Bill, if passed, would bolster rights for families
The proposed law targets questioning tactics of police after a loved one is killed
After hearing that their daughter had been shot by a San Jose police officer, Jim Showman says, he and his wife, Vicki, were desperate for news about her condition.
Sharon Watkins remem- bers having that same feel- ing when she heard that her son, Phillip, had been rushed to a hospital after he was shot by police officers.
That urgency, they say, led them to agree with whatever police requested of them in the moment, including answering questions about their children's experiences with mental illness. They cooperated, they say, in the hope of getting answers about whether their child was alive, or a chance to see them one last time.
Showman says he was kept in the dark about his daughter Diana's condition until he told investigators that her bipolar disorder could make her potentially violent — though, he later said, he didn't mean violence against people. Then the questioning abruptly ended.
“They shut things down, and I asked them, `Is she alive?' ” he recounted. “They said, `I'm sorry, sir, no she's not.' I collapsed.”
Watkins agreed to questioning at police headquarters, isolated from her son's girlfriend and her mother, who had called 911 to report that Phillip was having a suicidal episode. She said she was assured that if she cooperated, she would get to see her son. She willfully gave up her cellphone when they asked.
After the questions were done, she remembers, “I was at my weakest point. I would have agreed to anything just to see him again. They knew that. But when
A San Jose Police Department patch.
they were finally done with us, they said, `They can't let you see him because it's a crime scene.' ”
Experiences like these are the driving factor behind a proposed state law by San Jose-based Assemblymember Ash Kalra. Assembly Bill 3021, introduced earlier this month, would mandate that law enforcement inform family members of people seriously injured or killed by police about their loved one's condition, remind them of their right to remain silent, and tell them they can have an attorney or advocate accompany them — all before any formal interview takes place.
The necessity of the bill, according to Kalra and cosponsor Silicon Valley DeBug — a South Bay civilrights group — stems from an array of anecdotes from affected families, contending
that police leveraged their grief to gather information that would later be used to either legally justify a police killing or insulate a police department from civil liability.
Kalra says the heart of the bill is the notion that not every family should be assumed to be hostile or elusive if they find out the status of their relative, in the same way police shouldn't be assumed to be trying to cover their legal exposure.
“Not every scenario is going to be antagonistic. Maybe (relatives) want to talk and talk about a family member having a mental-health issue. Maybe they want to explain things,” Kalra said. “They should be given an option how they should approach such an interaction.”
Some statewide police groups, such as the California
Police Chiefs Association and the Peace Officers Research Association of California, declined to comment on the bill, citing the need for more study. Other police advocates, including the San Jose Police Officers' Association, told this news organization that the bill as currently drafted doesn't address the urgent nature of investigations following violent encounters.
Law-enforcement agencies' concerns include protecting the integrity of criminal investigations related to a fatal encounter that involves sensitive intelligence, and situations where revealing information such as the condition of a loved one might prompt silence that stalls an investigation. They cite scenarios such as the pursuit or investigation of mass shooters where such a delay could cost lives.
“The bill in its current state will compromise the ability of police officers to hold suspected criminals accountable, and it will have a negative impact on criminal investigations by the early release of information that could put innocent individuals and witnesses in harm's way,” SJPOA President Steve Slack said in a statement. “This bill is designed to address a problem that, quite frankly, doesn't exist.”
San Jose Police Chief Anthony Mata similarly saw the bill as a potential impediment.
“I have nothing but sympathy for the families left behind in these cases, many of whom I have met with personally,” he said in a statement. “I don't think discouraging cooperation from critical witnesses in these complex investigations will get us closer to the truth of what happened.”
Still, the practice has left some family members feeling like the information they gave had a role in keeping them from finding accountability for their loved one.
Showman, whose 19-year-old daughter was shot in 2014 after making a threatening call to 911 and ultimately standing in front of her home with a spray-painted power drill, is haunted by the ensuing police interaction.
“It was specifically the information I gave that killed our civil suit,” said Showman, whose family's eventual settlement with the city instituted mandatory crisis training at SJPD but yielded no monetary compensation. “I'm racked with guilt every day. I look at her picture every day and I think I failed her.”
Watkins, whose son was killed in 2015 after slowly walking toward officers with a knife in hand in a suicidal episode, added that Kalra's bill is attempting to balance a dynamic that has treated family members with undeserved suspicion.
Corina Griswold, whose father Rudy Cardenas was fatally shot in the back in downtown San Jose in 2004 by a state DEA agent who mistook him for a fugitive, recalled investigators repeatedly questioning her and her family about whether Cardenas suffered from depression, without telling them Cardenas was dead.
“You're kind of in a state of shock, you don't know what's happening. As soon as they realized we weren't giving the information they wanted, what happened? They said, `We can't tell you anything because the case is under investigation,' ” Griswold said. “At the same time, they were telling the press an account of what happened, and that's how we found out.”
Ultimately, Kalra said he is seeking a solution — and says his “door is always open” to hear from police and other stakeholders — that doesn't assume only one side can be satisfied.
“We want to make sure families in a vulnerable state aren't taken advantage of,” he said. “Police departments can do both: inform families about their loved ones and do their due diligence in the investigatory process. You don't have to muddle the two together.”