|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
Announcement :: Crime & Police |
|
Candidate Responses to Police Review Board Survey |
Current rating: 0 |
by Jennifer Walling
Email: jwalling (nospam) uiuc.edu (unverified!) |
22 Feb 2005
|
|
The Coalition for Citizen Police Review Boards conducted a survey of the Urbana City Council candidates regarding their views on Citizen Police Review Boards. Their responses are available at www.prairienet.org/cprb |
Sorry for the lateness of this posting! - JW
The Coalition for Citizen Police Review Boards has been hard at work during the Urbana primary elections, educating council candidates and the public about Citizen Police Review Boards. The Coalition for CPRBs worked hard to make this issue a campaign issue and were successful. The issue of CPRB's was brought up as one of the main questions at the Police and Firefighters Union forum and was one of the five key issues the News Gazette questioned the mayoral candidates about.
As part of the campaign for a CPRB and better community-police relations in Urbana, the Coalition conducted a survey by mail sent to all candidates to determine how much each candidate knew about CPRB's and how committed each was to its creation in Urbana. The responses are currently available at www.prairienet.org/cprb.
The results indicate that most candidates would be willing to look into the creation of a CPRB and several absolutely support a CPRB.
After the primary elections, the Coalition for CPRB's will still be actively working with the council candidates for a more just system for police complaints in the city of Urbana.
The next meeting of the Coaltion for Citizen Police Review Boards will be at 7 PM on Monday Feb. 28 in the Bondurant Room of the IDF on the corner of Springfield and Wright. |
This work is in the public domain |
|
Re: Candidate Responses to Police Review Board Survey |
by John Hilty
jhilty (nospam) shout.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
22 Feb 2005
|
|
I have examined the responses of the Ward 5 candidates to this questionaire. Dennis Roberts states that the proposed Police Review Board would somewhat overlap the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Commission in Urbana. This is not true. The Human Rights Ordinance of Urbana specifically excludes any governmental entity from its jurisdiction. Thus, you cannot file any kind of complaint against the Urbana Police using the Human Rights Ordinance. It appears that Dennis Roberts doesn't understand this at the present time. |
|
Re: Candidate Responses to Police Review Board Survey |
by John Hilty
jhilty (nospam) shout.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
23 Feb 2005
|
I have now read the questionaire responses of all political candidates in the city of Urbana regarding the Police Review Board. There are some additional comments that I would like to make.
Some candidates stated that members of the Police Review Board would be unfamiliar with police procedures and mentioned the desirability of having police officers as consultants or members of the Review Board. I think it would be unwise to have law enforcement personnel as members of the Review Board as this would undermine its capacity to conduct unbiased and independent investigations.
I do think that it would be useful to have a police officer as a consultant to the Review Board, which was suggested by Dennis Roberts. However, you would also need another consultant to the Review Board -- someone who has been on the receiving end of the criminal justice system and is familiar with this system as a convict , defendant, or advocate. Otherwise, the Review Board will receive biased information upon which to base its decisions. I think this is quite important because the high-profile people who are typically appointed to serve on Review Boards often have no signficant experience with the criminal justice system as defendents, and therefore they tend to remain oblivious to its various shortcomings and biases.
Related to the preceding issue, some of the candidates also expressed doubts regarding the capacity of Board Members (and by implication, the capacity of local citizens) to understand police policy and procedures. However, this opinion seems unjustified to me for various reasons:
1) Many local citizens are more highly educated than the typical police officer, and some of them have advanced training in scientific methods and procedures. Some of them also have law degrees, thus they are familiar with court procedures and the legal rights of citizens during a police investigation and/or arrest. Furthermore, many citizens without advanced degrees are familar with the criminal justice system as plantiffs, defendents, or jurors. Therefore, I am quite confident that capable people can be found to serve on the Police Review Board in Urbana -- assuming that the mayor and council members are willing to appoint them.
It was also suggested by one candidate that the Police Review Board should be organized at the county level, rather than the city level. I think this would be a serious mistake. The county board has authority over the office of the county sheriff only -- and the county sheriff has jurisdiction over the rural areas of the county only. The city police are ultimately accountable to the mayor and city counsel members, and the city is not subject to the jurisdiction of the county board because incorporated urban areas enjoy "home rule" under the Illinois Constitution. |
|
Re: Candidate Responses to Police Review Board Survey |
by Local Yocal
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
23 Feb 2005
|
|
Excellent points, John. Look for this argument constantly from law enforcement, that the lay public doesn't "understand". It needs to be constantly blown out of the water. I don't mind one representative from the police to be on the board, depending on how the votes are weighted, (majority vote wins? two thirds? unanimous? ) but there's no question in the land of lawyers, the highest charging felony county in the State, and with a university law school to draw from, we could field a very formidable Review Board that would far surpass the average patrol officer's intellect with regards to his conduct. Heck, we even have Wayne LaFave still living here, and he wrote the book on criminal law. The one other argument I've heard against the Review Board is the fear that were there one, police would practice "defensive law enforcement". Meaning I guess they would stay parked even more out at the Assembly Hall parking lot, hiding from the drunken campus. |
|
Re: Candidate Responses to Police Review Board Survey |
by Jennifer Walling
jwalling (nospam) uiuc.edu (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
23 Feb 2005
|
Excellent points, John and Local :)
I think that what we really learned through this survey was how much the city council candidates need to be educated about this issue.
We actually have a model ordinance written (which I think is not on the website right now...) . In it we include things like provisions for training of CPRB members. I think it's important not to have a member of the police force on the board to preserve the board's neutrality. I don't think I would mind a retired officer, but certainly not someone who might have to be judging his fellow officers; they wouldn't put me on my own review committee in my place of work.
I am also totally opposed to first, the Human Relations Commission being asked to take on CRPB responsibilities. Last time we talked to members of the HRC, they didn't think they had the training, plus they dealt with different issues. Second, I think the county level structure would not work as well. I think that the separate police agencies need separate review boards.
Thanks for reading these surveys, all! We've gotta keep leeting the council know how much Urbana needs a CPRB. |
|
Re: Candidate Responses to Police Review Board Survey |
by Local Yocal
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
24 Feb 2005
|
As an aside, Wayne LaFave disagrees with the current Supreme Court decision that allows police officers to use drug dogs as part of a routine traffic stop. The Supreme Court equates the drug dog with cursory searches through a window with a flashlight, something officers are now allowed to do without the driver's permission.
LaFave righteously points out that a drug dog is a special drug detection device, with the power to smell 40 times greater than a human, and trained in locating drugs where cursory searches (visual inspections) would never be able to go. LaFave reasons then, that because of the special nature of the dog's ability, police need a probable cause to initiate a search for drugs- which at the moment, they do not need.
Currently, police can pull a car over; and though the car and the driver may appear to be within the law, the police officer can decide to go on a fishing expedition and bring a drug dog out to "fish" for drugs despite the officer's own inability to suspect any wrongdoing.
If I had a video camera that could penetrate brick walls, LaFave says, I need a probable cause as to why I would aim it at your house to investigate what's going on in your house.
But alas, such visionaries like LaFave might be impractical for the Review Board, though he would definitely know the current rules backwards and forwards. Sadly, he would also be overwhelmed at the number of cases this Review Board will likely have to review every month. |
