Judge Orders Defendants to Cease Delay Tactics in Buzayan Case

It was summer of 2005 when then 16 year-old Halema Buzayan was arrested by Davis Police Officer Pheng Ly. Much has happened since that time both within the city and the police department. But one thing that has not happened is that the Federal Lawsuit filed by Ms. Buzayan's family has not gone to trial. That may finally change shortly as a Federal Judge last week ordered the defense to quit stalling and allow the case to move forward.

Halema Buzayan and her family allege 16 causes of action against the Davis Police Department, individual police officers, the Yolo County District Attorney and several individual's from the DA's Office, and the City of Davis. Specifically the list of defendants include: City of Davis, former Davis Police Chief James Hyde, Assistant Police Chief Steven Pierce, Officer Pheng Ly and Ben Hartz, Former DA David Henderson, Deputy DA Patricia Fong, and Counsel for Yolo County and the City of Davis Douglas Thorn who is himself a defendant in this case.

The defendants have submitted a series of motions to dismiss, but to this point the only original defendant whose case was dismissed was the Davis Enterprise, dismissed in July of 2007.

US District Judge Morrison England describes the current motion to dismiss as being submitted "in an unusual manner."

He writes:

"Although the Court concludes that the majority of the Second Motion to Dismiss is duplicative and unnecessary, and while Plaintiffs have strong arguments that the Motion to Dismiss is untimely in the first place, the Court will nonetheless exercise its discretion to hear Defendants’ pleading challenge one final time because resolution of Defendants most recent contentions may help clarify the remaining issues in the present action."

Judge England proceeds to deny all but a very small portion of the defendant's motion to dismiss.

"Based on the foregoing analysis, Defendants’ Motion to Strike (Docket No. 156) is DENIED. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 138) is also DENIED, except that the Court clarifies, with respect to Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Cause of Action that any reliance on false light invasion of privacy is precluded. Defendants’ Second Motion to Dismiss is accordingly GRANTED in that regard. Pursuant to Rule 12(f)(1), the Court orders the second sentence of paragraph 190, and the first sentence in paragraph 192, in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint stricken. All other causes of action shall proceed in a manner consistent with this Order."

While the judge struck those two paragraphs, he left the bulk of the fourteenth cause of action in place.

"However, the Fourteenth Cause of Action remains viable to the extent Plaintiffs rely on alleged disclosure and broadcast of private information."

The Fourteenth cause of action is a complaint regarding a violation of the California Constitutional Right to Privacy. The bulk of that complaint claims a deliberate disclosure and broadcast of private information.

"Defendants' conduct has resulted in Halema Buzayan and her family being placed in a false light in the public and within the community. Defendants have violated Plaintiffs' right to privacy as secured under the California Constitution. Plaintiffs assert claims for violation of their right to privacy as secured under the California Constitution against all involved Defendants."

Judge England then concludes his opinion with the following:

"Additionally, while the Court concludes that entertaining Defendants’ Second Motion to Dismiss had some limited utility in narrowing the arguments, many of the other arguments raised were either cumulative, premature, inadequately developed, and/or unsubstantiated. Defendants are directed to refrain from any further efforts to frustrate the timely resolution of this litigation."

In other words, Judge England is telling the defendants to quit trying to stall this case. It is time to move forward.

He roundly criticizes their arguments as being premature, inadequately developed, and/ or unsubstantiated. He questioned the need for this second motion to strike. And although he limited the 14th complaint somewhat, for the most part virtually summarily dismissed it.

At this point in time, it is time to move forward with the case, and let the Buzayan Family after three and a half years finally have their day in court. Then the court can determine if they were wronged and what the damages were.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Former Davis Police Chief Finds New Department Subject of Federal Class Action Lawsuit

Police Allegedly Targeting African-American Tenants in Antioch

According to a lawsuit filed by Antioch Community Members and four Bay Area non-profit civil rights organizations, the City of Antioch and its police department are engaged in a concerted campaign of intimidation, harassment and discrimination against citizens, specifically African-American residents, who receive federally funded Section 8 housing rent assistance.

This is the apparent culmination of a long and controversial dispute in Antioch between longer term residents and those who have moved their families to Antioch in search of more affordable housing.

The city of Antioch rejected the lawsuit's claims, arguing that

"any objective review of our city's policing efforts will reveal that these efforts are focused exclusively on criminal and/or dangerous behavior."

However, according to Brad Seligman of the Impact Fund, one of the four groups to file the lawsuit on behalf of community members in Antioch:

“There is no question that the City and its police department are targeting Section 8 families, particularly African American recipients... The Police have a deliberate policy of coercion, intimidation and threats that target these Section 8 families and their landlords. The City’s goal is to force these families to move out of town.”

According to a release from the ACLU:

Plaintiff Alyce Payne moved to Antioch with her children to show her family they could “make it” outside of Oakland and so that her children could attend public schools there. But after her landlord received several letters from the police department, her tenancy was terminated. Ms. Payne relocated her family out of the City.

“Everyone should have the right to live in peace in the community they choose,” said Payne, who testified before the Antioch City Council about the discrimination she encountered from police officers. “We all want to live in a place where our families and our rights are respected.”

The suit alleges among other things that the Antioch Police Deparment:

- Established a special unit in 2006, the Community Action Team (CAT) for the purpose of targeting Section 8 residents, and the unit has directed the majority of its activities at African American families.

- Frequently searches the homes of African American families in the Section 8 program (or those erroneously believed to participate in the program) without their consent and without a warrant in an attempt to gather evidence to be used against Section 8 participants.

- Engages in a pattern of informing neighbors of African-American Section 8 households that the household is receiving Section 8 housing assistance and suggesting that neighbors file nuisance or disturbance reports against the Section 8 household.

- Threatens landlords with letters and visits by suggesting that landlords will be held liable for the activities of Section 8 tenants, and police officers actively encourage landlords to evict Section 8 tenants.

- Attempts to pressure the local Housing Authority in charge of the Section 8 program to terminate the voucher benefits of tenants whom the police department has targeted. Over 70% of these attempts have been directed at African Americans. A majority of these complaints were not sustained by the Housing Authority.

According to the complaint filed, in July of 2006, the City and the Antioch Police Department created a unit called the "Community Action Team" or "CAT" within the department. The CAT has disproportionately focused on Section 8 voucher participants, particularly on those residing in the more affluent neighborhoods of Antioch. "The city and APD [Antioch Police Department] have specifically targeted African-Americans they believe hold Section 8 vouchers."

During this time, former Davis Police Chief Jim Hyde had become Chief of Police for the City of Antioch. While these processes were underway, he was clearly in the position to facilitate the program, and in addition "he is responsible for the administration of APD and the training and supervision of its officers." Furthermore, "Defendant City, APD and Police Chief Hyde are, and at all times material to this complaint were, responsible for the employment, training, supervision, and discipline" of three named officers.

Former Davis Police Chief Jim Hyde remains the subject of another federal lawsuit, this one stemming from the 2005 arrest of then-16 year old Halema Buzayan stemming from a disputed hit-and-run accident in a Safeway parking lot and allegations of unlawful arrest, poor police procedures, and violations of Miranda Rights. A judge in April of 2006 dismissed the charges against Ms. Buzayan. The Buzayan federal lawsuit is moving slowly through the court process, having survived efforts from multiple defendants to drop the complaint.

When Police Chief Jim Hyde resigned from the city of Davis, the city was rife with turmoil and complaints against the police department. The Buzayan case was the most publicized and notable. However, in February of 2006, a large number of African-American students and faculty, came before the Davis City Council to complain about racial profiling. In May of the same year, several hundred mostly African-American students marched from the Memorial Union on campus to the Davis Police Department.

While it was the efforts of the Human Relations Commission and my wife Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald, in pushing for police oversight and reform, that earned widespread media attention and criticism by many suggesting they had gone too far in their demands, it was the anger of these separate groups that contributed to an overall sense that the police department under Jim Hyde's leadership was under siege.

In June, following the 2006 elections, Jim Hyde abruptly resigned from his position at the Davis Police Department to take the same position for more pay in the City of Antioch.

As he left, he threw more fuel on the fire, blaming my wife, Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald, and the HRC.

"In my 27 years of government service, 10 years of clinical psychology and 16 years of working with nonprofit organizations, the HRC is the most dysfunctional and incestuous group I have ever witnessed. I hope that (the) City Council will correct this community problem."

The Davis City Council would act quickly before newly elected Councilmember Lamar Heystek, a strong ally of the HRC and supporter of reform, could be seated. On June 26, 2006, the Davis City Council voted by a 4-1 margin to disband the Human Relations Commission.

To be very honest, this blog would likely not exist had it not been for the events in the Spring of 2006 and the actions by Chief Jim Hyde that led the HRC being disbanded.

Even two years later on the campaign trail, I ran into a number of individuals who still hold anger for the fact that Chief Jim Hyde was perceived to have been run off by Cecilia and the HRC.

And yet at the same time, it seems to me that Chief Jim Hyde was a huge precipitator of both the underlying problems in the Davis Police Department as well as an instigator to many of the tensions that arose in the Spring of 2006. When he left, overnight, tension plummeted. Even more than the hiring of a police ombudsman, the hiring of Chief Landy Black in the spring of 2007 served to cut down on the public complaints. I am not suggesting that things are perfect, I still think things could be better, but we have also not had public marches in the streets the last two years. We have not had hundreds of young African-American students coming into city council complaining about police tactics. In my dealings with Chief Black, he has always been willing to listen and has been completely professional, even on those occasions when we have disagreed.

As Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald said to Davis Enterprise reporter Claire St. John during her run for City Council in a Davis Enterprise article:

"I think we all learned from that process," she said. "How communications, situations, can be improved. It's those experiences that make us better people."

Escamilla-Greenwald said the things that came of that time have improved the city. The City Council, although it rejected an independent police oversight commission, did appoint a police advisory commission and hired an ombudsman. The new police chief, Landy Black, is a good fit for the city, Escamilla-Greenwald said.

"We have a new chief of police who is doing a great job as far as I've seen," she said. "I've met with him, I did a ride-along with the police, that was an eye-opener. People are happy, from what I hear. There's now a process in place."

While the situation in Antioch may be somewhat different from that in Davis, the basic scenario seems to follow a similar pattern. The police are alleged to take an overly broad approach to law enforcement. It is unclear the extent to which Section 8 Voucher recipients are being perceived to be causing problems or if they are actually causing those problems. But irrespective of that point, the response by the police in Antioch seems to be to allegedly harass all African-Americans, regardless of their Section 8 status. This is the heart of the racial-profiling allegation.

What we see then is a pattern of behavior not only in terms of police profiling, or perceptions thereof, but in terms of the handling of the matter.

Throughout the Buzayan case, a more honest and forthright approach really could have avoided many of the lawsuits and legal remedies that ultimately resulted.

The acrimony between the police and the HRC did not necessarily have to result from events.

As Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald wrote in 2006 in response to Jim Hyde's parting words:

"After many months of hearing from members of the public, last summer we met with the police chief over concerns about the growing number of complaints about police misconduct. These meetings and interactions quickly turned adversarial as the police chief became defensive. Instead of engaging in public dialogue over these very serious issues, Chief Hyde retreated--he cut off communications with the HRC, he pulled his liaisons to the commission, and began a concerted public campaign to discredit the efforts of the HRC to reach common ground on reforms that could be done within the department."

Furthermore:

"The Human Relations Commission, after hearing repeated accounts from credible citizens in our community, recommended the formation of a Citizen's Review Board of the police department. The Police Chief reacted negatively and with attacks upon the HRC as well myself and members of the community for even suggesting such a body. Once again, Chief Hyde reacted defensively and inappropriately instead of working with the community to resolve these problems."

The situation could have been diffused, perhaps by both sides. The City Council could have approached this by simply acknowledging a potential problem but suggesting that the civilian oversight board would be problematic in Davis. Instead the city endured attacks and allegations and heated rhetoric. No doubt everyone involved could have handled things better.

But we what see now is a pattern. That pattern has repeated itself in Antioch, far away from Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald, the HRC or even the Vanguard.

At the same time, the response from the Antioch City Council is eerily similar to that in Davis.

Former Councilmember Ted Puntillo at the time of Hyde resignation called Hyde

"a very talented and probably one of the best chiefs that we could ever hope to have."

On Wednesday, the Contra Costa Times reports similar comments from the Mayor of Antioch as well as City Councilmembers.

On Tuesday, the Antioch City Council approved a nearly $17,000 per year raise for the Police Chief.

Antioch Mayor Donald Freitas:

"The salary increase has more to do with salary compaction but it also reflects an endorsement of Chief Hyde and the outstanding job he's doing. He has performed exemplary in the last two years, and has moved the department into the 21st century with the use of new technology. He's well-respected by the men and women under his command, as well as the community."

Councilmember Arne Simonsen:

"I'm sure there are other cities that would like a police chief like Jim Hyde... but I think the majority of people in Antioch would like him to stay."

I think the Davis Police Department is far better without Chief Jim Hyde here. Much work remains to be done, but so far, Landy Black's tenure as Police Chief has gone off without major incident. The city has been relatively calm since the departure of Jim Hyde. That and subsequent law suits in Antioch simply cannot be mere coincidence.

The Vanguard will continue to monitor the situation in Antioch and in the coming weeks, we will be speaking with some of the attorneys involved in the lawsuit down there and also possibly updating the public on the ongoing Buzayan Federal Lawsuit that is currently working its way through the Federal Court in Sacramento.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Complaint Sustained for Rude Conduct by Davis Police Officer

On the night of December 26, 2006, Lasonja Porter, an African-American and a longtime Davis resident was driving home late at night from some errands. It had been raining heavily that evening, the roads were slick and the visibility low. Not far from her residence, her vehicle hit the curb, incapacitating her vehicle and requiring a tow.

"My husband and my son decided to stay by the car and wait for the tow truck. As they waited for the tow truck the Davis police came by and said 'can I help you?' They said, 'no, our tow truck is on the way. '"

For reasons not completely clear, instead of helping the stranded family out, the police officer decided to make their life more difficult. According to Ms. Porter, the officer told them that if the tow truck did not come in five minutes, they would call their own. And in fact, the police officer did call their own tow truck.

While they were waiting for tow truck to arrive, Ms. Porter's husband asked the police officer how his Christmas was. Instead of making polite conversation, the officer lashed out.

"He said, 'you don't give an 'f' about my Christmas.' He just went off on my husband."

Both tow trucks would arrive at the same time, however, the police insisted that their tow truck remove the car and take the vehicle to Dixon.

"I was questioning why did they do this. What for--the car was waiting on a tow truck. They said nope, they're not going to give back the car. I explained to them that it was my manager's car, they didn't care. I told them that this is really harassment."

Upon request, Ms. Porter received the police report the next day.

"When I got the police report, I was very stunned. The police report read--'when I noticed who the suspect was, I immediately called Eric Labbe to the scene.'"

Ms. Porter explained to me that Eric Laabe was a police officer who had a history with herself and her husband. They had previously filed a complaint against him because of the aggressive manner in which he had interacted with them.

They had a series of meetings with the police, but it took a meeting with then interim Chief Steve Pierce for the police to finally agree to pay for the tow truck. Meanwhile, Ms. Porter was forced to have pay for the car to be towed back to Davis where it would be taken to her manager's residence to be repaired.

"Two people was there waiting on a tow truck. And the tow truck did come. At that time, they could have taken into consideration that they really was waiting on a tow truck and let me leave, but they didn't. Because when Eric Labbe got there, he just went off. He's a really aggressive police officer which we had complained previously for his aggressiveness. He'd cuss you out in a minute."

"One of the witness... she's a white lady, she heard the police officer cussing, so she left a message with Steve Pierce and told him that I did not like how he was cussing. I asked him to get on the phone, he was 'hell no.' I mean they was really going off that night."

Ms. Porter then filed a complaint against the Davis police for their handling of this case. Unlike so many of these encounters, this one did not end there.

A letter dated January 8, 2008 arrived from new Davis Police Chief Landy Black. Ms. Porter admitted she almost did not read the letter, it looked like so many other letters from the Davis Police that routinely denied the validity of her previous complaints.

This one appeared to be going the same route:

"Your complaint stemmed from a December 26, 2006 encounter members of your family had with our officers on Covell Blvd., involving a traffic collision and a towed vehicle... Your complaint was thoroughly investigated. I personally review the investigation and render the final decision in matters of this nature."

However, as I said, this one was different:

"Based on the evidence, it became clear the conduct of the Davis Police Officers whom you and/ or your family members interacted with did not meet the highest standards of conduct and service that we expect from our members. In particular I determined that your complaint of Rude Conduct had merit and a basis in fact. It has therefore been classified as SUSTAINED, meaning that there is clear and convincing evidence that the officer(s) engaged in the prohibited conduct."

Chief Black then went on to sincerely apologize:

"I apologize for this breach of high quality, professional police service that the Davis
Police Department prides itself in and the impact that it had on you and your family. It is our desire that these sorts of breaches are not repeated. Your complaint has served to make us aware of this shortcoming and steps will be taken to improve our ability to serve the community respectful fashion."

Commentary:

When this letter was forwarded to me, I had a similar reaction that Ms. Porter did. I almost did not read it. And through the first almost paragraph and a half, it read like any other denial of claim letter. Then I read the next sentence:

"Based on the evidence, it became clear the conduct of the Davis Police Officers whom you and/ or your family members interacted with did not meet the highest standards of conduct and service that we expect from our members."

I was stunned. For the first time since I have been involved in that process, there is a glimmer of hope.

