Inside the Numbers: A Further Examination of the DPD Turnover Rate

Yesterday's Sacramento Bee ran an article that found that Citrus Highets and the Davis police departments have the highest staff turnover rates among other law enforcement agencies in the region.

To add fuel to the fire, the Bee recessitates old charges that the climate in Davis involving complaints of racial profiling and the Halema Buzayan case were the prominent if not primary culprits for this turnover rate.

"High-ranking officials from the two departments blame a variety of factors ranging from a new department's normal break-in period to the way a racially charged incident was handled."

The Bee quotes Assistant Chief Steve Pierce discussing issues involving the arrest of Halema Buzayan, then 16 in 2005, along with accusations of racial profiling.

"Davis Assistant Chief Steve Pierce said his department changed its retirement calculation, making retirement more attractive for some officers. In addition, several officers left to work in newly formed departments in Citrus Heights and Elk Grove.

Pierce also said some employees felt uncomfortable working in the city following a 2005 incident involving a 16-year-old Davis High School student arrested for a misdemeanor hit-and-run. Her parents alleged racial bias because the girl is Muslim.

During exit interviews, some departing officers remarked that they "don't want a car stop done on a person of color blowing up in (their) face," Pierce said."

However, that paints at best an incomplete picture. The Vanguard spoke to Davis Police Chief Landy Black who provided context to both the initial interview as well as the data.

First he provided the actual breakdown of those who left from 2006 to the present.

Retirement: 5 (3 sworn)

Attained promotion not available with DPD: 4 (2 sworn)

Failed to complete academy/field training/probationary period (dismissed by DPD): 2 (both sworn)

Non-sworn personnel became sworn officers elsewhere: 3

Resigned to take comparable position elsewhere: 5 (4 sworn)

By his count that allows for at most four sworn officers who left the department under the conditions that were describe prominently in the Sacramento Bee article.

These data suggest a much more mundane explanation for a high turnover rate. Some simply retired, others were able to get promoted to positions unavailable to them in this department, a few failed their probation, and a few became sworn officers elsewhere.

Under those conditions, the turnover rate is neither alarming nor unusual.

Chief Black also suggested that the comments attributed to Assistant Chief Steve Pierce, while accurate were taken somewhat out of context. His comment regarding exit interviews was not unsolicited but rather reflected a direct question from the Bee reporter who asked him point blank what effect the Buzayan incident had on people leaving the department. There was no emphasis made by Assistant Chief Pierce, according to Chief Black, on the Buzayan factor.

"It is unfortunate that the Sacramento Bee article makes it look like he/we put an emphasis on it. He didn't and we don't."

Chief Black continues:

"I was hired after a period of some internal and external turmoil. There was an expectation placed on me to take steps to mend internal and community relations. While I will take credit for what I've done to meet that expectation, the officers and leaders of this department have taken great individual and professional initiative to rehabilitate an image that they and I believe was unnecessarily tarnished. There is always room for improvement, but the vitriol was over the top in many folks' estimation.

I cannot speak to the character of the officers who left in 2006 or early 2007, but the officers who remained and continue to work here have done so, in large part, due to their commitment to this department, their peers, the law enforcement profession, and the citizens & community of Davis."

Chief Black also took on the issue of racial profiling.

"Racial profiling continues to be a publicly debated issue. We are aware of that and the fact that the perception of racial profiling still exists. We continue to develop our department and train our personnel to conduct themselves in ways that minimize the perception of racial bias. Our recruitment and training focuses on finding and developing professionals who have the capacity and inclination to understand the dynamics of a multi-cultural society and are able to be resilient and welcome transparency as a means to improve trust."

Brief Commentary:

From my perspective, it is unfortunate if the Sacramento Bee believed it was important to stir the pot on this issue. I received a number of emails on this article and felt it was important to find out the rest of the story from the Davis Police Department.

This issue rekindled an issue that had arose back in 2006, when many accused community activists including my wife, the chair of the Human Relations Commission at the time of creating an atmosphere that had led a large number of police officers to leave the department culminating with the Police Chief at that time, Chief Jim Hyde who took a job in Antioch.

The truth is that while it appears there may have been some police officers who left for those reasons, it was not the huge number that was being represented in the media or at city council meetings by members of the community.

While the issue of racial profiling remains a sensitive issue in parts of this community, the overall tone of discussions have change drastically. The departure of the previous chief along with the arrival of Chief Black and Ombudsman Bob Aaronson have helped change some of this.

While many undoubtedly still blame my wife for fanning the flames, many of these incidents were taken to her from people within the community and to the best of her ability she followed the charge of the Human Relations Commission as the only place where people could go to air grievances of this nature at that time.

It is my hope that we have all learned from that incident and should an incident of this sort arise in the future, we can all handle it better and avoid a repeat of what occurred in the winter and spring of 2006.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Family of Woodland Taser Victim Files Suit Against Woodland, Police, and Taser International

The family of Ricardo Abrahams has filed suit against the City of Woodland, the Police Officers involved in the incident, and Taser International. Mr. Abrahams died in May of 2008 following an incident where he was shot multiple times with "Taser" electrical guns, hit with metal batons, and the police eventually tackled him to the ground.

The Yolo County Coroner's office ruled Abrahams did not die from the Tasers, but but rather from positional asphyxiation, which happened when police held him down on the ground. The Attorney General's Office cleared the officers of criminal wrongdoing.

