifically ask for the joint form. If you do not, your complaint is put on a police form and never gets to the COB.

Civilian Compaint Review

• When the IAD investigation is complete, they must turn over all documents, tapes of interviews and allow access to all physical evidence.

• COB staff reviews the investigation, then makes a presentation and recommendations to the COB members.

• The COB members vote to agree or disagree with IAD's findings and make their own recommendations for discipline to the Chief of Police.

• If they find the IAD investigation incomplete, they can return it to IAD for further investigation as many times as necessary.

Independent Investigations

• If the COB decides that IAD is simply not doing their job adequately, they can vote to do an independent investigation.

• During the independent investigation, the COB is most likely to utilize their newly achieved subpoena power. Neither an independent investigation nor subpoena power have been deemed necessary to date.

Policies and Procedures Review

The COB has a second major power beside that of reviewing complaints--it can investigate police "policies, procedures and operations" and make recommendations for changes.

Many of the more modern oversight boards have found this power to be most effective in creating broad systemic change in police departments.

Access to Officer Statements

Officer statements, while under departmental or COB investigation, stir much controversy.

Because officers can be fired for not talking to the Internal Affairs Department (IAD), their statements can't be used against them in court. This protects their right not to incriminate themselves.

But the statements can be used to investigate violations of police policies, which is what the COB does.

(Cont'd)

Access to Officer Statements

During the negotiations for the COB legislation, we won the right for the COB to see these officer statements.

In 2016, members of the St. Louis Police Officers Association sued to keep these statements from the COB. Negotiations ensued, and with SLPOA blessings the Civil Service Commission (in charge of officer discipline) ruled that the COB could receive the transcripts of officer statements.

Since then, the police department has agreed to turn over the video tapes as well.

User Friendly Intake

People with complaints can file with either the Internal Affairs Division (IAD) or the COB. Having a friendly and cooperative COB to take complaints is a step forward that should not be underestimated.

IAD has been notorious for turning people away, intimidating them into incomplete statements, etc.

The COB has tried to be welcoming, helpful and responsive. We hear anecdotally that they are succeeding, but a customer satisfaction survey would be enlightening.

Changing IAD Practice

Early on, the COB saw that IAD interviews were conducted more like interrogations of the complainants.

The COB has worked to change the nature of IAD's interactions with civilians, and have reported much success.

Though we still hear of some interviews that are antagonistic, change seems to be underway. We'll need to stay tuned.

(Cont'd)

Changing IAD Practice

...Still, this is an example of one of the benefits of a COB process that is not wholly separate from the police. If COB members and staff are willing to push for improvements, they can be effective in changing police culture.

Legal Glitches--Joint Intake Form

When it comes to intake of complaints, the police have been able to exploit a lack of clarity in the original COB ordinance.

That ordinance says the COB and police need to create a Joint Intake Form, and assumes both agencies will use it. However, it does not specify that the police have to use it.

As a result, if you go to the COB to file your complaint, they use the Joint Intake Form and the process for investigation and review begins.

If you file with the police, however, you have to specifically ask for the joint form. If you do not, your complaint is put on a police form and never gets to the COB. The COB reports that police currently have no joint forms.

This has to be fixed through an amendment to the ordinance,

if SLMPD refuses to comply with the clear spirit of the language.

https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/internal-apps/legislative/upload/Ordinances/BOAPdf/ordinance69984.pdf

COB Ordinance (Click on Red):

(Cont'd)

Legal Glitches--Shooting Death Investigations

1) Third Party Complaints:

When they wrote their Policies and Procedures Manual, the COB specified they would not receive third party complaints--you had to be directly involved in the incident. This created a problem when a police shooting results in death--there is no one to file a complaint.

2) The COB ordinance states that the COB will receive both the police investigation and the Circuit Attorney investigation of incidents involving police shootings.

But when the shooting results in death there is no complaint and no instructions as to whether the COB will do anything with those investigations.

The COB needs clear authority to act; again, an ordinance amendment is needed.

(Cont'd)

Legal Glitches--Basis for Policy Review

The COB ordinance grants authority for the COB to review and report on "policies, procedures and operations" of the police department. It specifically states that these reviews do not have to be based on any specific report.

However, the state statute that enables the creation of the COB does not mention this power. The COB, therefore, is unsure whether it must tie any review of policies to a specific complaint.

This lack of clarity is hindering their ability to look at some policy issues. The fix involves an amendment to the state statute.

State Enabling Statute (Click on Red):

http://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=590.653

Legal Glitches--Public Testimony

The COB ordinance requires public hearings in the Public Safety Committee for the appointment of COB members.

However, it does not require an opportunity for public testimony. At the last several such hearings, the public was not allowed to weigh in on the re-appointment of members, and there has been no opportunity to tell the alders how things are going with the COB.