For Lasonja Porter it is a validity and legitimacy, letting all know that she has a legitimate complaint about the way she has been repeatedly and routinely treated by the Davis Police Department. It will not be nearly as easy to dismiss her futures complaints about the treatment given to her by members of the Davis Police.

For the rest of the community it is the promise that this may in fact really be a new day. That the new chief is serious when he talks about professional standards for the conduct of his police officers and that he is willing to hold them accountable when they breech the public's trust and do not up hold the highest standards of quality and professional police service.

It is with great irony that we must acknowledge that when it comes to complaints against the police department, a sustained complaint actually increases one's trust in the service provided by the police and a denied complaint decreases that trust. The reason is simple. People make mistakes. Police are people and inherently there will be times when they do not respond in manner that is indicative of their training and professio. The key is not that they may occasionally err in their ways, but rather how the police department and chain of command responds to those breaches.

Had Chief Jim Hyde responded to the complaints by the Buzayan family in this manner, it is likely that that case would have long since been over and there would be no federal law suit pending.

While this action by Chief Landy Black will not be a fix-all to the rash of community complaints against the police, it does offer us hope that those complaints will not be summarily dismissed and perhaps that will become the step by which a segment of this community can begin to regain their trust in our law enforcement.

And so on Martin Luther King, Jr. day, we hold forth the promise of a new beginning.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Know Your Rights Even if You Are Completely Innocent

There is a popular myth that floats through some segments of the population that disparages the notion of constitutional protections for the rights of the accused. According to that line of thinking, if you didn't do anything, you have nothing to hide.

However that misses the fundamental nature of human character embodied in Federalist 51 by James Madison:

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

Indeed time and time again, people's failure to understand and exercise their constitutional rights, even when they believe they are innocent or are in fact innocent, pervades this culture. Time and time again, people end up with their lives altered or their liberties curtailed because they failed to heed very simple maxims when dealing with police and authority--the fallibility of human nature. I'm not even necessarily talking about maliciousness, although that certainly enters the picture. I am also speaking simply of human error committed by well intentioned individuals in authority. In the long run, perhaps you can say that people will be vindicated by the truth, but it may be a long process and costly in terms of time, energy, and resources. Innocent people have served decades in jail before release--decades that can never be returned to them. And if you are unfortunate and lack the resources to fight those charges, it may further impair your ability to live life as you once knew it.

The most basic of rights granted by the US Constitution are the right against searches and seizures without a warrant, the right against self-incrimination, which takes the form of the right to remain silent, and the right to have an attorney represent their interests.

Simply put people need to understand that they have the right to refuse to a search of their vehicle without probable cause and they have a right to prevent a search or even entry into their home without a warrant.

Moreover, while some people know that they have these very rights, they sometimes fail to exercise their rights. Just recently I was told a story where a man consented to the search of his vehicle. Why did he do this? Because he knew he had nothing to hide. And yet the police found something and he ended up arrested. Why? Because unbeknownst to him, someone innocently placed something into his vehicle that ended up getting him arrested. I am not at liberty to belabor the details of this incident, although it is interesting in its own right. The larger point is that this individual now faces charges and jail time for something that they had no knowledge of being in their vehicle. And yet, it could have been avoided by simply refusing to grant the police permission to search his vehicle.

Is this an extreme example? Probably. But allowing a police officer to search your vehicle when you have the right not to be searched only allows for the possibility that you will be found with something that maybe you failed to even consider or had no knowledge of. It also opens the door for potentially other more nefarious problems. The bottom line however is use your rights even when you think you do not have to.

To further illustrate this point, I will pick on the recent example in the Buzayan Case. Jamal Buzayan allowed police officers into his home. They gained entry based on a simple request to come in. Now Dr. Buzayan's attorneys will argue in a civil suit that when Davis Police Officer Pheng Ly asked to come in with the clear verbal intention of only talking, but in fact intended to make an arrest, Officer Ly violated the rights of Dr. Buzayan and his daughter by using subterfuge in order to gain entry to a property. This point will be played out in the courts and is the basis for the entire discussion on what an officer can and cannot do without a warrant in cases involving minors.

However, Dr. Buzayan could have avoided all of this had he simply exercised his rights and denied Officer Ly entry into his home. In the Flex Your Right video, which is also linked on the side column, there is a scenario that is played out twice where officers arrive at a home during a party called out on a noise complaint. In the first version, the officers are allowed into the home, spot illegal activity and then arrest the party goers even though the original complaint was not about drug use but rather noise. In the second and correctly handled version from the citizen's standpoint, the resident walks outside to talk to the police officer, closing the door behind them thereby preventing the officer entry or vision into the home. The people inside are not arrested in this version.

Had Dr. Buzayan spoken with Officer Ly and Officer Hartz outside of his home, Officer Ly would have needed to have acquired a warrant in order to arrest Dr. Buzayan's daughter. More likely, he would have simply asked Dr. Buzayan to bring his daughter to the police station in the morning for questioning. This would have avoided many of the problems that ensued from Officer Ly's arrest of the minor and subsequent interrogation of the minor.

Speaking of which, from the police interview tape we see that the minor in the Buzayan case seems to ask for an attorney upon being read her rights by Officer Ly. Officer Ly should have at the very least ceased the interview until he clarified that the request was indeed one for an attorney. However, the minor also erred here. Now, obviously being a minor we have to give her latitude, and this certainly should not be read as a criticism, but rather a point of learning how to better handle such a situation.

Once the minor requested an attorney, she should have stop speaking and insisted that an attorney be called. At that point, the officer would have again been forced to comply and he would have not have been able to attempt to gain a confession from the minor.

It is often amazing to me how many people in situations such as these do not request to have a lawyer present during questioning. It is my view as a layman that no one should ever enter a situation with the police interrogating you without requesting an attorney be present with the caveat being, as long as it is clear that you are or may at some point be considered a target for the investigation rather than merely a witness. This is backed up by the advice that the ACLU gives people: "Do not make any statements regarding the incident. Ask for a lawyer immediately upon your arrest."

Here are some resources available that will illustrate some of these points as well.

• ACLU: Know Your Rights: What to Do If You're Stopped by the Police
  

• ACLU: Know Your Rights PDF
  

• Flex Your Rights Quiz on Police Stops

The final point here that I will reiterate because there is so much confusion. You can be perfectly innocent and yet end up getting into trouble simply because you failed to exercise your constitutional rights. But even if you are not innocent, knowing your rights will only aid you in having a strong defense. It is amazing to me how many problems could be avoided if people simply took heed of their rights.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: A One-Year Review of Police Oversight in Davis

One year ago from August 24, 2006 to August 30, 2006, the fledgling Vanguard in the wake of the then Davis City Council majority of Asumundson, Puntillo, Saylor and Souza voting to put the Human Relations Commission on hiatus ran a seven-part series examining the Davis Police Oversight System. Within a month or two, the city of Davis would hire Bob Aaronson as the police ombudsman for the City of Davis. Last week, the Vanguard interviewed Mr. Aaronson and discussed his first year on the job. Today the Vanguard will discuss a number of police oversight issues and make him regret putting his thoughts on the record (just kidding).

My initial response to the proposed oversight system now in place was strong opposition. There were three reasons for that primarily. First, there was no public component to it--there was no place where an individual could make a complaint in public and receive a public redress of their grievance. Second, the Ombudsman position itself was fairly weak--it was a part-time position, the Ombudsman acted basically as an auditor who reviewed completed investigations if the individual making a complaint was not satisfied. Finally and probably most pointedly, I failed to trust the council to produce a system that would work given their misgivings about and opposition to the need for oversight to begin with.

I will begin with the last point. The other points will be evaluated as I look back over the recommendations I made on August 30, 2006.

To be quite frank, one of the reasons I never trusted the council to create an oversight system that worked is that the very first meeting that I ever saw from them (January 17, 2006), Councilmembers Don Saylor and Ted Puntillo spent their time attempting to demonstrate how unnecessary police oversight in Davis was.

That statement was summarized by this quote by Ted Puntillo:

"What I want are police officers out there that are using their training and their instincts, I don’t want them thinking about oh somebody’s going to be reviewing what I’m doing. "

Don Saylor stated that they had "thoroughly reviewed the complaints against the city and found them totally without merit." This was a stunning statement given it did not seem likely they conducted their own investigation of these complaints. Puntillo then added that this would be "an eye-opener for many in the city."

Up until the point at which these statements were made I have lived in the city of Davis for nearly nine and a half years and had never been involved in city politics. By the time this little scene was done, my life would be unalterably changed. And let me tell you, Ted Puntillo was right, it was an eye-opener for me to hear elected public officials make these sorts of blatantly irresponsible statements.

A few weeks later, on February 21, 2006, then-Police Chief Jim Hyde and Councilmember Don Saylor went through a series of statistics to demonstrate to the public how low the number of sustained complaints were in the city of Davis. Basically what Jim Hyde told Councilmember Saylor was that there were 74 citizen complaints from 2003 to 2005 and of those only 5 were sustained.