Lawyers representing Rosemary and Cecil Abrahams of Davis allege:

"On the morning of May 28, 2008, police officers from the Woodland Police Department killed Ricardo during an altercation in which the officers beat him with metal batons, shot him multiple times with "Taser" electrical guns, and tackled him to the ground. The brutalization by the officers, combined with a dangerous defect in the Taser guns used, caused Ricardo's death."

According to their account, on May 18, 2008, Ricardo Abrahams left the Safe Harbor facility. Staff had become concerned about his condition and called the police to ask them to check on Ricardo.

"One or more officers at the scene decided to take Ricardo into custody, even though he had done nothing illegal and was not a danger to himself or others. Ricardo was not intoxicated and was not under the influence of any illegal substances. Police officers simply did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to seize Ricardo.

Police officers began to beat Ricardo's arms and legs with their batons. Police officers also fired at Ricardo using Taser electrical guns that were manufactured, distributed, marketed, and/or sold by TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC. Ricardo ran away from the officers to avoid their unlawful use of force against him. The officers chased Ricardo and shot him again with Taser guns. Ricardo fell to the ground and police officers swarmed on top of him. The weight of all the officers on Ricardo made it difficult for him to breathe. Shortly thereafter, the officers realized that Ricardo was not breathing. One or more officers called for an ambulance to transport Ricardo to the hospital. Ricardo was taken to Woodland Memorial Hospital where he was pronounced dead at approximately 10: 15 a.m. Ricardo's death occurred after unlawful, illegal, and unconstitutional force was used against him by the officers."

The lawyers allege that the police officers "needlessly escalated their encounter with decedent into a confrontation, and intentionally and recklessly commenced the use of force and violence without justification."

The plaintiffs also criticize policies, customs, and practices of the Woodland Police Department.

(a) directing or encouraging police officers to inflict unreasonable and excessive force on persons and to seize persons without reasonable suspicion or probable cause,

(b) hiring, retaining, and assigning officers with a known propensity for using unreasonable and excessive force and for seizing persons without reasonable suspicion or probable cause,

(c) failing to adequately train, supervise, warn, and discipline officers against the use of unreasonable and excessive force and against the seizure of persons without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, particularly with respect to persons who have committed no crime, but suffer from a health/medical condition, mental stress, mental deficiency, or mental illness,

(d) failing to investigate and impose discipline upon officers who use unreasonable and excessive force, or seize persons without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, or for other misconduct, thereby condoning and encouraging officers to believe that they can violate the constitutional and statutory rights of persons with impunity and that such misconduct will not affect their eligibility for continued employment, compensation, promotion, and other employment benefits,

(e) failing to adequately train, supervise, warn, and discipline officers regarding the dangers of Taser guns, particularly the risks to the respiratory and cardiovascular systems of persons who may have pre-existing health and/or medical and/or mental conditions, and who are shocked repeatedly, within a short period of time, and are then subjected to impaired breathing by the weight of an officer or officers.

The complaint alleges eleven causes of action.

The first is wrongful death in that the "decedent's death was directly and proximately caused by the illegal, wrongful, and neglectful conduct of the Defendants."

The second is violation of substantive due process.

"Defendants' misconduct and policies, customs, and practices alleged herein amounted to deliberate indifference to, and/or reckless disregard for, Plaintiffs' fundamental liberty interest in, and substantive due process right to, the companionship and society of their child, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution."

The third is excessive force.

"Defendants' misconduct alleged herein violated decedent' right to be free from the unreasonable and excessive use of force as guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution."

The fourth is false arrest.

"Defendants' misconduct alleged herein violated Plaintiffs' right to be free from unreasonable seizure as guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution."

The fifth is municipal liability that hits on the city of Woodland's polices, customs and practices. Recall one of the defenses is that they were following procedure as laid forth by the Woodland Police Department. This cause of action would get at that defense claim.

The sixth cause of action is battery stemming from the physical confrontation that the plaintiffs allege was improper.

"The police officers beat, shot, and tackled decedent, without his consent, with the intent to cause harmful and offensive contact. Decedent was harmed and/or was offended by such contact. This conduct occurred prior to decedent's death."

The seventh cause of action is interference with civil rights, this is related to the second cause of action.

"Defendants, by intimidation, violence, threat of violence, and/or coercion, intentionally interfered with or attempted to interfere with the right of decedent to be secure against unreasonable seizures, pursuant to the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 13 of the California Constitution, and the right to due process, pursuant to Article I, Section 7 of the California Constitution. This conduct occurred prior to decedent's death."

The eight cause of action is negligent hiring and supervision. The ninth cause of action is negligence.

Only the tenth and eleventh causes of action is directed against Taser International--strict products liability and products liability--negligence.

According to the allegations:

"TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC. knew that its Taser guns had manufacturing and/or design defects that presented the risk of causing personal injury and death, particularly against persons experiencing mental stress, mental illness, health issues, and/or medical conditions.

Furthermore, TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC. knew that its Taser guns were defective in that they were not accompanied by adequate instructions and/or warnings regarding the correct use of the guns, and/or the known and/or scientifically knowable potential risks or side-effects involved in using the guns in a foreseeable manner, including, but not limited to, the risks to the respiratory and cardiovascular systems of persons who may have pre-existing health and/or medical and/or mental conditions, and who are shocked repeatedly, within a short period of time, and are then subjected to impaired breathing by the weight of an officer or officers."

There have been no official responses to this point from the defendants.

