Police usesof-force need better oversight
After police officers use deadly force, their own departments typically conduct the investigation. Fellow officers handle the reviews, which are shrouded in secrecy and rarely result in serious punishments. Recent police protests stem from frustration that, even in egregious cases, agencies tend to give their overly aggressive officers a pass.
Other states have dealt with that concern by requiring an outside investigation – usually from the state attorney general – whenever an officer uses deadly force. CALmatters looked at this issue recently and found that California relies almost entirely on internal reviews, which presents a conflict of interest given a police culture that puts a premium on protecting one another.
The report notes that of larger population states, California has the highest percapita rate of police shootings. California’s is well above the national average and towers above a few other liberal, urban states such as New York, New Jersey and Illinois. Those states have passed laws requiring outside agencies to conduct police investigations.
Assemblyman Kevin McCarty, D-Sacramento, has introduced a bill that tries to fix this problem by creating a division within the California Department of Justice to “conduct an independent investigation of any officer-involved shooting or other use of force that resulted in the death of a civilian.” It would empower the department “to criminally prosecute any officer” that violated the law.
Unfortunately, there may be less here than meets the eye. As the news report noted, Assembly Bill 1506 is a watered-down version of previous proposals. Instead of requiring an outside investigation, the measure would allow such an investigation if the local police agency or district attorney requests one. CALmatters quoted Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who said he wasn’t briefed on the bill. Other state officials worried about a lack of funding.
That’s unconvincing. As this Editorial Board has previously noted, Becerra is a close political ally of the state’s police unions and, despite his recent support for some useful police reforms, has used his office to resist the implementation of a new police-accountability law that requires the state to release police disciplinary records. It’s not hard to get briefed on this bill and take a stand on it. Its succinct language is posted on the state legislative website.
Law-enforcement agencies often champion programs that come with a high price tag, but then they suddenly become frugal with proposals that are relatively modest in cost, but which they don’t particularly like. The bigger problem isn’t the cost. As long as union-friendly politicians run the Department of Justice, state investigations are unlikely to be any more useful and conclusive than the current, locally directed ones.
For example, the state Department of Justice last year quietly ended its four-year investigation into the Orange County “snitch” scandal, where deputies and the district attorney’s office were accused of improperly using jailhouse informants to garner confessions from other inmates – in apparent violation of their right to an attorney. “In the end, it’s really worse they ever came in the first place,” said the county public defender.
Nevertheless, California lawmakers would be wise to consider some type of outside oversight system whenever an officer uses deadly force. The best way to ensure public confidence in policing is to create a system that is fairminded and independent.