Origami Tigers & Civilian Review Boards

I posted Monday morning on the topic of the proposed Civilian Law Enforcement Review Board (CLERB) scheduled for discussion by the OC Board of Supervisors on Tuesday.  It seems that my original post has been characterized by Steven Greenhut at the Register’s Orange Punch Blog and to a lesser extent by Jubal (Matt Cunningham) over at Red County/OCBlog as being in opposition to the concept of civilian review of law enforcement.

Greenhut took me to task in his post saying:

Prevatt goes on to oppose the panel, arguing that current oversight is sufficient. He is accusing conservatives of being hypocritical for supporting the panel, but I suppose he isn’t being hypocritical for opposing oversight.

This isn’t really confusing, is it? Just as the small-government element of the Republican Party has been routed by the law-and-order crowd, so the civil libertarian element of the Democratic Party has been routed by the public sector unions. Prevatt is a county worker, and therefore union member and advocate, and Human Relations is willing to look the other way at really bad human relations (i.e., police who abuse their authority), rather than offend its union allies. At least, that’s my theory. 

Let me clarify now in no uncertain terms, I believe that the actions of law enforcement can be effectively reviewed through civilian oversight.  Properly structured, in a way that protects the rights of the personnel involved, civilian review is a good thing. Accountability of public employees engaged in law enforcement provides an equitable check, even a balance to the authority the public entrusts to law enforcement personnel.  But this can only happen when the accountability is real, and not an illusion.

Such systems of review however, should not be duplicative, cumbersome, and most certainly should not be political in motivation, implementation, and administration.  Such systems, if necessary, should be independent of the officials supervising law enforcement personnel in determining recommendations for personnel action.  This process, by its very nature, cannot be fully open to the public.  If the actions of law enforcement personnel violate laws, then those matters need to be turned over to the District Attorney for prosecution.

When it comes to those major instances where a person is injured or killed, the matter of law enforcement cannot, and should not, be turned over for civilian action in any other setting than that of our courts. 

A civilian review board, like the one proposed by Supervisor Moorlach, would not be able to prosecute or discipline officers suspected of improper conduct.  They would only be able to make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors that has empowered them.  The Board of Supervisors would have no power to compel the Sheriff or the District Attorney to take any action at all.  Hence, the CLERB proposed by Supervisor Moorlach is nothing more than a toothless “Paper Tiger.”  It grabs a few headlines for Moorlach, but does nothing to protect the public.

This entire proposal is nothing more than Supervisor Moorlach dishing out a pay back for the Deputy Sheriff’s opposing his election as Supervisor and demanding that he not be permitted to attend memorial services for fallen officers.

This is nothing more than politics as usual.  Moorlach really couldn’t give a crap about suspects who are injured or die in custody, he just wants to make a couple points using a tragedy to his political advantage.

As proposed, the CLERB would have seven members, one appointed by each of the Supervisors and two by the CEO.  Come on folks, you can’t get much more political than that.  I see no benefit that can be derived from a review board that is subject to political manipulation by individual members of the Board of Supervisors. The CLERB’s process of investigation, the related costs, and the duplication of effort that is created will simply be a waste of time and money.

If we want independent review, we should require that the District Attorney review the determinations of internal affairs investigations of non-serious violations of law and require that the DA conduct an independent investigation of serious instances such as those involving serious injury or death.

The B.S. that Moorlach is trying to spread that a CLERB will have any impact at all stinks of politics.  None of it is true.  While I have been on the recieving end of abuse of police power, and the ineffective, in my case non-existant internal affairs review, I cannot see this proposal having any effect at all.

My reasons for opposing Moorlachs proposal are not related to my affiliation with a public employee union.  My opposition derives from the simple fact that his proposed solution is not a solution.  Moorlach’s plan will not build public trust or confidence in law enforcement personnel.  This sham of a review board will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars annually accomplishing nothing more than we already have with our current process.

If Moorlach really wanted a CLERB for the purposes he claims, then he would propose one with teeth and independence from political influence.  Instead he is trying to pawn off this empty shell as a full bag of nuts. 

I’m not buying it, and neither should anyone else.