Crime

OP-ED: Cities That Ignore the Need for Police Reform Will Pay Dearly

Published

10 years ago

April 2, 2014

Bay area city governments cannot afford to ignore Oakland’s struggles with police reform. The Oakland Police Department is under the control of federal judge Thelton Henderson and his appointed monitor. Oakland refers to him as the “compliance director” rather than the “court-appointed receiver”. This arrangement, which features a stripped-down police chief, handcuffs Oakland’s ability to deliver effective Police services.

Oakland’s Police Department (OPD) is dysfunctional because of its own inaction and lack of accountability. In 2000, attorneys sued the city and individual police officers in the notorious “Riders” case, a group of Oakland police officers who terrorized West Oakland, under the guise of fighting crime. Oakland settled with the 119 plaintiffs for $11 million and agreed to implement 51 police reforms.

Regrettably, after 7 years of ignoring the reforms, the city paid $1 million a year to the court-appointed monitor who faithfully reported how the city failed to implement the reforms.

In 2010, the court appointed a receiver to run the department, taking control away from the city.

After spending more than $15 million to fight reforms, Oakland still won’t address a process to identify problem officers, internal investigations and eliminate racial profiling. The city would rather pay millions for police misconduct while no one is held accountable.

The lesson is: Implement basic control of the Police Department accountability and other simple reforms and funds are available to make citizens safer.

Talk about the inmates policing themselves. Oakland’s city auditor claims to investigate city mismanagement and the lack of performance, yet there has been no audit of the millions spent by OPD for a failed computer tracking system.

The OPD’s $200 million budget, nearly half of the city’s general budget, is a major drain because 92% of the police officers live outside the city.

Six reforms that can make a difference:

1) The city auditor should divert her resources from petty investigations and do a performance and budget audit of the Police Department and identify basic cost savings reforms that will put more officers on the street.

2) Oakland should hire civilians, instead of patrol officers, to investigate nonviolent crimes such as auto thefts and burglaries. 3) Establish civilian review of the Police Department, implement the internal investigation reforms, and eliminate the obscene current condition of more internal investigators than homicide investigators. 4) implement the remainder reforms so that the department is freed from federal jurisdiction and cost.

5) Implement technology that will improve police services. Keep the shot tracker program in place. Yes, put cameras throughout the city of Oakland. This technology exposed the Rodney King beating, the Boston marathon bombers, freed a New Jersey driver, and the out-of-control Albuquerque Police Department. 6) The city should require every police car and officer to have cameras that records every citizen interaction.

Every city has to show the courage to implement reforms that run an efficient department and accountability of its officers. Money without reforms will not reduce crime.

Clinton Killian

Clinton Killian is an attorney at Oakland downtown Oakland law firm Fried & Williams LLP and former public official. He can be reached at ckillian@postnewsgroup.com.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

Bettie Hodges Inducted into Marin Women’s Hall of Fame

Don't Miss

Civil Rights Attorney Pamela Price Runs for the CA State Assembly

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of April 17 – 23, 2024

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of April 17 – 23, 2024

Published

16 hours ago

April 19, 2024

Oakland Post

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

California Black Media

Commentary: Finding the Right Balance — Addressing Organized Retail Theft While Upholding Civil Liberties

Organized retail theft is a significant issue that impacts both consumers and businesses. While it is crucial to address theft and protect businesses from losses, we should also be mindful of safeguarding individuals’ constitutional rights, particularly the right to due process. AB 1990 by Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo, also known as the STOP Act, raises concerns about the balance between addressing theft effectively and ensuring civil liberties are upheld.

Published

2 days ago

April 17, 2024

Oakland Post

Assemblymember Tina McKinnor (D-Inglewood)

By Assemblymember Tina McKinnor | Special to California Black Media Partners

AB 1990 by Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo, also known as the STOP Act, raises concerns about the balance between addressing theft effectively and ensuring civil liberties are upheld. This bill allows law enforcement officers to make warrantless arrests for shoplifting offenses not witnessed by the officer, as long as there is reasonable cause to believe the individual committed the crime. This bill has a dangerous potential for overreach and infringes on civil liberties, particularly the right to due process.

While the stated intention behind the STOP Act is to combat organized retail theft and protect businesses, there are valid concerns that this bill is an overreach and that existing law works, if properly enforced by our partners in law enforcement. A petty theft involving property stolen valued at $950 or less may be charged as a felony or misdemeanor (called a wobbler) if the offender has the following prior convictions:  1) at least on prior petty or theft-related conviction for which a term of imprisonment was served, and 2) a prior conviction for a serious or violent offense, for any registerable sex offense, or for embezzlement from a dependent adult or anyone over the age of 65.  A misdemeanor can result in a sentence of up to one year in jail, whereas a felon can mean incarceration for 16 months, two years or three years.  Let’s look at shoplifting in California.  It occurs when a suspect enters a store, while that establishment is open, intending to steal property worth less than $950.  The crime is considered a misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in the county jail.

Granting officers the authority to arrest individuals based on reasonable cause, without witnessing the crime firsthand, can lead to negative consequences and possible violations of individual rights. Probable cause is the legal standard by which police authorities have reason to obtain a warrant for the arrest of a suspected criminal and for the courts to issue a search warrant. A grand jury uses the probable cause standard to determine whether or not to issue a criminal indictment.  The principle behind the probable cause standard is to limit the power of authorities to conduct unlawful search and seizure of a person or its property, and to promote formal, forensic procedures for gathering lawful evidence for the prosecution of the arrested criminal.  Reasonable cause does not require any of this due process and only requires that an officer reasonably believes that a crime has been committed. It is essential to find a middle ground that effectively addresses organized retail theft without compromising the fundamental rights of individuals.

California’s current laws, including the use of witness statements and surveillance evidence are sufficient for addressing suspected shoplifting and organized retail theft. California Attorney General Rob Bonta recently prosecuted Michelle Mack, a suspected organized smash and grab ringleader who paid twelve women to travel around California and commit over $8 million in retail theft at 21 different stores. AG Bonta used California’s current laws to have the suspect arrested and brought to justice.

The State of California is also making significant investments to address retail theft. Just this past year California invested an additional $267 million to combat organized retail theft. It has been less than a year and our law enforcement partners should have the opportunity to address this recent spike in retail theft crime.

Los Angeles County recently applied for and received a grant for the State of California for $15.6 million dollars to address retail theft enforcement.  LA District Attorney George Gascon also recently formed an organized retail task force that partners with LA County Sheriff’s Department, Glendale, Beverly Hills, Burbank, Torrance and Santa Monica Police Departments to integrate their response to retail theft across the region. These collaborative efforts, such as those seen in initiatives like the organized retail task force in LA County, demonstrate the importance of a united approach to tackling theft while maintaining a balance between enforcement and civil liberties.

As we move forward, it is essential for policymakers, law enforcement agencies, businesses and communities to work together in finding solutions that effectively address organized retail theft without encroaching on individual rights. Ongoing evaluation and a commitment to thoughtful consideration will be crucial in navigating this challenge and fostering a safe and prosperous environment for all. Balancing the scales of justice to protect businesses while upholding civil liberties demands a comprehensive and conscientious approach from all stakeholders involved.

I am confident we can find that balance.

About the Author

Assemblymember Tina McKinnor (D-Inglewood) represents the 61^st District in Los Angeles County, which includes parts of the South Bay, Inglewood, Hawthorne and Lawndale.