One point that needs clarification because it arose in the Woodland Daily Democrat's initial story and also was mentioned on Matt Rexroad's blog.

The Daily Democrat wrote:

"The officers -- John Perez, Omar Flores, Anthony Cucchi and Amanda Waldeck -- were cleared of any wrongdoing by the state Attorney General's Office."

Mr. Rexroad who argued that the family should not receive one cent of taxpayer money said:

"The Woodland Police officers were cleared."

The more accurate statement is that the officers were cleared by the Attorney General's Office of CRIMINAL CONDUCT.

Deputy Attorney General Davis Lowe wrote:

"We find no criminal conduct on the part of any of the involved officers..."

The Vanguard reported on this back in October:

"This is not a surprising finding and based on what little we know of the case, an accurate finding. The fact of the matter is, a criminal finding would have had to have shown that the police officers intended to do harm to this individual. That is a very high standard to meet and one that is not in agreement with the known facts of the incident.

In other words, there is no reason to have suspected that the officers acted in a malicious fashion. That would be the difference between an incident like Rodney King where the police officers were clearly using excessive force in an intentional and malicious matter. However, even in the King case there was no criminal conviction--rightly or wrongly. The King case in that regard represents the norm.

But that is not the end of the story. Criminal conduct is only a small amount of this case. The next question will be whether the police are civilly liable for Mr. Abraham's death. That is a much lower standard and one that it does not appear from media accounts that the AG's office looked into."

At that time, Attorney Johnny L. Griffin from Sacramento claimed that the state's ruling was based on inaccurate information submitted by the Woodland Police Department to the Attorney General's office.

"If the material submitted by the Police Department is incomplete and/or inaccurate, the attorney general's findings will likewise be flawed... Bottom line, the attorney general's finding can only be as trustworthy as the information provided by the Police Department."

Bottom line here is that no judgment should be passed yet either way. The AG's office found no criminal conduct but that is not the end of the story. This civil trial will determine civil liability. The officers have not been cleared in this venue yet. We shall let the process play out and see what comes out in the trial.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

AG's Report Does Not Resolve Woodland Taser Case

The local media, namely the Davis Enterprise and the Woodland Daily Democrat were quick to exonerate the actions of Woodland police officers in the death of former Davis resident Ricardo Abrahams who died of asphyxiation after he was repeatedly tasered.

The family responded yesterday by suggesting along with their attorney that the investigation is flawed.

I will state at the onset that I do not know what happened, however, I think it is premature to conclude that there was no wrongdoing on the part of the police officers.

Deputy Attorney General Davis Lowe wrote:

"We find no criminal conduct on the part of any of the involved officers..."

This is not a surprising finding and based on what little we know of the case, an accurate finding. The fact of the matter is, a criminal finding would have had to have shown that the police officers intended to do harm to this individual. That is a very high standard to meet and one that is not in agreement with the known facts of the incident.

In other words, there is no reason to have suspected that the officers acted in a malicious fashion. That would be the difference between an incident like Rodney King where the police officers were clearly using excessive force in an intentional and malicious matter. However, even in the King case there was no criminal conviction--rightly or wrongly. The King case in that regard represents the norm.

But that is not the end of the story. Criminal conduct is only a small amount of this case. The next question will be whether the police are civilly liable for Mr. Abraham's death. That is a much lower standard and one that it does not appear from media accounts that the AG's office looked into.

Sacramento Attorney Johnny L. Griffin represents the Abrahams' family in a pending wrongful-death suit.

In his statement to the Davis Enterprise, he entertained the possibility that the state's ruling was based on information submitted by the Woodland Police Department.

"If the material submitted by the Police Department is incomplete and/or inaccurate, the attorney general's findings will likewise be flawed... Bottom line, the attorney general's finding can only be as trustworthy as the information provided by the Police Department."

If that is the case, we have no evidence to suggest either way and will have to wait for the trial for that to come out.

What we do know is that based on the information that Woodland Lt. Charlie Wilts provided, an internal investigation concluded that the actions of the officers were "consistent with the department's use-of-force policies."

That leads me to two final observations. In Davis, after a serious of community complaints about a variety of incidents involving the Davis Police Department, the City Council authorized the City Manager to hire an Ombudsman who could investigate such complaints as an impartial and independent arm of the city. The advantage in such a case is that you would have independent eyes investigating police tactics and whether these officers followed proper procedure. The Ombudsman would have audited and reviewed the work down by the Woodland PD's internal investigation. Under some conditions, the Ombudsman himself in such a high profile case would have conducted the investigation.

The point here again is that the AG's office was looking largely (apparently) at criminal conduct, much as the District Attorney's office would have had they not been conflicted out. That is different than an internal review.

Unfortunately Woodland does not have an Ombudsman or any kind of independent investigator to do this work. Across the country, Internal Affairs units notoriously are reluctant to criticize and sustain citizen complaints on the use of force. In our investigation from two years in our Police Oversight Series, we found that nationwide over 90% of all use-of-force complaints were unfounded by IADs but a much larger percentage resulted in civil damages for the victim or the victim's family.

That is where this incident is headed--civil court. The family's only recourse is for this case to be adjudicated which is a very timely and very expensive endeavor. The Buzayan family's incident occurred in June of 2005, their case is still pending in Federal Court over three years and large amounts of money later. Most individuals simply cannot afford those kinds of expenses and they end up either settling, dropping their case, or in some circumstances representing themselves. As Davis recognized two years ago, there are better ways to do this and Woodland should look into some sort of independent review process.

