Davis Internal Review Process Under Scrutiny in Buzayan Case

In the latest in our periodic series that examines the Buzayan lawsuit, we examine the complaint against Sgt. Gina Anderson, who is in charge of the Davis Police Department's Internal Affairs Department (IAD).

When the Buzayans complained that Officer Ly's conduct was unlawful, the first thing they did was to file a formal complaint with the Davis Police Department. Every complaint filed proceeds to the IAD and Sgt. Gina Anderson.

According to the complaint, the Buzayans met with Anderson on June 28, 2005 where the minor told Anderson that her mother had been the one driving on the day in question.

It was Anderson's job to investigate the actions of Officers Hartz and Ly regarding the complaint. It is not the job of the IAD to continue a criminal investigation against the defendant. However, that is exactly what Anderson did during her IAD interview with the minor.

"But your mother has admitted to driving the car... So that would mean that if your citation was dismissed then your mother would be arrested... I just needed to let you know that if you are not the person who did it, she’s admitting to doing it, then your case will end up getting dismissed and we would end up arresting her."

In a May interview with KGO, the Buzayans' attorney, former San Francisco Supervisor Matt Gonzalez, says that the actions of Sgt Anderson were improper.

"They were putting a lot of pressure on her, and I don't think that's an appropriate way to conduct an internal investigation about whether or not a police officer has conducted himself properly."

It is very important that the public understands that the job of the IAD, Sgt. Anderson in this case, is to ascertain whether or not the officers involved in this case--Hartz and Ly--acted properly. It is not her job to interrogate the witness. It is not her job to investigate whether the minor or her mother was the one driving. It is not her job to obtain a confession from the minor.

Anderson admits as much during the course of the interview of the minor:

"This is a side note because I’m interested in Officer Ly’s behavior, and if he violated any (phone rings), if he violated any of our department policy then I need to know that too. As far as on a personnel level we can handle that with him. Because you know we take allegations of misconduct by our police officers seriously. So that is a complete side-note. I want to get back to it and handle it, but that is an aside to what I’m talking about right now."

In fact, she is specifically forbidden from doing so.

As the complaint filed with the Northern Division of the California Federal District Court alleges:

"Defendant Anderson also knew that it was unlawful and against Davis Police Department policy to use an investigation of a Davis citizen's complaint as an opportunity to browbeat a minor by threatening her with her mother's incarceration."

As we suggested in our seven-part series on Police Oversight, IAD's are notorious for problems in terms of their ability to investigate the wrongdoings of police officers. That is one reason why many experts have suggested removing internal investigations from the IAD and placing it in an independent body of law enforcement professionals. Moreover, this is an example of why the current Ombudsman model is problematic--complaints under this model still go to the Internal Affairs Department first. While the current model has some problems, at least now Anderson knows that Ombudsman Bob Aaronson will be looking over her shoulder, and that alone could be an improvement for this system.

Meanwhile it will be up to the court to sort out whether or not Anderson's actions in the Buzayan case violated the minor's civil rights.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting