Bills focus on transparency, records in police shootings
Two state legislative proposals seek to increase transparency and keep better track of police-involved shootings in Arkansas.
One bill would ban law enforcement agencies from criminally investigating their own officers’ use of deadly force. The other would require consistent reporting of deadly-force incidents across the state.
A third related bill would “establish incentives” for law enforcement agencies to use body cameras.
None of the bills details how the proposed changes would be funded.
Families of shooting victims and police-accountabil-
ity proponents say the measures are “a step in the right direction” to improve the relationship between police and the public. Law enforcement officials and associations remain mostly neutral on the measures.
The bills were filed just before publication of an Arkansas Democrat-Gazette investigation article that found that 135 people were shot by Arkansas police between 2011 and 2016. Sixty-seven died.
The mentally ill and unarmed black individuals were more frequently victims when compared with the broader population, the newspaper’s analysis showed.
The details were published March 12-14, in a series titled “Deadly Force” that relied on a database created by reporters because the state does not officially count how many times police shoot someone.
The database, which drew from hundreds of public records and media reports, likely does not include all incidents because some officials refused to release information, citing ongoing investigations. Others said they couldn’t easily search their files to provide that information because they don’t keep indexes on deadly force cases they handle.
House Bill 2266, filed by Rep. Vivian Flowers, D-Pine Bluff, would require all law enforcement agencies to report certain information about instances of deadly force, including: race, age, sex and mental health status of the shooting victim; why officers fired their weapons; and what led up to the shooting.
The Arkansas State Police will not take a position on the bill until more details about its implementation emerge, said agency spokesman Bill Sadler.
Sadler acknowledged that there is value in improving the state’s data collection efforts.
He cautioned against drawing sweeping conclusions from raw data and said each incident should be considered in its totality.
But data can help pinpoint cases that deserve further scrutiny and possibly show
agencies where they need to change their policies, he added.
“That’s where you do begin to learn something,” he said.
Last year, the U.S. Department of Justice announced its intent to create a pilot program requiring nationwide collection of data on officer-involved shootings. Law enforcement agencies are awaiting direction from President Donald Trump’s administration on how to proceed.
House Bill 2228, sponsored by Rep. Charles Blake, D-Little Rock, would require all officer-caused deaths to be criminally investigated by at least two detectives from a different law enforcement agency.
That means that Little Rock Police Department detectives, for example, would be barred from criminally investigating a fatal shooting involving a Little Rock police officer. Instead, detectives from another agency, such as the state police or Pulaski County sheriff’s office, would handle the investigation.
The department’s policy of investigating its own officer-involved shootings was called into question recently.
During a November meeting, Black Lives Matter leaders asked the Little Rock Board of Directors to request an independent investigation of a shooting, after they said they found discrepancies between eyewitness accounts and Police Department statements regarding the fatal shooting of Roy Lee Richards. The department refused to turn over the investigation to an outside agency.
In 60 of 135 deadly force cases reviewed in the Democratanalysis, detectives investigated officers who had worked for the same police departments.
Blake’s bill also mandates that investigators reconstruct any vehicle fatality accidents in which police were involved.
Blake, in a Thursday phone interview, said he modeled the bill after similarly worded 2014 legislation passed in Wisconsin with bipartisan support and that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker had signed into law.
“It’s hard to investigate a co-worker,” Blake said. “The police department does a really good job. This just adds another layer of transparency.”
Wisconsin, Illinois and Utah are the only states that require independent criminal investigations of deadly police shootings, a Democratreview of state laws found.
A similar bill is being discussed in California for the second time, and New Mexico just created a task force to research several police changes, including calling in outside agencies to investigate police-caused deaths.
Families of victims, while supportive of Blake’s proposal, say it “doesn’t go far enough” because the ultimate decision on whether to file charges against a police officer is made by a local prosecuting attorney, who routinely works with the agency being investigated.
“Why not also have a civilian on the team for review?” asked Elizabeth Stephens. “Why not have public people on the case?
“You’re still taking the case back to the person who has good relationships with law enforcement,” she added. “Families still won’t get a fair shake.”
Stephens’ son was shot and killed by a Benton police officer after a car chase in 2013.
The Benton Police Department investigates its own police shootings. The prosecuting attorney in Saline County ruled that shooting as justified.
Blake’s and Flower’s bills have been assigned to the House Judiciary Committee, but neither have been heard yet.
It’s unclear if either bill will make it to the House floor before the legislative session recesses next month, but Flowers and Blake say they hope to present their bills this week.
Michael Laux, an attorney who often files lawsuits against police, alleging excessive force, thinks the bills deserve a chance to be heard and says they are obviously needed.
“It’s not rocket science,” he said. “This is common sense.”