Finally, the Woodland PD's finding is that the officers' actions were "consistent with the department's use-of-force polices." If that is true, they ought to take this opportunity to review those policies. Experts I have spoken too, while unfamiliar with the specifics of this case, suggest that the situation with a mentally impaired individual who is largely unresponsive to police commands is a particularly difficult situation for any officer to handle. It is difficult for them to assess what is wrong or how much danger the individual represents to himself or the community.

Several officers I have spoken with off the record privately suggested that they were uncomfortable with this case while stressing that they did not know the particulars. It is their experience that often, but not always, officers are too eager to use tools such as the taser and too reluctant to try to find lower use-of-force alternatives. Better and improve training could potentially have prevented this situation even if the officers did indeed adhere to department policy.

In summary, this is not the end of the story, there will be several additional chapters to be written. The family will move forward with their suit and more of the facts will likely come out along the way.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

More on the Tasering Incident

Matt Rexroad's blog drew my attention this morning to a letter to the editor in the Woodland Daily Democrat. The letter was critical of the police's handling of the incident that led to the death of Ricardo Abrahams.

Unfortunately, instead of rightfully being critical of the actions of the police on the scene, the writer resorts name calling and charges of racism.

For instance he writes: "violently and viciously killed by our fine and highly trained Woodland Police Department." He goes on to say, "some of these police officers are no more than group of thugs with badges."

As we discussed earlier on this blog, the death of Ricardo Abrahams has left us with numerous questions about the handling of that case, the police's overall handling of people who clearly have mental disabilities, among other things. I think it is absolutely right to be critical of the handling of this case based on what we currently know. There will be a full investigation that should tell us some of the details that we do not currently know and on that basis, the matter will be adjudicated.

That said, while I may understand the frustration of the letter writer, he goes to far, draws too far and too wide a net, and uses language that actually serves to undermine his case.

Matt Rexroad is inspired to write a response letter to the Woodland Daily Democrat. I probably agree with him on about 90 percent of what he said.

For example:

"Braun has no idea what happened to Abrahams. None of us do. The investigation is not complete. Until it is complete, we need to keep our minds open to the facts that are given to us.

Braun uses terms such as “violently and viciously killed”; he plays the race card and calls our officers “thugs with badges.” How much more uninformed can he be?"

He goes on to say,

"Braun needs to wait until the facts are known before making such statements."

I would in fact go further than that, I do not see any purposes served in using that kind of language--even after all the facts are known.

However, there is one thing that does stand out in Mr. Rexroad's letter than I could not disagree with more.

"They deserve the benefit of the doubt (and more) each and every time."

The police are in a position of extreme public trust. They have the right to take private citizens into custody. They have the right under extreme conditions to legally end someone's life. With that trust that we give them comes a high level of responsibility for which I do not think they deserve the benefit of the doubt when something goes wrong.

I think we have the right based on the facts at hand to be skeptical and respectfully (key word) question their handling of a given situation. The officers involved without doubt deserve to have a full and impartial inquiry into their actions. Moreover, they deserve regardless of their guilt or innocence not to be called derogatory terms. They also deserve not to suffer collective guilt for the actions of one or more individuals.

However, "benefit of the doubt" goes beyond withholding judgment in given case. It suggests expressing support for these officers in a judgment call type situation. They deserve not to be thrown under the bus, but having spoken to numerous law enforcement people, I have yet to hear one say that given what we know they did the right thing.

Mr. Rexroad also said:

"Woodland Police Officers are well trained. They also are forced to make decisions quickly and without the benefit of the comforts associated with post event analysis."

They are well-trained, but part of my criticism is whether they were trained well enough to handle this situation. Again, this is based on what we know. They get a call from this facility who have a person who is out of control. The response from the police is to try to issue orders. The person is non-responsive. What is the proper way to deal with a non-responsive individual who is known to have mental disorders at the time? That is a question that we need to understand. Pretty much every person I spoke to who actually are involved in law enforcement has told me, using the taser in this situation is not the best course of action.

Second, it appears that they used the taser four times and yet it did not serve it's desired purposes. Again, why is the response of the officers to repeat the scenario if it is not working.

Third, it appears that two officers simultaneously used the taser. Is that an appropriate course of action?

I understand that they are forced to make their decisions quickly and without the benefits of post-event analysis, part of the scrutiny here has to be on the training. What are they trained to do in these kinds of situations?

On a different but related topic

My wife drew my attention to this yesterday. Apparently, one of the new rages is a "Taser Party." Kind of like a Tupperware Party.

Apparently Taser International is marking their products to the civilian market in addition to law enforcement.

I did not see this particular report, although I was able to Google similar news stories. One of the things that was striking was the person talking about how safe it was. Here we have trained police officers struggling with issues on Taser usage and we want civilians to have the capacity to use Tasers?

I will give Taser Internation credit for at least requiring its customers to submit to a criminal background, but I am increasing uncomfortable with the way the police use Tasers, I am much less comfortable with having lesser trained individuals carrying around these types of weapons.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Looking at the Taser Death of Ricardo Abrahams

It has been just over a week since the death of Ricardo Abrahams.

According to accounts in the local paper, the man was in his late 40s, had checked into Safe Harbor Crisis house which is a short-term program for people who have mental health issues that they need to resolve.

The police were called in after he left the facility to determine if he posed a threat to himself and the public.