If alders fail to allow public testimony as a regular practice, the ordinance should be amended.

Closed Personnel Records

Missouri is known as having good Sunshine laws, but it gives police departments the right to close personnel records. All police departments do this.

As a result, the COB is severely limited when discussing complaints in public. Review of cases happens in closed session. The COB has been slowly opening up the public discussions--they now give a summary of the case, and upon completion they also give IAD's finding as well as their own.

Still, greater transparency is the goal. If police won't change this policy, we need to change the city ordinance to open these records further (maybe when a complaint is sustained) or change the state statute. Names of officers and civilians could still be redacted.

Areas For Growth--Training

The COB ordinance calls for furthering training in line with best practices.

Staff and some COB members have attended some regional and national events, and they have consulted with other oversight boards. Nevertheless, the COB has not benefited from a full curriculum of trainings, despite an extensive offering of subject matter (such as a Know Your Rights workshop) and local trainers compiled by CAPCR.

(Cont'd)

CAPCR Training recommendations (Click Red)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Dfnb_5X9k2A-V8WPmM8MAawLPUNdh4ob9XYBOEgiba8/edit?usp=sharing

Areas For Growth--Training

CAPCR has recommended that the COB meet this need, and make its public meetings serve a more educational function, by inviting community experts to do 30-45 minute training presentations at each meeting.

To date, the COB has not acted on this suggestion.

Areas For Growth--Public Education

The COB ordinance makes clear the COB has a responsibility to do public education.

To that end, staff members met with a large number of community groups--126 through December 2017(!!)-- and have now issued three annual and one semi-annual report. The pace unfortunately slowed to only 48 contacts in 2018, with the vast majority again being conducted by staff.

COB members, however, have not hosted a single public town hall to talk about the COB process and gather community perspectives--especially from those most affected by police misconduct or unhealthy policies.

As a result, many community members do not know of the COB or think that it is not accomplishing anything.

Areas For Growth--Policy Review

The COB authority to review police "policies, procedures and operations" has the potential to create great change in police culture.

In 2017, the COB did make some of these recommendations, and the ensuing responses from the Chief of Police are published in the annual report and summarized later in this presentation. The Chief's responses provide good case studies and insight into police thinking.

(Cont'd)

Areas For Growth--Policy Review

As stated earlier, there are legal questions surrounding whether the COB has the authority to do these policy, procedures and operations reviews without a tie to a specific complaint.

For that reason, the COB did not act on recommendations for policy review when the Ethical Society of Police issued a report in 2016.

(Cont'd)

Areas For Growth--Policy Review

However, there were specific complaints about police responses to protests in the fall of 2017, and even a call from the mayor for the COB to look into the police response, and still the COB did not act.

This was a missed opportunity for the COB to weigh in on a major issue, push for change, and raise its profile in the community.

Areas For Growth--Short Filing Period

The COB originally created under its own policies a rule allowing only a 90 day period to file complaints after the date of an incident.

This was not enough time for those jailed, those wanting to take care of legal filings first, or a host of other reasons. To their credit, the COB staff has made itself quite visible in the city jail.

In 2020, the COB revoked this rule, for which they should be commended.

Areas For Growth--Police Chief Response

The COB ordinance requires that the police chief respond to COB recommendations, and that he explain his reasoning if he disagrees with them.

Under Interim Police Chief O'Toole, a period of approximately 8 months, the SLMPD was extremely slow with these responses.

In 2018, COB Commissioner Barton was confident that things were moving in the right direction under Chief Hayden.

Areas For Growth--Community Initiative

Some of the responsibility for growth has to lie with the community.

It took years of grassroots pressure to get the COB established.

CAPCR has studied too many cities where the people win a victory, celebrate, and then turn their attention elsewhere.

It takes ongoing work to "oversee the oversight board" and keep it responsive to community concerns.

COB meetings are the third Monday of every month, 5 pm at 1520 Market St. Room 4029

Complaint Protocols--Classifications

Complaint Protocols

Complaints must be filed within 90 days; waivers may be granted for exceptional circumstances*

No third party complaints*

Complaints may be filed with the COB (1520 Market, Rm 430) or with the SLMPD

Procedures Manual

(Click box)

* (created by COB, not the actual ordinance)

https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/departments/public-safety/civilian-oversight-board/documents/upload/COB-Operational-and-Procedural-Manual-FINAL-16_4_18.pdf

Complaint Protocols--Dispositions

2016--Number of Complaints

The COB began taking complaints in May, 2016.

19 Complaints were accepted; 10 were denied

Complaints are denied if they did not occur, were untimely, fell outside COB jurisdiction, or did not involve a St. Louis officer

2016--Complaint Classifications

2017--Numbers of Complaints

The COB accepted 42 complaints in 2017; 12 were denied for not happening or not involving a St. Louis officer.

The number of complaints was up in 2017 since this was the COB's first full year, and due to the Stockley protests.

2017--Complaint Classifications

2017--Complaint Classifications

These numbers seem to be erroneous. For instance 18 cases of Excessive Force is 30.5% of the 59 cases listed, not 43.8% as claimed.

We need this part of the annual report clarified.

2017--COB's Complaint Dispositions

(Cont'd)

2017--IAD's Complaint Dispositions (Cont'd)

The Disposition graph shows only 1 out of 43 complaints sustained. This appears rather abysmal.

We can add to that another complaint not sustained by IAD but where the COB disagreed.

(Cont'd)

2017--IAD's Complaint Dispositions (Cont'd)

Taking into account the 29 complaints that are pending, no jurisdiction, withdrawn or non-compliant, the COB ruled in favor of the complainant 14.3% of the time.

This is a high sustain rate, given the realities that most complaints are one person's version vs. another's, and can't be proven.

2017--Complaints by District

(Cont'd)

2017--Complaints by District (Cont'd)

The COB states that the large number of complaints in the Fourth District are due to the Stockley protests.

The other two Districts with higher numbers are the 3rd and the 6th, both with large African American populations.

The stats on race and gender in our Demographic Comparisons section shed more light on which groups feel most targeted by police.

(Cont'd)

2017--Type of Complaints by District

(Cont'd)

2017--Type of Complaints by District (Cont'd)

We're not sure why the previous chart has a Racial Profiling category, since this is not one of the six classifications available.

Nevertheless, the numbers again track along racial lines (excluding the Stockley effect), with Excessive Use of Force having some of the highest numbers of complaints.

2018--Numbers of Complaints

The COB accepted 39 complaints in 2018; 18 were denied for not happening or not involving a St Louis officer.

The total number was up in 2018 by 3 complaints.

2018--Complaint Classifications

2018--Complaint Classifications

These stats can't be compared to 2017, since last year's report contained erroneous numbers.

2018--IAD's Complaint Dispositions

2018--IAD's Complaint Dispositions (Cont'd)

These numbers, much like last year's, appear to be abysmal. No complaints were sustained. However, this record is somewhat mitigated through closer analysis. Out of 39 complaints, 35 were pending, withdrawn, unfounded (did not happen) non-cooperative, exonerated (the alleged conduct is not a violation) or were outside COB jurisdiction.

(Cont'd)

2018--IAD's Complaint Dispositions (Cont'd)

Out of the 4 remaining, 1 went to mediation. That leaves only 3 unsustained.

The record is more understandable in that context. Still, the COB did not disagree with IAD one time this year. It did return several cases as needing more information, and an update for 2017 shows the COB agreeing with one IAD finding of Sustained that had been pending.

2018--Complaints by District

Note: Some complaints had more than one classifcation

2018--Complaints by District (Cont'd)

Northside districts had more than twice the complaints of Southside districts--an indication of systemic racism impacting our black communities.

The high number of discourtesy complaints in the Fourth District also bears further investigation. This same district had the highest number of Excessive Use of Force complaints.

Demographics--Gender of Complainants

2016

13

6

6

0

Demographics--Race of Complainants

(Cont'd)

Demographics--Race of Complainants (Cont'd)

In 2016, Blacks filed almost 5 times as many complaints.

In 2017, Black complaints were still 41% higher than Whites, despite the Stockley protest.

In 2018, Black complaints were 2.3

times higher than whites.

(Cont'd)

Demographics--Race of Officers

In 2016, White officers who were the subject of complaints outnumbered Blacks 24-5--almost five times higher. In 2017 the ratio of White to Black officers was reduced to 2.2 times higher (28 to 13).

In 2018, White officers outnumbered Blacks 30-6--again five times higher.

The SLMPD is roughly 80% White.

Demographics--Age

The age of complainants roughly follows a typical bell curve each year, with the highest number coming from the 35-49 year old group.

The age of involved officers skewed younger. 25-34 was the biggest group in 2016 and 2018, with 35-49 somewhat higher in 2017.

This younger grouping may reflect the demographics of officers on the street, and may also speak to inexperience.

2017 Policy Recommendations

1) The COB determined that an officer had used more force than was required. They recommended that an officer review footage of an incident and receive re-instruction in the Use of Force Continuum.

A) The SLMPD disagreed. They said the event had been reviewed during their Action Review and that the officer's actions were justified. He did not need re-instruction.

2) As a result of another complaint, the COB recommended: “In the event of an assault allegation, where an injury has occurred, a police incident report will be written.”

A) The SLMPD disagreed. They said that such a requirement would negate an officer's ability to investigate and use discretion. Officer decisions are then reviewed for correctness.

(Cont'd)

2017 Policy Recommendations (Cont'd)

3) The COB recommended that “all subjects experiencing the TASER, who are in police custody, that have been Tased three (3) times or more be taken to the hospital for evaluation before being taken to the Justice Center." The current policy requires 4 tasings before a hospital visit.

A) The SLMPD disagreed. They said it was enough that all those subject to tasing are evaluated by a nurse at the Justice Center. However, they iniated a policy change to specify that anyone exposed to a taser burst longer than 15 seconds be taken to the hospital.

(Cont'd)

2017 Policy Recommendations (Cont'd)

4) The COB recommended that all statements made to IAD when an officer is being investigated should be audio and video recorded. Further, the COB disagreed with IAD findings that no police report was needed when a resident called in reports of harassment and flourishing a weapon.

A) The SLMPD disagreed. They simply maintained that there was not enough evidence to sustain the complaint. As to officer statements, they stated that audio/video recording is preferred especially for serious cases, written documentation is sufficient and sometimes more practical for less serious offenses.

The ordinance creating the COB requires that all such interviews be audio/video recorded.

(Cont'd)

2017 Policy Recommendations (Cont'd)

The SLMPD did not accept any of the policy recommendations of the COB nor did they agree with COB findings when COB disagreed with IAD.

CAPCR agrees with the COB that injuries requiring hospitalization should be reported, that we should err on the side of caution when people are tased, and that IAD interviews should be audio/video recorded (as required by law, no less). Without more facts, it is hard to tell if an officer should have had further Use of Force instruction. It is revealing, none the less, to hear SLMPD's thinking and to be shown relevant policies. This is a new level of transparency.

Time will tell if SLMPD becomes more open to constructive criticism, and the community will hopefully respond accordingly.

CAPCR will continue to urge the COB to take on larger policy issues stemming from larger patterns of complaints as their database of cases expands.

2018 Policy Recommendations

1) COB was not properly notified about a complaint interview and therefore could not properly monitor it. They recommended that IAD take proper notice of COB ordinance requirements.

As of mid 2019, they had not had a response from the Chief of Police--again, an ordinance requirement.

2) The COB recommended that when IAD determines that a policy has been violated or followed, it make reference to the specific relevant policy.

As of mid 2019, they had not had a response from the Chief of Police.

(Cont'd)

2018 Policy Recommendations (Cont'd)

3) The COB recommended that SLMPD create a policy, where when appropriate, police be permitted upon recovery of a stolen vehicle to release the vehicle to its owner ONLY AFTER informing the owner of options. This would require giving the option for an owner to pick up their vehicle at a scene, if no other crime has occurred, or to have the vehicle towed to be processed for fingerprints. This may include a waiver form to be signed by the owner prior to being released if the vehicle is not going to be towed for further processing.

As of mid 2019, they had not had a response from the Chief of Police.

(Cont'd)

2018 Policy Recommendations (Cont'd)

4) The COB recommended that officer(s) should refrain from giving legal advice with respect to obtaining a civil restraining order in matters OTHER THAN domestic situations.

As of mid 2019, they had not had a response from the Chief of Police.

In most of these cases, the Chief had many many months to respond before the 2018 report was issued. The fact that he is ignoring his legal responsibilities is unacceptable.

Vision (Cont'd)

The COB needs to do its proper training to become expert advocates for fair policing, and it needs to be out and about--visibly interacting with those it represents.

The community needs to play an active role in COB member selection, and in providing feedback to the COB.

(Cont'd)

Vision (Cont'd)

The COB must step up its game when it comes to policy recommendations.

Use of force policy,SWAT, Problem-Solving Policing, Stop and Frisk and Transparency all need to be addressed. If the COB begins to weigh in on these types of important issues, they could help transform the SLMPD.

(Cont'd)

Vision (Cont'd)

The COB must be truly independent.

So far we have had Directors of Public Safety who have let the COB do its job. But the Oversight Board should not have as its boss the same person who oversees the police. That is a basic conflict of interests.

(Cont'd)

Vision (Cont'd)

To create needed independence, the COB should be located in a new city department--the Department of Civilian Oversight (DCO).

The DCO could also house the Force Investigative Unit that investigates police shootings, thereby moving it out of the SLMPD sphere of influence.

We could even add an Oversight Board to handle complaints from the City Jails--institutions that now provide little recourse for prisoners.

(Cont'd)

Vision (Cont'd)

It's not enough to dismiss the COB because it has not been as visible as we would hope. It's not enough to decide it can do nothing because it does not do everything.

The COB gives us a new playing field to fight for our rights--a platform and leverage that we did not have before.

It's up to us to use those tools to our advantage, or explain to our children why we failed to do so.