Statistics are given a bad rap because most people do not understand how to properly analyze them. This leads to the assumption by many that statistics can be used to say whatever you want them to say. This is patently untrue however. One needs to be able to interpret statistics properly. To his credit, Councilmember Saylor on that date did ask the correct question--asking Chief Hyde how these numbers compare to other communities. However, Chief Hyde dodged this question by stating that communities vary and therefore are difficult to compare. And Saylor never pressed him on the issue when he clearly should have. Had he pressed him, he would have found out that the number of sustained complaints was right around the national average whereby less than 10 percent of all complaints are sustained by the Internal Review Process and in fact, Davis had a higher number than a lot of other jurisdictions.

Ombudsman Bob Aaronson when asked as to whether Davis was in need of an independent oversight system said:

"I’m someone who believes that every law enforcement organization ought to have some form of oversight. I’ve worked with a lot of organizations around the state and to me it’s not a critique of law enforcement it has to do with the fact that in absence of oversight not everyone is going to be squared away."

I still believe that a good police oversight system benefits rather than harms the interests of police officers. It fosters trust that they are doing their jobs the proper way and also provides an outlet for those who are dissatisfied with the handling of their encounter with a police officer. Often that dissatisfaction stems from misunderstanding about the law and an individual's right under the law. By having someone who is independent of the police be in the position and have the authority to explain to an individual that the incident was handled properly, it allows for those who would otherwise distrust the police to be educated about proper procedure.

Getting back however to my original trepidations--the point of this demonstration is to show why I was skeptical of this city council, who had pointedly and deliberately argued that we do not need police oversight, would then be able to turn around and create a police oversight model that would work. They never laid out the case for oversight as Mr. Aaronson did. They took oversight to be a criticism of all police because it arose from specific complaints against the police rather than a means by which to foster community trust in the police.

The jury is still out on that bottom line however. As a whole, I think Bob Aaronson was a good hire. In the comments to the interview last week, some complained he was probably too cautious with his assessment. I would tend to agree with that viewpoint. He has made it a point to protect his political capital until the big case comes forward. While I can understand that desire, I think there are enough data to really look into past practices so that we can come to terms with them and correct them for the future.

At the same time, we have not seen the big case yet either. My biggest problem has been the lack of willingness of those in the community with what appear to be valid complaints that are worthy of investigation (it may turn out that the investigation would clear the officer of wrongdoing, but investigation is still needed) are not willing to come forward. These people are often unwilling to come forward. Part of the reason for that is that they are afraid to. In part, they saw what happened to Buzayans and decided it just was not worth it. That has been a source of much frustration personally.

One of the big questions is that of racial profiling and whether it occurs in the department.

When asked in a California Aggie article if there is "racism within the Davis Police Department," Chief Landy Black who had been in the department for two months at the time responded:

"It's absolutely untrue. I think there was a great deal of political influence in what was going on. There was a need from some people for [their own] publicity, and with the current climate of policing, it gets you notoriety to claim racist policing."

While that was perhaps not the best way to ask the question, I am still uncertain as to how the Chief could know this that soon. Nevertheless, I am not altogether convinced that racial profiling equals racism rather than poor policing technique or even laziness.

During the course of this year I asked the same question of both Former UC Davis Police Chief Calvin Handy who also serves on both the PAC (Police Advisory Commission) and the CAB (Community Advisory Board) and the Ombudsman Bob Aaronson.

When I asked Calvin Handy here was his response:

"My first act as [UC Davis] police chief here was to meet with large groups, students, staff, and faculty, and they had this consistent belief that racial profiling was happening in the city of Davis... After 12 years it is kind of amazing given how much we engaged in the process that people are saying the same thing. This problem has just gone on for too long and too pervasive."

Last week Bob Aaronson said something remarkably similar:

"I have not seen first hand evidence of it. Where I have seen documents or I have seen incidents first hand that would allow me to establish that that occurred. On the other hand, there have been enough complaints by people of color that I’m not prepared to say it’s not an issue. As well there is some statistical information that I don’t know enough about to know whether it’s credible and if it is credible what it’s really saying. But clearly there is something there that requires more attention."

Part of the problem that I have had is how would you even go about proving racial profiling? It is a difficult problem to address.

In response to my evaluation last year of the Police Oversight system. As I examine it now, there are probably several recommendations that I would no longer make, but there are several that I think are still pretty valid.

First, I believed that it would be difficult to have an Ombudsman without it being a full-time position. From my discussions with Bob Aaronson, I believe that more than ever.

Aaronson's response here makes a lot of sense--that it is a matter of balancing priorities:

"Clearly I would like to have more time to spend in Davis doing more active outreach to the community and also doing more ridealongs. But the challenge for a place like Davis—because the implication and the question is ‘what instead’ or ‘in addition to’—the challenge for a community like Davis, and it’s the reason why I came here, most oversight models are geared toward far larger jurisdictions and larger departments. I have a hard time arguing that a jurisdiction the size of Davis ought to be spending a quarter of a million dollars on oversight. I have a hard time arguing that. I could see spending a couple of million dollars on oversight or more for the city of San Jose. But smaller oversight, no one is really trying to figure out a way to do that and so my work here and my work in Santa Cruz also are efforts to explore is there a cost effective way to use some of the oversight tools in a smaller jurisdiction."

It is worth noting that Councilmember Stephen Souza keeps trying to expand the role of the ombudsman to cover the entire city, a notion he first brought up in February of 2006, a notion he mentioned again in March of 2007 and a notion he most recently mentioned in conjunction with a proposal to remove the investigation authority from the Human Relations Commission. I do not see how this is a possibility without hiring a full-time ombudsman with a professional staff.

Second, I recommended that the Ombudsman be given a stronger role in the initial oversight. As this system has developed, it has changed structurally even though it has not changed on paper. What seems to have happened is that the PAC reviews the Internal Reviews from the Department and that the Ombudsman acts as almost a public liaison who assists and talks to individuals about complaints and helps them if they wish to file a formal complaint.

Third, I suggested using the PAC to replace the Internal Affairs Department.

Bob Aaronson last week suggested basic support for Police Internal Affairs departments:

"In my experience, most internal affairs organizations do a good job 90 to 95 percent of the time on cases. And of the remaining five to ten percent, are not handled the way I’d have them handle them. Not out of malice but out of a lack of training."

I differ from Mr. Aaronson here though I lack his over 20 years of direct experience as an ombudsman. My experience had demonstrated in fact a problem with the internal affairs departments in general. Too many cases are returned as not sustained even when the individuals have valid complaints. One of these cases locally was the Bernita Toney case who complained that a police officer falisified a police report. The internal review process concluded this complaint was not sustained. Yet in a court of law, a jury found that the police report had in fact been falisified when they decided to acquit Ms. Toney of all charges against her. This is but one example. The worse example was the use of the Internal Affairs department to threaten and intimidate Halema Buzayan instead of investigating the complaint against Officer Pheng Ly.

It is interesting to note that Mr. Aaronson commented about Davis Police Sgt. Gina Anderson's, who is now in Citrus Heights, handling of the Buzayan Investigation.

"[B]ased on my explicit training to the Department, they now know that you cannot try to advance a criminal investigation through the investigation of a citizen complaint."

The suggestion here is that this was inadvertent and due to a lack of training. Perhaps. But the effect was to intimidate and threaten a minor who was attempting to file a complaint against the actions of a police officer.

My fourth suggestion was to strengthen the CAB. The CAB is composed of many individuals purportedly from diverse segments of the population, but for the most part only a few of these individuals were critical or skeptical of the police department. It was not until March, that the city finally admitted that this was not part of the oversight process. Nevertheless, it would behoove the new police chief to reconstitute the CAB and place on it more individuals who are critical of the police for the very reason that he would get better feedback from the community if he did so.

Fifth, I suggested improving community outreach. The new police chief seems amenable to that, and some of that is going on. But without specific impetus, I think there are segments of the population that would not be reached. Along the same lines, I suggested improving representation on the boards, make the CAB meetings public. This has not occurred yet.

Finally, I suggested they reinstate the Human Relations Commission. They did this but really stripped this commission of its power and influence. They did at least keep the civil rights ordinance intact, but the HRC is not the body that it was prior to June of 2006. I have spent enough time on this subject, but I think the community really misunderstood what the HRC was aiming to do with police oversight and the valuable function it performed prior to 2006.

