August 17, 2006

City Council, IPA, SJPD discuss police chief’s report

Police department to review responses to inquiries, complaints

By Carol Rosen
Staff Writer

The San Jose City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to ask the San Jose Police Department to study, review and change—if and where necessary—how the department reacts and follows through on inquiries and complaints about the department.

The measure followed a long discussion involving Police Chief Rob Davis’ memo response to a Civil Grand Jury report on racial profiling along with comments by the Independent Police Auditor (IPA), Barbara Attard.

Davis said that while the department agreed with some of the findings it did not agree with others and that he felt that any study into department practices should be conducted by the police department itself.

“Any study [that is conducted] belongs in the Police Department….to recommend an outside agency to come back and tell us [what to do] is inappropriate. We are willing to study our polices and procedures, but we need to be in on any changes.”

Attard agreed, saying the department should take the lead. But it was City Manager Les White who cut through the red tape and suggested that since the department has “generally worked effectively in the past, there may be a need to tweak [their policies] but certainly not overhaul them.”

He then called for a review of the policies used for inquires and complaints that would be led by the Police Department with the IPA involved. “ The IPA will be involved. It will review and define inquiries and complaints and clarify or confirm how they are processed.”

White also explained that it would be a good idea to define what racial profiling is because “it’s a very difficult area to measure and assess.” In addition, he said it would be a good idea to compare SJPD with other police departments “to confirm and validate that SJPD is doing its job well.”

In response to a question from Vice Mayor and District 3 Councilwoman Cindy Chavez, Davis noted that the department’s offices have taken an active role in the community. “We have a philosophy or an attitude that all officers share the problems in the areas they police.”

Grand Jury findings
The discussion and resultant recommendations were prompted by a 2005-06 Grand Jury report on racial profiling following allegations from individuals and community organizations suggesting the SJPD shot at or beat up members of racial/ethnic minorities. The Grand Jury presented eight findings and recommendations.

The first Grand Jury finding was that there is a level of intentional or unintentional intimidation by officers in vehicle and pedestrian stops for minor violations. The Grand Jury recommended the department establish a program where officers provide, when possible, business cards to the civilian with the officer’s name and badge number as well as contact information for SJPD, Internal Affairs and the IPA office.

The department disagreed. “What needs to be considered is the fact the department handled over 393,000 calls for service and many more informal contacts with the public in 2005, and of all the citizens-to-police contacts, just over 31,062 or 7.9 percent involved making an arrest or issuing a citation,” according to the memo.

The department already requires officers to provide identification, under C 1409 of the police Duty Manual, Davis’ memo stated.

The second Grand Jury finding is that many people don’t report “perceived abuses or incidents of racial profiling due to concerns about retribution from the SJPD.”

It recommended an added communication channel, in addition to Internal Affairs and the IPA office, which would be confidential. It also suggested using ethnic officers to put individuals more at ease when making complaints.
The department also disagrees with this recommendation. “There is no evidence that the SJPD has engaged in any retaliation because of a racial profiling complaint,” according to the Davis memo.

In addition, “the department has already taken several steps over the years to ensure that those who want to make a complaint feel comfortable doing so…The department also continues to seek and recruit individuals who represent all the communities in San Jose,” said the memo.

IPA included?
The Grand Jury found that while Internal Affairs and the IPA share complaints, only Internal Affairs conducts formal investigations. The Jury felt that IPA’s role should be expanded to include investigative duties. Like the recommendation passed by the City Council, the Jury suggested a review of similar police audit functions in other large cities providing a model to augment the IPA’s scope.

Davis’ memo said the SJPD doesn’t think changes to the IPA office are necessary. The City Council studied and reviewed IPA investigative responsibility in 1993, when they established the office, the memo said. The Municipal Code authorizes IPA to interview civilian witnesses and attend Internal Affairs interviews. The IPA, according to the memo, is a model program. “There is no compelling reason to change what has become a very successful model for police oversight,” the memo said.

The Grand Jury also recommended that a task force determine whether the city requires a Civilian Review Board. Citing the department’s response to the third Grand Jury finding, Davis wanted to know why the city would change something that currently works well?

The police chief overwhelmingly supports the Grand Jury recommendation that SJPD training continue to include participation in community outreach programs. Such programs have been part of the department for 14 years, Davis said, and the department has reached out to various ethnic groups in the area. In addition, the SJPD Video Unit is currently putting together training videos to address all the various ethnic minorities in the San Jose community.

Entertainment Zone questions
The Grand Jury found that policing costs in the Entertainment Zone are high. During fiscal 2005-06, overtime costs are more than $800,000. In addition, these shifts create “stress, fatigue and performance degradation,” according to the Jury’s findings, which recommended the department reconsider shift schedules.

The Davis memo partially agrees with the Grand Jury findings, but states that rescheduling shifts won’t ease the need for SJPD to continue its Entertainment Zone overtime program. Shift times are based on citywide coverage needs. Overtime is not the answer, but until budgeting allows increased staffing, this program is the only way to address the problem, according to the memo.

Finding number seven is that the Entertainment Zone club owners and the police department have different priorities to maximize business profits and maintain order. The Jury recommended the clubs initiate staggered closings to alleviate street congestion.

Davis’ response was that the nightclub owners are “becoming much more aware that ensuring a downtown environment is safe is good for business and the department itself recognizes the importance of trying to help a business succeed.”

The Grand Jury’s eighth finding noted that the Youth Protection Curfew Ordinance is not widely enforced and recommended the city and SJPD work with community organizations to encourage parents to take responsibility in overseeing youth activities and promote adherence to curfew ordinances.

The memo’s response was that the curfew isn’t being systematically enforced because of budget cuts and lack of funding for the Youth Protection Team. The department has its priorities, said the memo, and its most important need is to respond to calls for service. The Community Services Division will continue programs that provide education to parents interested in their children’s safety.