When the police found he was confrontational and ignored their instructions. He became increasingly agitated.

It was at this point that they determined he needed to be taken into custody. They used their Tasers. The Taser did not have an immediate effect. Apparently they tasered him a total of four times and also struck him with the batons.

It was during that process that Mr. Abrahams died.

I was not there and have not talked to anyone who was on the scene. However, while acknowledging that, there are several concerns about how this proceeded.

I have spoken with several officers and several people who work with the police on these types of issues. Everyone is concerned with the use of the Taser in this case, particularly the use of the Taser four times and the baton strikes.

The first point to note is that the individual was mentally ill. Automatically there should have been an expectation that the individual might not be responsive to some commands and instructions.

Was the person a danger to himself or the public at this point? They describe him as agitated but unarmed except with a pencil. So was there a need to immediately get him into custody or could they have called someone better able to console and calm the man?

The officers I talked with said they knew little about the officers involved on the scene, but suggested there is often an over-reliance on tools such as the Taser rather than the ability to understand and control the scene verbally and to recognize that an individual might not be responsive.

Tasers are marketed as an non-lethal alternative to firearms. However, as the Sacramento Bee article pointed out there have been 300 deaths since 2001 of people who have been shot by Tasers. Of course from those stats it is hard to determine if there is a net loss of life or a saving of life by its use.

However, increasingly people are complaining that Tasers are too quickly administered because of the non-lethal marketing as opposed to other techniques.

These are all questions that need to be answered.

Again, I will stress I was not there nor was I in the officers shoes, but based on media reports I am very concerned with how this was handled as were most of the people I spoke to, again, several of them were experienced police officers.

Meanwhile in an interesting twist, the Yolo County District Attorney's Office is not investigating this case because Mr. Abrahams was an intern with their department.

Woodland police investigators are conducting the investigation with help from the Sheriff's Department and several of the local law enforcement agencies. The Attorney General's Office will receive the results of the case for review.

This is the type of case that would seem to beg for some sort of independent investigation. We will see what they come up.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

2007 Year in Review--10 Biggest Vanguard Stories of 2007

As the first full year of the People's Vanguard of Davis comes to completion, we will countdown the top 10 stories from year. This is the second year we have done this.

Last year we counted down the 10 Biggest Stories in Davis.

This year we countdown the 10 biggest stories that we followed on the People's Vanguard of Davis.

We continue with the 5th biggest story: Landy Black hired as new Davis Police Chief.

Given all of the controversy surrounding the Police Department and the exit of former Chief Jim Hyde, this is almost a story because it is not a story. The resignation of Police Chief Jim Hyde was the second biggest story in 2006.

However, the hiring of the new police chief was not without at least some early controversy.

City Manager Bill Emlen decided that the best way to conduct these interviews was to keep all of the names confidential.

So on January 9, the City Manager announced that there were seven final candidates for the position of Police Chief.

"Last night the Davis Enterprise reported that the city has seven final candidates for the position of Police Chief and that one of those candidates is not interim Chief Steve Pierce.

City Manager Bill Emlen was quoted as saying:

“We’d like to find somebody who’s going to be around for a while, is able to set the department forward with clear vision and will be able to implement that vision.”

City Manager Bill Emlen not only has not disclosed the list of finalists to the press, but he has not disclosed it to the city council. While this is a personnel matter, it would not be inappropriate to divulge the names of candidates particularly to the members of the council. Several sources have informed us that this is a highly unusual move by the City Manager. While some personnel matters are confidential, the names of those on a short list are not--particularly to the City Council who is ostensibly his boss."

However, just because the intent was to keep the names confidential, doesn't mean that names do not leak out--particularly controversial ones.

As we reported on January 10, 2007:

"The People’s Vanguard of Davis has learned from multiple well-placed sources that one of these seven finalists is former Davis Police Captain Nick Concolino who was dismissed from the Davis Police Department in June of 2000 by then Police Chief Jerry Gonzales and then City Manager John Meyer."

The article laid out some of the reasons for the firing on Concolino and the controversy it spawned.

"The nature of personnel matters is shrouded in confidentiality agreements that prevent the release of reasons for a dismissal. As such, the public and even the City Council at the time were never informed of the reasons. We spoke with the Mayor of Davis during the time of the dismissal, Ken Wagstaff. He expressed his frustration stating, “this was the most frustrating thing about being on the council.”

Any hire of Nick Concolino would re-open old wounds. This action resulted in a huge and ugly controversy as the Davis Police Officer’s Association (DPOA) and many citizens campaigned against the dismissal of Concolino and then began an orchestrated campaign against Chief Gonzales. In response many citizens and civil rights activists came to the defense of Chief Gonzales."

The fact that Mr. Concolino was even under consideration sparked a lot of attention, criticism, and outrage.

Two weeks later, when the field was trimmed to three, Mr. Concolino was not among them.

"The Davis Enterprise reported on Thursday that City Manager Bill Emlen has announced that there are three finalists for the Police Chief position vacated in June by the departure of Jim Hyde for the same position with the Antioch Police Department.

According to several sources, Nick Concolino, who we ran an article on a few weeks ago, is not among the top three candidates. According to Emlen, one of the candidates is a woman, two of them are from out of state, and two of them work currently for law enforcement organizations, but one does not but has experience working as management in police organizations."

By early February it was clear that there was one candidate--Seattle Police Captain Landy Black.

The Police Captain sat down on the phone with me for a 30 minute phone interview. And laid out his position on a number of controversial issues including expressed support for civilian police oversight, which he had worked under while in Seattle.

On February 20, 2007, Landy Black was named the new Police Chief.

"City Manager Bill Emlen at last night's Davis City Council Meeting announced that Seattle Police Captain Landy Black has accepted a job offer for the position of Police Chief. Captain Black's tenure will officially begin on April 9, 2007. Interim Police Chief Steve Pierce will once again return to his previous position of Assistant Police Chief. Captain Black's starting salary will be $130,421.50 which is the highest salary in the city's salary schedule."

The swearing in came in early April:

"Amid much excitement, anticipation, mixed in perhaps with some relief, Davis City Manager Bill Emlen swore in Landy Black as Davis' new police chief.

The newly sworn-in Chief Black was joined by a number of colleagues, friends, and his very proud wife and parents yesterday before a full contingent of Davis Police Officers, elected office holders, and other community leaders."

For the most part since that point, Chief Landy Black has been a non-story.

He earned rare praise from the Vanguard for his handling on the May Day Student Protests.

In an article entitled, "Davis Police Compare Favorably in their Actions on Tuesday Compared with the Problems in Los Angeles," I wrote:

"As I watched the protest on Tuesday as it moved from campus, through the middle of Russell Boulevard and eventually to the intersection of Russell and Anderson, I remarked to several people the professionalism by which the Davis Police Department handled the march. They not only blocked off the streets in advance of the march, but they allowed for the impromptu, never engaging or escalating even when things may have gone slightly off-track.

As the march ended up with several hundred protesters marching in the middle of one of the most heavily trafficked intersections in the city, the police seemingly effortlessly diverted traffic. I understand that this diversion inconvenienced travelers and students who were attempting to get to class, but in terms of their prime duty--safety and peace, the police did their job on that afternoon and they did it well."

Most impressive to me was a conversation that I had with Chief Black on site:

"I spoke first to Lt. Dorothy Pearson and then to the new Chief himself, Landy Black. In both cases, they downplayed the significance of their actions. Telling me that this was their job. Chief Black spoke about the importance of the right to protest as being a centerpiece of a Democratic society and I could not agree more. However, as we have seen throughout history, the actions of the Davis Police Department on this day should not be dismissed as lightly as the leadership did."

There will likely be trying times in the future for the new police chief, in many ways that is the nature of the job. However, the first seven months or so on the job have afforded the chief was an opportunity to put down roots and make contacts in the community before the next trying incident.

For all of this non-controversy, especially after last year, the hiring of Police Chief Landy Black is the fifth biggest story in 2006.

---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

UCLA Incident Demonstrates Need for Independent Review and Policy Changes

The recent ruling on last fall's Tasering of a UCLA student gives us the unusual opportunity to review and scrutinize the police review system in addition to discuss policies on use of force by police departments.

In August of 2006, the fledgling Vanguard, took on a seven-part series of review of the Davis Police Oversight system--evaluating each part and making recommendations for changing it.

One of the key criticisms was the use of the Internal Affairs Department (IAD) as the agency with original jurisdiction over IAs. The chief problem that was cited at this time was a relatively low number of sustained complaints by the IAD in Davis. From 2003-2005 there were 74 complaints, only 5 of which were sustained.

These numbers were used by then Chief Jim Hyde and Davis Councilmember Don Saylor (among others) to demonstrate the lack of need for additional police oversight.

However, a 2002 report by the US Department of Justice warned that:

"[T]he meaning of a complaint rate is not entirely clear: a low force complaint rate could mean that police are performing well or that the complaint process is inaccessible; likewise, a high force complaint rate could mean that officers use force often or that the complaint process is more accessible."

Further statistics suggest that the low sustained complaint rate in Davis is actually not atypical. For instance one year in Los Angeles, there were 561 complaints against the LAPD and none of them were sustained.

The UCLA case provides us with another example as to why we cannot merely rely on IADs to provide oversight of police departments.

The initial review of the UCLA case

"cleared Officer Terrence Duren and two colleagues of wrongdoing. Details of the review are confidential but it concluded officers did not violate campus policies, according to a statement released by Norman Abrams, former acting chancellor of the University of California, Los Angeles." (See Sacramento Bee, August 3, 2007).

Furthermore, as the Los Angeles Times reported, the officer involved has been involved in a number of other controversial incidents on the campus. This is a frequent problem in oversight, that you have officers often who are repeat offenders, who end up being involved in incidents over and over again. The people that these officers harm are not only the citizens, but their law abiding and dedicated colleagues.

Fortunately in this case, instead of settling for the IAD report, someone made a decision to bring in Merrick Bobb, a noted police accountability expert.

Bobb found that the officer's decision to use a taser here was "unnecessary, avoidable and excessive."

The student is by no means innocent here either and that should be noted and was noted by Mr. Bobb.

"This story has no heroes... While the student should have simply obeyed the order to produce the card ... the police response was substantially out of proportion to the provocation."

Citizens have the responsibility to cooperate with the police always. People ought to know their rights and when they can assert them, however, when push comes to shove, obey the police and dispute their conduct later. However, police are professionals and trained, and they need to respond to difficult situations appropriately, this was not a case where an officer was in danger and therefore the use of force here was clearly not justified.

