NAACP unveils police oversight panel plan

Commissioners want to study several alternatives

Friday, May 28, 2010

In a 3-2 vote Tuesday, the Charles County commissioners approved taking a look at recreating a board of public safety and encouraging more dialogue among the local NAACP, the sheriff's office and county government.

Commissioners' Vice President Edith J. Patterson (D) and Commissioner Gary V. Hodge (D) voted against the efforts to allow more county and community oversight of complaints against police.

William Braxton, president of the Charles County branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, brought that question before the commissioners May 25 in an effort to get the leaders to approve a public hearing on the panel, which he suggested on behalf of the association via a legislative request to the county.

Braxton brought a similar proposal before the commissioners last year, during a meeting between the board and the sheriff's office.

In October, the NAACP president also suggested a panel would have been helpful in reviewing the events that led to the death of a black Pisgah man after being shot multiple times by county sheriff's officers.

"I'm a little disappointed, and I'm kind of surprised a little bit with the reaction of one or two of the commissioners," Braxton said Wednesday. "My next step is to contact someone from the sheriff's department and see if we can restart our dialogue. The process is not allowing the general public a fair shake with their complaints …"

"We'll initiate an inquiry into [Braxton's] claim of a lack of communication. That is certainly not a directive of the sheriff's office," Maj. Joseph "Buddy" Gibson said.

Braxton's proposal centers around a seven-member panel charged with completing "the initial review mechanism now used by the Sheriff's Department," to investigate complaints against officers, according to the proposal.

The panel — which would be selected from a 14-member overarching board — would review cases of brutality, excessive force, harassment and abusive language to determine whether the sheriff's internal affairs office fairly concluded the complaint investigation. The proposal indicates that the civilian panel members would be chosen by the county commissioners and the sheriff would appoint two officers to represent the department. Terms would be limited to two, two-year stretches.

Charles County Attorney Roger Fink proposed to the board that rather than start an entirely new panel, the commissioners might consider reappointing people to a board of public safety designated in the county code.

The board almost was disbanded in 2000 when the sheriff's office began its Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies certification. The decision was made to keep the reviewing body because one of its powers was to appeal any disciplinary decisions made by the sheriff, Fink said.

Today the code reads that the board will have five members, all of whom have been Charles County residents for two years prior to their being appointed to the board. Two members will be county commissioners appointed by their fellow leaders, another two members are appointed by the county delegation to the Maryland General Assembly and the one unelected individual is appointed by the commissioners.

According to a fiscal note, if the county were asked to help fund the oversight panel, the cost of paying two sheriff's officers — most likely a lieutenant and sergeant — an attorney and county staff to assist the review board would be more than $400 per hour.

The Prince George's County's citizen complaint oversight panel budgeted $248,000 in fiscal 2010.

According to the Prince George's panel's 2009 report, in fiscal 2009 it reviewed 163 investigations and received notice of 572 new complaints.

L. Denise Hall, administrative director for the Prince George's complaint panel, said the board is made up of seven citizens, all appointed by the county executive and confirmed by the county council.

Hall said the panel was established in 1991 after an incident several years earlier involving abuse of a resident. The public outcry that ensued prompted the establishment of a task force by the then-county executive to address the issue.

The panel receives an entire file for a particular complaint and it makes a decision on whether to agree or disagree with the law enforcement agency's investigators.

While the final decision rests solely with the chief of police, the panel's recommendation on the investigation is sent to the chief for his consideration.

Patterson defended her vote against the motion, saying it was not because she wasn't in agreement on allaying the problem but that she felt there were critical issues that needed to be addressed before a final decision is rendered.

"It doesn't sound like distrust, it sounds like a lack of communication," Patterson said. "To go from one extreme to the other, I think there should be some middle ground."

Hodge said he was not "comfortable with a rush to judgment," given his minimal familiarity with the board of public safety.

According to a document from a March 24, 2009, retreat of the commissioners and sheriff's office, there were three complaints related to racial profiling in 2007 and six in 2008. Braxton said there were no more than seven or eight for 2009, after Hodge asked for an estimate on the number of complaints.

"In my opinion there are so few extraordinary incidents of officer misconduct in Charles County that having that board set aside as one that could be called on notice … may be an appropriate option," said Commissioner Reuben B. Collins II (D). "What it does is provides that citizens input, which I think is necessary in many instances when a community is hit hard by an extraordinary event."

Braxton said he always was included in the information loop when an extraordinary incident occurred. Now there's no move, Braxton said, to contact his organization and instead he often finds himself as the one doing the dialing.

"We always are received [well] when we go there but it's just the fact that the communication and what we had suggested and the terms of follow up that we had no longer exists," Braxton said.

There are a number of avenues a grievance can follow in the sheriff's office complaint process.

Capt. Troy Berry, commander of the sheriff's office's Office of Professional Responsibility, said the first step usually begins with a phone call from someone with a complaint — for example — against an officer. Police assess the complaint to see whether the situation can be defused and or clarified. Often once a law or an officer's conduct is explained, a person may not choose to file a complaint, Berry said.

If a person chooses to file a complaint, the complaint form eventually makes its way to the professional responsibility office.

"If it's a minor complaint like a courtesy issue … or an allegation of performance of duty, it may be handled at the field level by a direct supervisor," Berry said.

Whether the complaint is considered major or minor, if it makes its way to Berry's office, an investigation is launched, which will end with a sustained, nonsustained, exonerated or unfounded finding.

Nonsustained means the investigator cannot prove or disprove the complaint.

An unfounded complaint means "it just didn't have any merit or the allegation is pretty much totally false," Berry said.

Sustained means police find merit in the complaint and proceed with action against the officer, and exonerated means the officer is not held responsible.

Regardless of the finding, once the investigation is complete it will be brought to Berry's desk where he will concur or not concur with the findings of fact.

"Four command staffers are looking at that incident, looking at the facts, looking at the evidence and we all have to come to some agreement in the disposition of that investigation regardless of the finding. Multiple eyes have the opportunity to see that situation," Berry said.

At the conclusion of the investigation and once all parties have signed off, a letter is sent to the complainant and any other involved or interested parties, detailing the disposition.

"It's quite a process. Our phones would be ringing off the hook if people were like ‘what happened to my complaint?'" Berry said.

Diane Richardson, spokeswoman for the sheriff's office, said complaint forms can be found at public libraries, county government buildings, on the sheriff's website and a form can be mailed to a resident if requested.

"We want people to feel comfortable. If they have concerns or issues we want to hear about them," Richardson said. "We have an open-door policy. If anyone has any concerns, any issues, any matters they want to discuss, we encourage them to come in and talk to us."

Richardson said in the last five years, the NAACP has taken an active role in five complaints.

When that occurred, the department sent the organization a letter that stated the findings and encouraged communication with the sheriff's office if there were any concerns or issues.

"This is for anybody in this county. Anybody who has any issues concerning the sheriff's office, we want to hear from them," Richardson said.

Richardson said she was not aware of any follow-up calls from the NAACP related to those five complaints.

"There hasn't been a problem with follow-up on issues; we probably have to work on the process," Braxton said. "Most of the process is done over the phone. Even the individual filing the complaint, they get the form, send it in and the next day they get a phone call that says, ‘We've reviewed your case and we didn't find anything wrong.' I'm saying there's something wrong with that process."

Hodge said an element that should be an important part of the process — allowing dialogue between a resident with a complaint and law enforcement — is missing. "It appears that in the past year that really didn't happen. There may have been phone calls but it seems to me to a degree there might be a process issue here," he said.

Cpl. Jason Hopkins, president of the Charles County chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police, said there are three mechanisms for handling accountability at the sheriff's office.

There is the public mechanism, or the press, which Hopkins said keeps the department in the public eye; the legal mechanism, which is the grand jury that can indict officers if they commit a crime; and the administrative mechanism of the sheriff's office's Office of Professional Responsibility, which handles internal affairs.

"All these are checks and balances with each other," Hopkins said. "We're worried [Braxton's mechanism] would be a political review. I feel like the public seems satisfied with the processes in place. Why muddy up the water?"

Berry has made himself available to Braxton and his organization at all times of the day, Richardson said, as well as given Braxton multiple phone numbers to use for contact and "encouraged open dialogue on a number of occasions."

msomers@somdnews.com