In many ways, I do not think either the Ombudsman's job or the Chief's job have started yet. We are still waiting for the "big one." That will occur at some point, it is inevitable no matter how well-intentioned we are, something is going to occur. The question will then become, are we properly equipped to handle things. Overall, I would say that some of my fears about this system have been alleviated. I think we were fortunate to land an individual with the experience of Mr. Aaronson. But as he discovered in Santa Cruz, when you rule against the police there is a heavy price to pay. We have not seen whether anyone can withstand that kind of pressure just yet and that will be the crucial test for this system.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Interview with Davis Police Ombudsman Bob Aaronson

Last year around this time, the City of Davis hired its first Police Ombudsman Bob Aaronson. Aaronson has served in the capacity of independent auditor for the City of Santa Cruz among other municipalities. At the time this culminated a rather tumultuous year in Davis that saw allegations, protests, and the disbanding of the city's Human Relations Commission. Now a year later, things have calmed down, but have the underlying problems that led to these complaints and protests dissipated, the Vanguard sits down as talks to the Ombudsman Bob Aaronson to get his take on the current situation.

You’ve been here nearly a year, I know you’ve talked about it before, but is Davis what you expected?

No. Davis is a much more interesting place than I expected. And Davis is a much more interesting place culturally than I expected. As someone who has passed by Davis thousands and thousands of times, I did not have a clue.

What are your impressions of the Davis Police Department?

I don’t think that’s changed a whole lot since my discussion in front of the council. I think there are a lot of good people in the Davis Police Department. I think there are a lot of the challenges, some of the challenges are because of history, problems that have been present historically and you still live with the ghosts and then there are problems that are related to how many people are comparatively new at being peace officers. I think those are quite significant challenges.

So far, what are your impressions of Landy Black?

So far my impressions of Landy Black are positive. My sense is that he is getting out into the community; my sense is that he’s making connections within the department. And my sense is that those connections are good. Landy Black strikes me as an eminently decent guy and someone who is a real cop.

What has the primary focus of your position entailed?

There are two different things that I have been doing. One component that I have been doing is responding to citizens who have complaints and on average I am probably talking to between half a dozen and a dozen people a month. They call to talk about their situations and telling them what the process is and sometimes all it is is explaining to them that the procedural issues that they saw were appropriate.

The second part of what I’m doing is almost like being an organizational facilitator. And an example of that is being part of a process that got the cameras and the computers working. But there are also a myriad of ways that I have become an alternative channel for communication for different parts of city government about what’s going on. And what the problems are.

Do you believe that Davis was in need of an independent police oversight system?

I’m not the right person to ask because I’m someone who believes that every law enforcement organization ought to have some form of oversight. I’ve worked with a lot of organizations around the state and to me it’s not a critique of law enforcement it has to do with the fact that in absence of oversight not everyone is going to be squared away. That’s why we have cops. Because in the absence of cops, some of us are going to speed. Some of us are not going obey traffic laws and commit offenses. We need oversight. I think we all need oversight and benefit from it. It’s the reason why we don’t come into the world hatched out of eggs. We come into the world with two overseers.

Do you believe that the Police Internal Affairs Department serves an effective function or do you believe that too often police departments seek to protect themselves from scrutiny?

In my experience, most internal affairs organizations do a good job 90 to 95 percent of the time on cases. And of the remaining five to ten percent, are not handled the way I’d have them handle them. Not out of malice but out of a lack of training. There are instances where organizations will have a tendancy in order to avoid the limelight or order to avoid the harsh reality will try to find a way to avoid getting to the right result. But the number of times I’ve seen that happen I could probably count on two hands. And that’s based on over 20 years of work with law enforcement.

What changes would you like to see in the Davis police oversight system?

Clearly I would like to have more time to spend in Davis doing more active outreach to the community and also doing more ridealongs. But the challenge for a place like Davis—because the implication and the question is ‘what instead’ or ‘in addition to’—the challenge for a community like Davis, and it’s the reason why I came here, most oversight models are geared toward far larger jurisdictions and larger departments. I have a hard time arguing that a jurisdiction the size of Davis ought to be spending a quarter of a million dollars on oversight. I have a hard time arguing that. I could see spending a couple of million dollars on oversight or more for the city of San Jose. But smaller oversight, no one is really trying to figure out a way to do that and so my work here and my work in Santa Cruz also are efforts to explore is there a cost effective way to use some of the oversight tools in a smaller jurisdiction.

What do you view as the biggest mistake made by former Chief Jim Hyde during his tenure? How can we work to prevent repeat mistakes with the new Chief, Landy Black?

I try to have this rule that if I was not present, it is not fair of me to find fault. I have not viewed my charge as what occurred prior to my watch although I’ve accumulated some information about it. I think there is a host of things, where if I had been involved I would have hoped would have been responded to differently. I certainly have not been shy about the fact that I believe there was a missed opportunity for the community and the department to use the Buzayan incident as a means of having a discussion as opposed to a means of having an argument.

You mentioned that the city of Davis missed out on an opportunity during the contentious 2006 year. What do you think as an outsider looking in, should have been done differently?

If I had been involved in the underlying incident and I have not listened to tapes and I have not reviewed reports, but I have read enough information. I think I would have made different decisions about what occurred at the scene. Decisions that were not as intrusive. I think that decisions that were made in my view don’t amount to misconduct or I certainly haven’t seen anything that would suggest to me that they were misconduct, but I would say that in my view they are misjudgments. Candidly on the other side of it, I will also tell you… if I had been, if my family had been in the situation, I think I would have responded differently as well. And that to me is the point of the Buzayan case, there were opportunities for everyone to learn. Not just for the department to learn about how to handle something in a way that it is as effect but less intrusive, but also for the community to learn about how they can more effectively interact with the department in a way that increases the likelihood of a more positive or less negative outcome.

Does Davis PD have a problem of racial profiling in your view?

I have not seen first hand evidence of it. Where I have seen documents or I have seen incidents first hand that would allow me to establish that that occurred. On the other hand, there have been enough complaints by people of color that I’m not prepared to say it’s not an issue. As well there is some statistical information that I don’t know enough about to know whether it’s credible and if it is credible what it’s really saying. But clearly there is something there that requires more attention.

The DPOA has repeatedly asked for more police officers as a means for crime prevention, do you believe that such hires are necessary?

I am far more conscious about how much I don’t know than how much I do. If I were going to answer that question in this sort of a public fashion, I would want to have done some sort of a serious study of auditing response times, auditing workloads and the like. In all honesty, I don’t know. To answer that question one way or another would require me on some level to speculate.

What lessons can we learn from the UCLA tasering incident?

That one to me is pretty clean. Tasers are less than deadly force. But are probably the equivalent to the use of the baton. It is pretty hard to kill someone with a baton, but you are likely to have more moderate range injuries. You can argue it one way or another. I would be surprised if any officer would have used a baton on the student in the UCLA PD case. When you have a passive resister, you should not be using Tasers. To me that is a fairly basic lesson and one of the problems has been… that most of the first round of instruction in how to use Tasers was controlled by Taser International. And Taser International, and I’ve viewed some of their instruction, in the first round, but definitely in the first round there were scenarios where Tasers were being used on people who were not violently resisting. Hence what happened at UCLA PD.

(I follow up: So how best would it be for police officers to handle people who are not cooperating but not violent resisting and not a physical threat to either the officer or the public?)

Depends on the situation and the size of the person. Officers get taught all sorts of control holds and take down techniques, in the academy and in the FTO process. In an instance where there’s a large crowd gathered, the use of a Taser on someone who is not actively resistant and who is not actively violent is actually increasing the risk to the officer not decreasing it. Now it’s important to be clear and I have viewed on a number of occasions the videotape of the UCLA PD incident and my problem with the videotapes while the videotapes are very troubling, it’s really hard to be able to see enough of the student in a lot of the frames to know what things I would have done or what things I hoped an officer would have done.

What changes can Davis do in the next year to improve relations between portions of the community and the police department?

I would like to see a way that members of the Davis police department become more involved in the community as individuals and as officers and that means community meetings, neighborhood meetings, it also means encouraging people to do ridealongs with the Davis Police Department. There does need to be more of a connection. There clearly does.

You have previously mentioned problems with both supervision, chain of command, and overall morale—have these areas improved under the new chief? What further needs to be done?

Morale has improved because the department is grateful to have a new chief on board. But the underlying issues—the new chief has been there for three and a half months. You don’t fix a damaged family in three and a half months—this is clearly a work in progress. And the underlying issues involving supervision, chain of command, and communication are still there. They remain to be resolved in a successful way.

My biggest frustration for the past year has been the inability or unwillingness for people with legitimate complaints against the police department to come forward—what can we do about that?

That’s a good question. I have had a similar experience and not just with you but with other people who have brought forward to me that there are people who they were in touch with who had complaints and I have begged, cajoled, pleaded… You know, I have two different ways of expressing it. One is that I have an Amnesty International T-shirt that says ‘All it takes for the triumph of evil is for enough good people to be silent.’ The other one is just a more straightforward one. In the absence of people willing to bear witness, no one goes to jail. I understand why people are reluctant, I genuinely do, I understand that for a lot of people, it’s an act of bravery, it’s an act of courage to come forward with a complaint. But it’s really important, and part of the side benefit is that people who come forward with complaints ultimately, regardless of any other resolution, feel unburdened by having done that.

How can we effect change in the absence of people willing to come forward and to use your words—bear witness?

