Civilian Review of Police Actions – Part III

In this final installment, I’ll look at the implementation of civilian review in one city, Boise, Idaho’s Office of the Community Ombudsman.

The ombudsman’s office officially opened in 1999.  As the commander of police Internal Affairs, I was the person who would have the most direct contact with the ombudsman, Pierce Murphy. Mr. Murphy and I had worked out procedures for handling cases, most notably how to deal with someone who might want to ‘stack the deck’ by filing complaints with both the ombudsman and internal affairs. I felt it was one of our significant accomplishments that we agreed we would not allow that to happen.

In the enabling ordinance, the ombudsman was empowered to review the work of the internal affairs staff and our processes. Therefore, even if a complaint was received first by IA and rejected by the ombudsman as a duplication, the spirit of civilian oversight would still be in place.

 

Police Officers’ Reactions

At first, most officers were skeptical of the Ombudsman.  In trying to convince citizens that he was not ‘in the pocket’ of the police department, some of the ombudsman’s contacts with officers appeared to be more accusatory than investigative. Experience has shown that this is not unusual with new civilian review authorities seeking to establish their place. But it must also be remembered that IA units face much of the same criticism at times. No one likes to have their actions, and particularly their motives, questioned. Both internal affairs staff and civilian review staff, if they are doing their job, will encounter natural resistance. The challenge is to determine the difference between natural resistance to being questioned and attempts to divert inquiry of potential violations.

 

Long Term

In my view, the Boise iteration of civilian review has been a success. Mr. Murphy developed a track record of ‘calling it like he saw it.’  In some cases, he incurred the wrath of some citizens when he pronounced the actions of a police officer to be within policy, even though ‘popular opinion’ pushed for punishment.

While it was not specifically authorized in the ordinance, the police chief, during my tenure as Internal Affairs commander, directed that I would review the Ombudsman’s investigations for thoroughness and accuracy before the chief would take action on his findings. This helped some officers to feel that police administration was not just taking the conclusions of the ombudsman without ensuring that he was being as objective as he expected the police department to be. In so doing, I never found areas where I felt the ombudsman was not being forthright in his investigations. When we did have differences, they were of the category of different but equally valid interpretations of the meaning of certain evidence.

While there are certainly complaints of civilian review authorities not dealing objectively with the police departments they are charged with overseeing, it is my opinion that, as least under Mr. Murphy, that was not the case in Boise.

In June, 2013, Pierce Murphy left the office to assume a similar position with the Seattle Police Department. As of this posting, his position has not been filled with a permanent replacement.

 

For More Information

The most significant organization for civilian review of police actions is NACOLE, the National Association for Civilian Review of Law Enforcement. Nearly all civilian review authority staff are members of this association. If a city is considering the implementation of civilian review, or someone just wants more information about best practices, this is the place I would recommend going.

 

 

If you are enjoying these posts, consider subscribing to email updates. You’ll receive the text of new posts  when a new article is posted and you can opt out at any time.

The post Civilian Review of Police Actions – Part III appeared first on .