|
|
|
| NEWS > 09 July 2007 |
Other related articles:
Police beating case that led t
MILWAUKEE -- Four police officers were part of a mob that brutally beat a man accused of stealing a badge that was never found, a federal prosecutor said Saturday in closing arguments in their trial.
Defense lawyers said witnesses who identified their clients were lying, drunk or couldn't remember correctly.
The four men are accused of violating the civil rights of Frank Jude Jr., 28, and friend Lovell Harris, 34, at a party for one of the officers in October 2004. Jude, who is biracial, and Harris, who is black, say they heard racial slurs from the group.
On trial a... Read more
|
 Article sourced from
|
|
San Francisco Chronicle - CA,
09 July 2007
This article appeared in the above title/site.
To view it in its entirity click this link.
|
|
Police stifle bill on discipli
Legislation that would increase Californians' access to police disciplinary records by rolling back a 2006 state Supreme Court ruling appears to be dead for the year -- the victim of formidable law enforcement opposition.
To win passage in 2007, the measure by state Senate Majority Leader Gloria Romero, D-Los Angeles, needs to clear the Assembly Public Safety Committee by Friday. However, the panel's chairman has scheduled no further hearings on the bill, which has already passed the state Senate.
Although the measure, SB1019, has the support of many community groups, newspapers, city officials, the American Civil Liberties Union and some members of police review agencies, it is also opposed by dozens of law enforcement groups.
The fight dates back to 2003, when the San Diego Union-Tribune sought to attend an administrative appeals hearing for a deputy sheriff who had been fired.
The deputy's lawyers objected, saying that under state law, disciplinary procedures for law enforcement officers were personnel matters and thus closed to the public unless an officer wanted them open.
The newspaper was barred from the hearing and went to court. Last year, in its Copley vs. Superior Court decision, the state Supreme Court ruled 6-1 that the public had no right to obtain records of administrative appeals in police disciplinary cases.
Although the ruling did not explicitly ban open hearings, local governments interpreted it as barring the public and media. As a result, the public has been shut out of disciplinary hearings in San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley and other cities that previously had open processes.
Under Romero's bill, any jurisdiction could return to practices it followed before the Copley decision.
Mark Schlosberg, director of the police practices program for the ACLU's Northern California chapter, said the bill is vital because "police officers wield an incredible amount of power in our society, including the power to use lethal force under certain circumstances. The public must have a right to know when that power is being abused and whether misconduct is being taken seriously."
Ron Cottingham, president of the Peace Officers Research Association of California, a group including more than 60,000 members from 750 public safety agencies, argued that the court concluded that "law enforcement associations are correct. These are supposed to be confidential hearings, and discretion rests with the officer over whether they are open."
It is not clear whether the two sides will be able to reach any agreement.
"I am not giving up on this year," Romero said. She said she could obtain a waiver enabling the measure to move forward later and stressed: "I am looking for input, amendments, language we could put into the bill."
Because the Romero measure is a two-year bill, it remains alive through next year's session.
The bill won Senate approval June 4, but at a hearing three weeks later, no one on the Assembly Public Safety Committee made a motion to put it to a vote.
Cottingham, whose alliance against the bill includes the state's potent prison guard union, said criminals could glean sensitive law enforcement information from open disciplinary hearings .
He also said he knew of instances when publicity about disciplinary charges had led to threats against officers. He declined to give specifics, saying, "To release that information, we'd be putting officers in danger."
Romero said, "The opposition has claimed a fear of officer safety, but they have not stepped forward with names, cases, threats. We have not seen it. This is not a credible threat."
Her bill, she said, would restore "a practice done for 30 years in parts of California."
Advocates of the Romero measure argue that the Copley decision gives police officers a greater cloak of secrecy than any other group of employees in the state.
"If lawyers are faithless to their trust, one can find out about it by looking on the Internet," said Merrick Bobb, an expert on police disciplinary systems who consults with law enforcement agencies. "The same is true for doctors and accountants, and the same rules should apply to law enforcement officials and perhaps even more so -- given that they have the power of the gun and badge."
In many ways, the wall that Romero hit with her legislation was predictable. The law enforcement lobby has long been powerful in the Capitol, not only because of its contribution clout but because of the weight its candidate endorsements carry.
In Senate floor debate, Romero said two law enforcement groups had made a political threat to oppose an initiative easing term limits for legislators if her bill passed. Backers are seeking signatures to place that measure on the February ballot.
Cottingham responded that Romero "overstated the contents of an e-mail" from the leader of one police group "who was not speaking for all law enforcement."
Romero has picked up high-profile support for her bill, including that of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton, San Francisco Sheriff Mike Hennessey and Theresa Sparks, president of the San Francisco Police Commission.
However, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom says he is taking no position on the bill, and Police Chief Heather Fong did not respond directly, instead issuing a statement saying she believes that an "officer facing discipline before the Police Commission should have the option of an open or closed hearing."
Nathan Ballard, Newsom's spokesman, said, "While the public certainly has the right to know the facts of police actions that are of concern, the fundamental right of due process is undermined when the public and the media are allowed a ringside seat at an employer's -- albeit a public employer's -- internal disciplinary process."
Ballard added that Newsom wants the opposing parties to work out legislation "that better balances these competing, fundamental interests."
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, a member of the Public Safety Committee, said, "Before we go overturning a Supreme Court decision, we need to thoroughly vet the issue."
Like Newsom, Ma has been endorsed in the past by the San Francisco Police Officers Association, which opposes Romero's bill.
She said she worries that undercover officers could be compromised by open disciplinary hearings.
The ACLU's Schlosberg, told of Ma's comments, said the bill allows "information that would jeopardize officer safety to be kept confidential."
Assemblyman Hector De La Torre, D-South Gate (Los Angeles County), another member of the committee, said that in his hometown the City Council holds closed hearings on personnel issues, then announces the reasons for its decisions and votes in public.
"To me, that makes a hell of a lot of sense," De La Torre said.
Schlosberg replied, "This bill allows local jurisdictions like South Gate the flexibility to decide what they want to do."
Cottingham said law enforcement representatives recently met to look at issues raised by the Romero bill. "There is no simple solution," he said, but he added that one possible approach involves requiring training for anyone appointed to a police review board.
For her part, Romero said: "I am going to press until this issue is settled. This issue is not going away."
|
| |
 EiP Comments:
|
|---|
| The subject of police discipli |
| |
* We have no wish to infringe the copyright of any newspaper or periodical. If you feel that we have done so then please contact us with the details and we will remove the article. The articles republished on this site are provided for the purposes of research , private study, criticism , review, and the reporting of current events' We have no wish to infringe the copyright of any newspaper , periodical or other works. If you feel that we have done so then please contact us with the details and where necessary we will remove the work concerned.
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
 |
Ethics in Policing, based in the UK, provide information and advice about the following:
Policing Research | Police News articles | Police Corruption | International Policing | Police Web Sites | Police Forum | Policing Ethics | Police Journals | Police Publications |
|
| |
|