I don’t know, I think that’s probably my single biggest challenge. One of the things I could do is to do more outreach in the community. I have been reluctant to ask the city for more hours, because the city is trying to be fiscally responsible and I respect that. And the problem with what I talk about in terms of getting out into the community is that it’s time consuming. But there is a way candidly that I feel that I know the Davis Police Department right now better than I do the community.

I’ve been told you are not a big fan of anonymity on the internet, can you share your thoughts?

I tend to work by analogy. I think that people’s behavior on freeways is much worse than their behavior at parties or in bars because they are basically anonymous. I think that when you provide people with an anonymous environment a lot of the social controls for some people tend to dissipate. And if we can be anonymous, there are people who are prepared in a theater to stand up and scream [obscenities] to a guy on stage. Now they would never do that if the guy on stage could see their face and see who they were. But in a darkened theater there are people who do that. I have watched and I respect both the vote that was taken and also the sentiment that there are people who otherwise would not post if it was [not] anonymous, but if no one has noticed it, I’m an outspoken person, I’m not shy about offering my perspective and part of my attitude as a student of race relations and the holocaust is you got be willing to speak out and put your name to something.

Your impressions so far of the Vanguard? How can the Vanguard become a more effective tool in the community?

The most positive thing I think about the Vanguard is that there are things being reported in the Vanguard that I haven’t seen in any other media outlets that are at least available to me. And I appreciate that because I don’t just study Davis police issues, I study all of the Davis community issues to better educate myself. So I really appreciated that. I think there have been times that I have been concerned that the tenor of comments and discussion and some of them of them are by the bloggist and some of them by the commenters that are less than civil. I guess the starting place for me, if I caste you as evil, I lose the opportunity to have an effective conversation with you where I really get through to you. I worry about that aspect. That being said, I’m not arguing that the bite should go away. I think part of the bite is what works about it. It’s also true that I think in the year that the Vanguard, I ought to be interviewing you about the Vanguard because it has been about a year and three months or a year and two months that you’ve been doing the Vanguard, and I ought to be interviewing you about how’s that year been, what do you think your successes have been and what have your failures been. I think that the Vanguard has matured in that past year in really powerful ways. I’m sure that you asking in a way is a little self-serving… but I’m grateful that the Vanguard is there. I don’t always agree with it, but it’s rare I don’t learn something.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: The Bulk of the Buzayan Federal Lawsuit Moves Forward

In late June, it was reported that U.S. District Court Judge England dismissed a single cause of action in the Buzayan case using the SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute. Now he has dismissed another cause of action, again under SLAPP, this time clearing the Davis Police Department of defamation allegation against the Buzayan family. These accusations stem from the police speaking out about the teen's arrest for a misdemeanor hit-and-run.

While the Judge dismissed this portion of the suit, the bulk and core of the lawsuit remains. Of the nearly 20 causes of action filed by Attorney's Matt Gonzalez and Whitney Leigh, only two have been dismissed, both of them relating to allegations of speech--one involving the newspaper and the other involving defamation by the police department in the course of defending themselves from the allegation in the public realm.

At the same time, Judge England has ruled that one of the key charges against the District Attorney's office remains very much in play.

Judge England writes:

"There is a strong public policy in keeping juvenile court records confidential, and it is up to the juvenile court to determine when disclosure of such records is allowed... Here, the defendants have not shown that they had a court order allowing them to disseminate any information relating to Ms. Buzayan's criminal case."

In fact, although the Judge does not say so explicitly, the Yolo County Superior Court Judge in the case, Thomas Warriner, explicitly told the district attorney's office that they could not release information or even make a statement about the case. They did so anyway. The family's attorneys took the District Attorney back to Judge Warriner's court, but the Judge at that point left it to a lawsuit to determine if rights had been violated by the District Attorney.

The statement by the Judge in this matter seems to indicate a strong probability that the Buzayan family may prevail on the core of their complaint. In addition to the causes of action against the District Attorney's office for violation of a minor's right to privacy, there are also those that aim at the core of the case--whether Davis Police Officer Pheng Ly's actions violated the civil rights of the then-minor, Halema Buzayan.

Attorney Whitney Leigh told the Davis Enterprise:

"It confirms our position that the defendants are liable for the negligent and, in our view, the intentional disclosure of private information that the state court had ordered them not to disclose... The greater majority of the (lawsuit's) claims the defendants have not and could not seek to dismiss, so we're gratified with this decision."

One of the key complaints against Officer Ly was an alleged violation of Miranda Law that was caught on tape.

This charge has been somewhat confused in the public realm to infer that Officer Ly did not read the minor her Miranda Rights. In fact as this transcript shows, he in fact clearly did read the minor her rights. What he did not do however was provide her with an attorney when she made an apparent request for one or even pause to clarify as to whether or not she asked for an attorney or if there was any question as to whether her statement, "ok, could you? Can you do that" was a request for attorney.

Another of the key complaints, are complaints against Davis Police Internal Affairs Sgt. Gina Anderson, who has since moved on to the Citrus Heights Police Department.

In the complaint filed by the Buzayan family and their attorneys, they allege:

"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."

This complaint stems from another allegation caught on tape, this one not released to the public that during the course of Sgt. Gina Anderson's investigation of complaints against Officers Hartz and Ly, that she in fact pressed the minor to admit that she was lying and in fact the one driving the car. And at one point, threatening to put her mother in jail if she did not come clean.

"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 an interview with KGO Channel 7 News, 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."

The job of an internal investigator during a citizen complaint is not to attempt to coerce a confession out of the defendant, it is to gather the facts involving the policies and actions of the police officers involved and determine whether the officers had acted properly.

As this ruling by Judge England indicates, the bulk of the Buzayan Case shall move forward.

The Davis Enterprise quotes new Davis Police Chief Landy Black as saying:

"While this ruling does not necessarily mean the end of the discussions and proceedings regarding the underlying incident, it clears the way to address what we feel are much more important issues and makes it possible for the healing to continue, and with fewer obstacles."

In fact, Chief Black can play a crucial role in the healing process regardless of how this case turns out. A strong effort is needed to reach out to various parts of the community that feel disenfranchised and to bring them back into the process.

The Buzayan case represents a key moment of understanding and reflection and strong leadership will be needed to avoid a repeat of some of the emotions and anger that erupted just over a year ago.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Judge SLAPPs Down Buzayan Suit Against Newspaper

It was reported last week in the Davis Enterprise that a judge had dismissed the portion of the Buzayan suit that was aimed at sanctioning the Davis Enterprise for posting the audio tapes of the arrest of then 16-year old Halema Buzayan in 2005.

That suit was based on two key factors. First, that the District Attorney's office had leaked the tapes to the newspaper against the orders of Judge Thomas Warriner. And second, that the Davis Enterprise had failed to edit out specific personal information about the Buzayan children and their family, not to mention also personal information about the victim. The tapes containing that personal information were left up for five days, until the victim emailed Assistant Publisher/Editor Debbie Davis at the Davis Enterprise and the paper pulled down the tapes until they could edit them.

Of the 19 complaints filed in the Buzayan lawsuit, from the beginning this would appear to be the most problematic. Could a paper be sanctioned for knowingly publishing tapes that they had acquired from a government body--in this case the DA--that under most conditions they knew should be confidential by law.

If we think about it from another standpoint, the answer appears to be more obvious. Suppose this were not the District Attorney's office but rather a whistle-blower leaking this information to the press. Instead of a case against a juvenile, it involved some sort of corporate malfeasance about a major company and their CEO. The whistle-blower illegally leaks the information to the press and the press reports it as a huge expose. Do we want that company to be able to sue the newspaper under those conditions? I think the answer is simply that we do not. Therefore it is difficult for me to fault the ultimate ruling from Judge England.

However, from other angles this ruling is still a bit perplexing.

Judge England decided this case under SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation). He writes:

"California’s Anti-SLAPP law is aimed at curtailing civil actions designed to deter private citizens from exercising their rights of free speech."

SLAPP primarily refers to the suits placed by large corporations or other wealthy entities against individuals who are practicing free speech activities. These large entities can simply use their vast resources to force individuals to defend themselves in the legal arena. The huge discrepancy in resources means that an individual is severely disadvantaged in the fight and therefore such suits create a chilling effect on the free exercise of speech.

In this case, you have a family suing the newspaper for releasing what they deem to be confidential information regarding a juvenile case and negligently posting private information that could end up being used by identity thieves against the family. The Davis Enterprise is not disadvantaged in their resources compared with a private family and so SLAPP in this manner seems to be used to prevent a suit for which it was not intended to be used.

In response to the verdict, Davis Enterprise Editor Debbie Davis proclaimed:

“We're very pleased with the judge's ruling. We were sued, basically, for doing our job - for covering a story of intense public interest and for making important audio files available to the public. We're happy that Judge England affirmed our constitutional right to do so.”

This is a misleading statement by Ms. Davis. The Davis Enterprise was sued because they chose to print and post material from a juvenile case that was supposed to by law and Judge Warrnier's ruling remain confidential. The Deputy District Attorney in this case, Patty Fong was explicitly told by Judge Warriner that the district attorney's office could not release information or discuss this matter because it was a juvenile case. The family is always permitted to release information and discuss this matter. As Judge Warriner explained when he denied Fong a motion to gag the defense, the juvenile laws were set up to protect the rights of minors not to protect the government from charges of impropriety.

It does create a burden on the government, but the law was set up to protect minors and juveniles from just the sort of abuse that Ms. Buzayan received from the DA's office. The DA's office used the Davis Enterprise to achieve their goals here and I think attorney Whitney Leigh was exactly right when he said that "the reporting and recordings were meant to embarrass, humiliate and cause hardship to the Buzayan family.” They clearly were.

The family was not suing the Davis Enterprise for doing their job. They sued the Davis Enterprise for working with the DA's office to violate a juvenile's right to privacy.

In the end, I think the Judge here made a tough ruling. It took him nearly two months from the time of the hearing to the time of his ultimate verdict. That indicates that he felt this was a very close call.

However, what the newspaper failed to note is that 18 of the 19 complaints filed by the Buzayan family have been allowed to go forward for trial. That includes the meat of the case against the Davis Police Department and the District Attorney's Office. In looking at this case, this complaint against the newspaper seemed to be the most difficult to sustain and proceed to trial because of free speech protections provided to newspapers and the unwillingness of most Judges (and rightfully so) to sanction a paper for reporting on something that they obtained legally (at least on their end).

In the end, the Buzayans will get their day in court. The Davis Enterprise will eventually have to own up to Debbie Davis' proclamation that the officer "was doing his job and doing it well." That will be the Buzayan family's ultimate vindication.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: An Inappropriate and Insulting Choice For "Teacher of the Year"

Talk about burying your lead, buried toward the end of the Davis Enterprise article highlighting the Senior Awards Night at Davis High School on Tuesday night, in the last four paragraphs is a seemingly innocuous reporting of the recipient of the Rotary Teacher Service Award, otherwise known as, Teacher of the Year.

This year it was awarded to Math teacher Jana Henry. The Davis Enterprise Reporter Maddy Ryen, likely had no idea what kind of story she was actually reporting. This is because Jana Henry was involved in a story that the Davis Enterprise has not once reported on. In fact, even Davis Vanguard readers likely would not have recognized the name, because the Vanguard has done Ms. Henry the courtesy of not reporting her name.

The passage reads:

Math teacher Jana Henry received the Rotary Teacher Service Award, more commonly known as the Teacher of the Year award. Henry, who came to DHS in 2002, received “glowing nominations” from her students, including one who said, “I go to (her) class in a bad mood and leave in merry spirits.”

Cawley noted Henry's “countless hours offering extra tutoring” and her use of technology in the classroom to assist students. He also praised her personal connection with students.

“I'm just really honored,” Henry said of receiving the award. “I just love my job and teaching the kids.”

However, Davis High School Principal Michael Cawley certainly knew the story, and that makes his words and the award all the more appalling. You see Jana Henry is the teacher who pulled the Malcolm X poster off the wall of her classroom that led to the suspension of the Davis High School student for three days for giving a speech in front of the student body that described what happened and how he felt about the teacher singling him out in front of the class and calling the poster "a terrorist message."

We have always done Ms. Henry the courtesy of not reporting her name. But this is too much. In fact, this lies in the realm of the absurd. Just as last year it was absurd that Officer Pheng Ly, accused of serious violations of the rights of a minor and facing a pending federal law suit, would be awarded with Officer of the Year.

In fact, this is worse than that because unlike the case of Officer Ly where you could make the argument at least that he may have had other achievements that could warrant an award, this incident severely impacted Ms. Henry's service record as a teacher.

The audacity of it all is that Mr. Cawley, who knew full well of Ms. Henry's situation and the way that she handled it, had the temerity to praise "her personal connection with students."

Shall we recount her connection with students. There is the incident itself which was handled quite badly. The student brought in the poster and put it up on the wall. Ms. Henry became uncomfortable with it, and frankly that is her right, however, instead of privately discussing with the student why she deemed it inappropriate, she berated him before the class, humiliating and embarrassing him.

We could chalk up that incident as poor judgment and move on, but it becomes a pattern, when she leaves the auditorium in tears.

She compounds it, when the school district makes the determination that the suspension was inappropriate and reinstates the student. She refuses to teach the student again. When the district deems that she is required to teach the student again, she refuses to teach. And for two months she is out of teaching and it is announced to the student body that she has left the teaching position.

After nearly two months of not teaching, suddenly she is back teaching on June 4 and less than a week later is awarded with the Teacher of the Year award.

The Vanguard has nothing against this teacher and wishes her well and hopes she can resume teaching. It is clear that things were not handled appropriately and that she was harmed by the lack of appropriate guidance by the administration on her own campus. However, to award her with teacher of the year is frankly an insult to the other teachers who did not shirk their responsibilities and leave their students high and dry as they prepared for crucial AP examinations. It is an insult to the parents and students who had to take additional tutoring to take the AP exams. For those who had to spend extra time because Ms. Henry did not follow on her commitments. And those students who suffered academically due to the disruption that this caused.

Frankly this is close to the most appalling thing that I have seen in this community, and that is saying something. The school board needs to investigate how this was allowed to happen. And frankly I have real questions about the Principal of the High School anyway, but this just adds fuel to the fire.

The school district and Principal Michael Cawley owe this community an explanation.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Victims of Racial Profiling Reluctant to Step Forward

A year ago this past week, over 150 UC Davis students and Davis residents, most of them African American, marched from the Memorial Union on the UC Davis Campus to the Davis Police Station to protest against numerous incidents of racial profiling.

It was an event that was not even covered in the Davis Enterprise. I stood and watched the event for two hours as one by one student after student got up and talked about personal incidents involving the Davis Police. And no one from the City Council was there and the only paper that covered it was the California Aggie.

The Aggie quoted one of the organizers:

Devon Lee, another organizer of the event, said he feels the City Council has ignored students such as him.

"They weren't listening to us," Lee said. "They'd rather talk about a small business closing that affects people's recreation than the problems and circumstances that we have to deal with being students of color in the community."

"We protested for about two hours," Lee said. "We had police officers sitting behind glass windows laughing at us."

One of the reasons that I started this blog was the lack of coverage of events like this one and incidents such as those described at the rally. And yet, a year later I am still frustrated for a very different reason.

Each month I receive several emails from people in the community who have experienced or witnessed incidents involving the Davis Police Department. Sometimes the incidents happened too long ago for them to have filed a complaint--which in and of itself is frustrating. But more frustrating than that, is the unwillingness of people to go on the record, even as an anonymous source. People are afraid of retribution. People are afraid of getting involved. And people are afraid they will end up like the Buzayan family if they come forward.

One individual who I spoke with, is a respected member of this community who could bring a fresh new voice and face to this issue. The incident occurred at least two and maybe three years ago and he no longer will go to Davis as a result. He told me, "I believe there are some serious issues that need to be resolved in the Davis Police Department." Of course, he's not going to be the one to help resolve those issues because he won't say a word about it.

Another prominent resident of this community, an employee for the school district, was harassed by police in the parking lot of one of the schools shortly after he arrived in this community. Has he gone on the record? No.

I got another email a few months ago, a Davis resident was taking a course at Sacramento City College, the Davis branch. She told me about her classmates who had been repeatedly followed, pulled over, and even arrested. One time they said he looked like a car jacker even though he had a different car and plate number. But once again, could not get them to talk on the record.

One of the most egregious stories I know of occurred in late 2005, where the owners of a business establishment in downtown Davis had walked from a bar toward their home after a night of drinking. They had to use the restroom so they stopped at their store to use the one there. At that point, they found themselves surrounded by the police and held on the ground at gunpoint for 45 minutes. This despite the fact that one of them owned the store and directed the police to notice his picture on the wall. The situation was resolved when a police officer called the man's wife at home on the man's cell phone to verify his identity (of course the police officer had no idea who the man was calling or anyway to verify it, however he used the call as a reason to let them all go). However, after initially contacting us (my wife Cecilia), he refused to follow through with a complaint.

Yesterday at Farmer's Market, I told someone about this problem and they suggested that I write a special story categorizing the number and type of complaints and periodically update the numbers so that people can get a real sense for not only the number of emails I get but also encourage other people to come forward.

At this point, I have received around 13 emails or calls since January 15, 2007, none of them have gone on the record about their incidents.

I find myself frustrated at this point because without people willing to go and file complaints about these incidents, nothing is going to change. We will not find out if the oversight system works or needs to be altered. The community as a whole is unaware of such incidents, even though people within the community will tell you they have been going on for years.

Nothing is going to get resolved in this community unless people are willing to step forward and put themselves on the line. We all have reasons not to do it. Heck I cannot even blame people given what has happened to some, for not getting involved. In many ways it is like reporting a rape. The process is brutal. You go through the violation again and again. You are publicly scrutinized. But you do it because you know if you don't, it will happen to someone else. No one else should have to go through these kinds of violations and indignities. Unless people are willing to step forward, however, history will repeat itself over and over again.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Friday Afternoon Briefs: Vanguard to Have Farmer's Market Booth and Much More

Vanguard to Host Farmer's Market Booth

The People's Vanguard of Davis will host a booth at the Davis Farmer's Market tomorrow. We will have literature and discussions about local issues.

In addition, a key attraction will be two petitions calling for the end of the Iraq War. One of which will demand a cut-off of funding immediately except that which is necessary bring home the troops and support the veterans after the get back home. The other will have a time-table for a withdrawal and no funding without a deadline by which troops must be home. Both of these petitions are supported by veterans' groups. People will be free to sign the one that they are most comfortable with signing or have a discussion about the issue.

Here's the language:

"We the undersigned do not support funding the Iraq war. We ask that Congress cut off all funding to the war for any purpose other than for bringing the troops home, veteran's needs, and rebuilding Iraq."

"We the undersigned do not support funding the Iraq war without setting definitive deadlines for troop withdrawal and supporting veteran's needs and rebuilding Iraq."

Student Activists Organize Around Malcolm X and Sodexho

Last night at the Silo on the UC Davis campus, more than 50 students and activists met for a panel discussion on a list of topics that ranged from Malcolm X to Civil Rights to modern activism. The group organized by UC Davis student Devon Lee, brought people of various groups and activism together in hopes of networking and branching out to create a new progressive movement in Davis. Devon Lee was one of the chief organizers last year of student march from the MU to the Davis Police Station in protest of racial profiling practices.

One of the panelists a long time civil rights leader helped to organize people against racial profiling in the West Sacramento area and spoke of the success in fighting the gang injunction. Moreover he cautioned people that West Sacramento Police continue to target minorities and that that struggle is still ongoing.

One of the panelists included Javier Ortiz, a Chicano Studies lecturer, remarked that this was the first time he had seen a large black contingent of students on the UC Davis campus.

Activism was a large topic of conversation, with students expressing difficulty in organizing given a heavy class load and many students needing to work multiple jobs in order to pay for the ever rising cost of tuition.

There were several representatives from Students Organizing For Change, the group leading the protests to make food service workers university employees instead of Sodexho employees. They talked about ways in which people can be active and organize in a short period of time using modern resources such as Facebook and the Internet.

My wife, Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald spoke both as a former member of the HRC and current Union organizer with SEIU. She talked about the need to take direct action and spoke of her experience of helping the Janitor's in Houston to organize and obtain union status and get a new contract that substantially raised the level of pay and benefits for over 5,200 workers.

Shh... Don't Tell Officer Ly

In the Halema Buzayan case last year, Officer Ly determined that Ms. Buzayan was lying about her claim that she was not driving that evening, based on a head scarf. Her mother was wearing a head scarf that evening and she was not. Officer Ly reasoned in a recording, that he felt that the witnesses would have mentioned a head scarf. Attorneys for the family have seized upon this as evidence of Officer Ly prosecuting on the basis of a misunderstanding about their religious attire and a contention that Ms. Buzayan since she was not wearing the head scarf that evening, never wore a head scarf. In fact, she does and she did last night.

Here is a picture with my wife Cecilia and Halema's brother, Mahamed, showing Halema in a headscarf. All three of these individuals have been involved in controversial events in the last year.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Civil Rights Fighters Honored in Davis Tuesday Night

At Tuesday's City Council Meeting, a number of community leaders in civil rights were honored with Thong Hy Huynh Awards. The awards are named for the 1983 killing of Huynh, who was stabbed to death in a racially motivated killing on the Davis High School campus.

This year seven individuals received awards in six different categories. Mel Trujillo who passed away last month received the Lifetime Achievement Award, Yolo County Supervisor Mariko Yamada and Michelle Reardon received the Humanitarian Award, the group Youth for Hope received the Young Humanitarian Award, Yolo County Clerk Freddie Oakley received the Civil Rights Advocacy Award, Hamza El-Nakhal the Community Education and Awareness award, and the Davis Wiki received the Excellent in Community Involvement Award.

Yolo County Supervisor Mariko Yamada has been a long and forceful advocate for civil rights in this community. She has long been a champion in the area of health and human services and an advocate for the poor. However in my mind, it has been her advocacy on behalf of police oversight and particularly on behalf of young Halema Buzayan that has distinguished her from many other public officials in this town.

Last year she became the only public official at the time to advocate and support the installation of a police civilian review board in Davis. In 2005, she spoke publicly during a a joint session between the Davis City Council and the Human Relations Commission and encouraged the council to study the establishment of an independent review function for the Davis Police Department. She did this because her office had specifically fielded five cases dealing with the alleged mistreatment and/ or harassment by Davis police officers.

In a February 2006 letter to then Davis Mayor Ruth Asmundson, Yamada wrote:

"Had I not had first-hand experience guiding a longtime Davis resident through the existing Citizen’s Complaint process against the Davis Police, I would not have had the opportunity to experience its frustrating and “fox-in-the-hen-house” dynamic."

From the standpoint of Jamal Buzayan, who is currently involved in a lengthy court battle and a civil rights lawsuit in federal court stemming from the 2005 arrest of his daughter for an alleged hit-and-run accident that has since been dismissed by a Yolo County judge,

Mariko [Yamada] is the only public official who stood by the truth and sought justice from day one until now."

Yamada was also a strong supporter of the efforts of the former Davis Human Relations Commission, publicly urging the council last June to retain the commission and its chair.

For these reasons, Supervisor Yamada is strongly deserving of the honors bestowed upon her on Tuesday night.

On Valentine's Day, Yolo County Clerk Freddie Oakley thrust herself, perhaps unwittingly into the limelight, in her protest of California Laws that prohibit the marriage of Same-sex individuals.

Oakley in a written statement issued on February 14, 2007 said:

For four years in a row, I have followed the law and denied marriage licenses to same-gender couples who apply annually on this date. I will continue to follow the law.

But this situation, where following the law requires me as a public official to treat people unequally based on gender, is a painful reminder to me that we have not learned the lessons of courtesy, decency and fairness that we seek to teach to our children.

She concluded by saying:

Today I am protesting this discrimination by giving a special Valentine's Day memento to people who request one. I do this at my own expense, in the exercise of my own civil right to call for a change in the law I must faithfully administer. I am the hand that must ultimately deny the application of some couples to contract a civil marriage, but I truly believe that the American values of courtesy, decency and fairness mean that if anybody gets a Valentine, everybody should get a Valentine.

In issuing the "certificates of inequality," Oakley earned praise in the gay and lesbian community, many of whom waited in line that day to obtain a certificate of inequality. Meanwhile she earned the scorn of some of the Christian Conservatives.

By putting herself on the line and taking a principled stance, she is duly deserving of the numerous honors that have since been bestowed upon her.

It was with great sadness, that Mel Trujillo could not be here on Tuesday night to receive his richly deserved award for Lifetime Achievement. His wife, Joyce Trujillo, received it in his stead, as our dear friend and comrade in the struggle for civil rights succumbed to cancer last month.

Those who were able to make it to his memorial service, would have heard first hand from Rick Gonzales, Jr. and Carlos Matos, Trujillo's commitment to civil rights. First, his longtime involvement in the Concilio of Yolo County which is an organization dedicated to among other things, helping young, especially Latinos, go to college. And now most recently the Martin Luther King, Jr. scholarship which also helps young minorities go to college. It was a great privilege to watch Trujillo in action in January, for what turned out to be the last time as he was able to raise the money from community members to be able to give scholarships to I believe it was nine deserving individuals, many of whom will be the first members of their family to go to college.

Trujillo dedicated his life to the fight for civil rights and social justice. I got to know him especially well in the last year. He grew angry and disgusted with the situation involving the Davis Police Department and what he perceived as the complicity on the part of various elected officials in the City of Davis. He was particularly disturbed by the Halema Buzayan incident, in which he became almost unwittingly involved through his confrontation with Davis Enterprise Columnist Bob Dunning.

Mel Trujillo you see grew up in poverty in New Mexico but was able to use the GI Bill to have a 20 year career in the military. In his late 30s, he parlayed that into a college degree and then law school, where he became an administrative law judge. It was his knowledge of juvenile law that enabled him to intervene with Mr. Dunning on behalf of young Halema Buzayan and her treatment by Davis Police Officer Pheng Ly.

Trujillo was also a strong supporter of the Davis Human Relations Commission and its former chair.

Mel Trujillo was a fighter for civil rights for 30 years, and many in this Davis Community who were the beneficiaries of his efforts will sorely miss Mel. His honor for lifetime achievement was so richly deserved.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting