Police chief, county executive oppose citizen oversight of Fairfax County Police.

No Citizen Oversight




By Michael Lee Pope

Thursday, March 31, 2011

Citizens will have no role in a model for investigating allegations of police misconduct under a recommendation presented to the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors this week by Police Chief David Rohrer and County Executive Anthony Griffin. For advocates of a citizen review board, the move was a disappointing rejection of an effort more than a year in the making. Almost immediately after a memorandum outlining the plan was released last week, experts began questioning the extent of research that was invested in the proposal.

"I find it perplexing that they made no effort to contact the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement," said Phillip Eure, former president of that organization, adding that he’s still waiting to receive a phone call from Fairfax County. "It really makes you wonder about the extent of the best-practices research they conducted."

The March 29 memorandum outlining the plan does include a 1997 report indicating that only 98 out of 651 eligible agencies had public review. But critics of the proposal say much has changed in the last 14 years, and that if the county officials had examined the current state of the field they would have discovered that Fairfax County is the largest jurisdiction in the country without any independent review of its police department.

"It’s unfortunate that the board is seeking guidance from Chief Rohrer because I feel he’s a big part of the problem," said Ronald Koch, president of the Citizens Coalition for Police Accountability. "He would much prefer to continue to have police police themselves."

INSTEAD OF HAVING an independent investigation of allegations of police misconduct, Rohrer and Griffin suggest having the county auditor review the police investigation. The brief memorandum outlining how this would work explains that the auditor, who reports to the county executive, would not have the power to subpoena witnesses. Instead, the auditor’s review would be limited to examining the police investigation.

"It is not proposed that the Internal Auditor will do an independent investigation separate from the police," Rohrer and Griffin write in the March 29 memorandum. "There may be instances, however, when the Internal Auditor will need to contract for consultants to aid in a view to compensate for a lack of particularized expertise in a specific area."

Critics say this model presents a conflict of interest. Because the auditor and the chief of police report to the same individual, how would the public ever know if the two disagreed on an investigation? Also, would an employee of the county executive be willing to issue a report detailing police misconduct? Advocates for a citizen oversight panel say the only way to ensure an independent investigation is to create a system outside of the existing power structure.

"It’s clear that they are doing everything in their power to avoid citizen oversight," said Nicholas Beltrante, executive director of the Citizens Coalition for Police Accountability. "I would encourage the Board of Supervisors to adopt our proposal rather than the one presented by the chief of police and county executive."

ALTHOUGH THE PROPOSAL from Rohrer and Griffin was on the docket for the Board of Supervisors meeting this week, Mount Vernon Supervisor Gerry Hyland offered a motion to postpone the matter and send it to the Public Safety Committee and the Citizen Advisory Committee. The move was cheered by many who were concerned that the public had no opportunity to respond to the proposal. Now that the police chief and county executive are on record opposing citizen oversight, those who would like to see a more public process say they will be fighting for a more public process than the one currently under consideration.

"Having an auditor review the police investigation is like having the fox guarding the hen-house," said Kent Willis, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia. "Citizens should have the opportunity to evaluate, investigate and review police activity."

Rohrer and Griffin, on the other hand, believe that a citizen review board would not provide "additional value" to a review process. In the memorandum outlining their proposal, they say the citizen’s role would stop at asking for an investigation. Because the auditor already investigates allegations of inappropriate behavior and business practices, they say, he or she would be familiar with police procedure and investigator practices.

"There is no strong evidence that a citizen review board provides additional value to a review process," they wrote. "Public review boards have the same issues as any publicly appointed body."

THE MOVEMENT TO CREATE a citizen review board in Fairfax County began in February 2010, shortly after police officer David Ziants shot and killed an unarmed driver on Richmond Highway. Police officials failed to release the incident report or the dashboard video footage of the incident, even when the information was requested in a Virginia Freedom of Information Act request. Yet Rohrer and Griffin now say the existence of the dashboard video footage is a reason citizen input is not needed.

"In summary, an independent auditor is a recognized model and option to provide an independent look at significant responses by police and alleged police misconduct," the memorandum concludes. "It allows the public to initiate reviews of the Police Department actions, and coupled with the Board’s anticipated acquisition and installation of digital cameras in police patrol vehicles, which the Police Department has long sought, the public’s trust of police should be enhanced."

The Fairfax County Police Department has long maintained the position that its incident reports should be kept secret, even though these documents are routinely available in the vast majority of jurisdictions across the country. Even when one of their officers shot and killed the unarmed man in 2009, the department refused to identify the officer who fired the fatal shot.

"What does the name of an officer give the public in terms of information and disclosure?" asked police spokeswoman Mary Ann Jennings at the time. "I’d be curious to know why they want the name of an officer."
Because the auditor would merely review information submitted by police, critics say, the department’s reputation of secrecy would be counterproductive for investigating allegations of misconduct.

"We’re happy they’ve acknowledged there’s a problem," said Koch. "But the proposal currently under consideration is not what we were looking for."