This case also provides us with an opportunity to examine use of force. We have talked about it in the past as well, especially regarding an incident that did not escalate quite as far as the UCLA incident was, but that had to do with the actions against a UC Davis student involved in a bicycle stop sign incident which also grew out of hand. The key question is how should non-cooperative individuals be treated by the police.

In this case, Mr. Bobb makes specific recommendations for chaing policy on the use of Tasers on "passively or mildly resistant individuals." The main question is, when should officers use force against an individual? It is obvious that if an individual is violent or represents a physical threat to the officers or the public, that use of force is justified.

But if the individual is simply being non-compliant why are you using a taser three times? There have to be other means by which to handle a situation.

Merrick Bobb makes some very strong recommendations to "forbid their use against passively or mildly resistant individuals." Moreover he recommends:

"Restrict Taser use to violent, actively aggressive or imminently violent subjects -- and only after a warning. Discourage repeated shocks. Prohibit shocking of handcuffed prisoners."

Acting UCLA Chancellor Norman Abrams and UCLA Police Chief Karl Ross were both in agreement with the policy change. That is a good start.

But the secrecy of the internal investigation given state law protecting confidentiality of the police involved in citizen complaints led to the independent investigation by Merrick Bobb. The concern is that this was a very high profile case, how many other complaints have also been swept under the rug at UCLA and other UCs across California?

This is a very serious point in evaluating complaints against UC Davis police officers. We have heard of several in the last year and note that there is no Ombudsman or any sort of police oversight system on the UCLA campus.

The City of Davis does have an Ombudsman and they have a three member Police Advisory Committee (PAC) reviewing IAs. Some of my concerns about the Police Oversight system in Davis have been alleviated in the past year. However, a big one that remains is the lack of willingness of individuals to file IAs.

As the UCLA case attests however, a small minority of officers are repeat offenders in violations of the rights of citizens and it is those small number of officers who probably cause the majority of complaints. A system that can identify those officers, can protect the law abiding and dedicated majority of police officers from the type of adverse scrutiny that they do not deserve. Officers put their lives on the line every day and we need to put a system in place that protects them and the citizens.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Why I believe We Need More Officers

On Tuesday night, it was late into the evening, rapidly approaching the midnight hour. I stepped up the microphone to speak at public comment immediately after Davis Police Sergeant Rod Rifredi. I can only imagine what was going through the minds of the many police officers that were in attendance that night. However and perhaps surprisingly to the DPD officials who were there, I spoke of the need to hire six new police officers in the near future. In fact, I told the council that I "agreed with the DPOA and Mr. Rifredi."

As this blog has progressed, I have spoken less and less during public comment. For one thing, I feel I can speak better through the blog. For another, I sometimes get the distinct impression I make things more likely to fail than pass. But this was different, this issue. The issue of police staffing and public safety perhaps make my perspective more rather than less important. I am fully aware of the past and the perceptions in the community and most particularly in the police department about me.

On the other hand, I think some of those perceptions are wrong. Few in Davis are aware than in San Luis Obispo I was a close ally of the police chief. But last year the issue of police oversight for whatever reason became so polarizing that it became the defining moment for many about me, whom people had never met for the most part and knew even less about my background and most of my beliefs.

I flash forward to the current discussion at hand, but I believe that the past is paramount to understanding the future. Why was I so moved to advocate for adequate staffing of police officers? I believe such staffing is part and parcel toward fostering improved trust between the department and the community. For many, the police are strangers in this community, many of whom do not live here and merely move through town, driving around in their cars. Some of that has changed with the hiring of Landy Black as police chief. But I believe we need to move closer toward a model of community policing, where the police are part of the community in which they serve. The only way that can happen is that we have enough officers on duty to put some on foot patrol. To put some into various communities where they can work with the neighborhoods and the citizens.

This is also a political issue and it begins with city budget problems. I could see a sense of frustration on the faces of the officers as they recited past promises that a new officer each year would be hired and complained that this commitment fell by the wayside. I saw the frustration as the city council spoke of budget constraints and lack of resources, even as they have in the past put into place budgetary considerations that have served to hamstring the budget and put such changes out of reach.

A serious crisis looms for the city that has made financial commitments that will induce structural budget problems. The policy of five year employment leading to lifetime pensions is not sustainable. The rapidly escalating salaries of top end officials adds to this problem.

Councilmember Stephen Souza spoke in terms of three main areas for expenditure and played parks and recreation off police and fire in a budgetary tug-of-war.

However at the same time, he presented us with a false dichotomy. The city is prepared to spend hundreds of millions on the combination of a wastewater treatment plant that will be simultaneously upgraded with a new water supply delivery system.

When confronted on this issue Councilmember Souza suggested that money came from a different fund than public safety money. While technically correct, in practice it comes from the same place--the city resident. The money comes from them whether it takes the form of a rate increase or the form of a new tax.

The city is increasingly going to rely on taxation as a means to raise revenue because they have not controlled their spending in recent years. What that means is that the public is in the unenviable task of choosing between parks, police, fire, or water. Unfortunately, the decision on parks has already been chosen. The voters voted for Measure G last year.

Now I am not against parks, no one is. But we have to ask ourselves if that was the most pressing need that needed to be addressed with a tax increase or reauthorization. The problem is that the citizens chose between parks or less parks on their ballot. But the real choice down the line is a prioritization between parks, public safety, and water. And the public never had this laid out to them last year. They only had a simply choice. But at some point, as we face a parcel tax increase schools and one for the library (both of which are desperately needed and I wholly support), we have to lay all and not just some of the options on the table. Because at some point, the public is going to revolt over taxes. They are going to revolt over paying more and more to city government when a lot of the current spending has been squandered. And at the end of the day, they are never going to choose which things are priorities and which or not. They will simply be faced with a terrible dilemma--do I increase my taxes even more or do I cut vital city financed services.

Unfortunately, what our city council is doing forestalling that decision date. They are punting. They are putting the ball into the hands of a future council to make the tough decision as three of them are facing reelection in less than a year, and two of them--Souza and Saylor--have never met a program or budgetary increase that they do not support. But at some point, it will come to the point where it is too much to take and we really will face a crisis.

In the meantime, we need more police officers on the street. We need to insure the safety of the community and help to restore the vital trust between the police and certain communities, and that begins by our city giving the police the tools that they need to do the job they were hired and we trust them to do.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Report Demonstrates Need for Public Safety Priority in City

It has become commonplace within this community to assume that I am against law enforcement because of my proactiveness on the issue of police oversight. I also believe in oversight for all aspects of professional life whether it be medical, legal, or safety standards. I simply believe that oversight is always needed as a protection to the public--regardless of the industry. It is not anti-contractor to have building inspectors. It is simply a recognition that a few bad contractors can ruin it for the thousands of good contractors.

In any case, a number of councilmembers have staked their name as being staunch defenders of law enforcement mainly because they were viewed in opposition of efforts to create civilian review of police operations.

However, in my view it is not simply enough to oppose oversight in order to be pro-law enforcement. Looking at city budget priorities that have been largely put into place by this current council majority, I have to question why anyone would consider them (the council majority) pro-law enforcement.

This is largely made clear, at least in my opinion, in a staff report that will come before the city council this evening.

What is clear from the staff report that we will examine in more detail shortly is that the city lacks the money at present to make the upgrades that we need to protect our citizens in the form of public safety.

The city faces serious budget constraints at present. And more importantly it faces serious budget inflexibility in the future.

As we discussed in March, city practices implemented repeatedly by this council majority have served to hamstring the budget process. Current policy has created a situation where a retired employee needs to have worked only five years with the city in order to receive medical benefits for life after retirement. Current policy has created a stratospheric rise in salaries and benefits--not for the rank and file employee but for upper management.

The result of this practice is not only are we paying a tremendous amount of the city's current budget to upper management, but we have produced a system whereby we are funding people long after they have left the system and we have done so for people who have not been longtime employees necessarily.

No only are we paying a large percentage of our budget to this now, but we will pay ever more in the future. We will have locked a large percentage of our budget away for entitlements and we will not have the budgetary flexibility to meet the needs of a growing and vital community especially in terms of public safety. We simply cannot continue down this path is we want a safe community.

Thus the staff is recommending three phases based on available budget. First, a phase based on changes that can be implemented immediately with minimal additional costs. Second, they would look toward flexibility and reallocation of money. Third, they would look toward new incoming revenue streams such as the Target store.

Our public safety is going to rely on the revenue stream from Target--which may or may not ever come to Davis and from which budgetary estimates are shaky at best?

What the report does not suggest is that many of these concerns could have been handled had the city looked at their budget a few years ago and done a better job of prioritizing their concerns. The bottom line here is that the city will find a way most likely to get the public safety the people need, but the people are going to have to pay for it and the citizens at some point should ask why.

The staff report argues:

"Simply adding “officers to the streets” will not address the overall needs of the Police Department in the long run. On the contrary, unless a sound management and oversight structure is in place first, the addition of officers may not meet community expectations for the type of service that the Department should provide. Furthermore, the addition of officers must be implemented strategically, with an eye on those community expectations and improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the Department."

This is an interesting finding. As the Ombudsman, Bob Aaronson, suggested in his report back in February, there at that time criticized the leadership, management and supervision within the department. With the arrival of new police Chief Landy Black, there is reasonable hope that that situation will improve.

However, I would also suggest based on my experience on a ride-along, conversations with members of the business community, and conversations with the public as a whole, that we do need to add more officers to the streets. Much of the time, the current level of patrol is sufficient to cover the city, but it is not sufficient to have a real presence in key parts of the city. Nor is it sufficient to cover the city when a major incident occurs. For example, I watched what happened when there was a simple fight at an apartment complex that led to an injury. Most of their manpower was at the scene of this incident--which meant during a prime time for parties and mayhem, there were not officers on the street that could handle party calls. There were not officers patrolling the street.

So while I agree that "simply" adding "officers to the streets" will not solve the problems, they will go a long way toward helping resolve some of the issues that this community has.

The report further states,

"there is no one response time standard in law enforcement. Police response times vary greatly depending on the type and priority of call received."

I agree. But where questions arise is why it takes a certain length of time to respond to what could potentially be serious calls downtown during key times. There was a broad daylight bank robbery where response time was questioned. I saw an incident personally where a fight could have been dangerous to the public at a popular Davis restaurant and it took the police over ten minutes to arrive.

We recognize that there are different priorities for different situations. No one is overly concerned if it takes the police half an hour to take down a report, but if there is a potentially dangerous situation, it is obvious to this layman that we need the manpower and flexibility to respond rapidly to such situations. And during downtimes, we could use the police presence in key areas to both deter troublemakers as well as foster relations with specific communities and neighborhoods.

Unfortunately none of this will happen unless the city can get control over the budget situation. And right now, they have not.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting