Mar 7, 2007

Law on police reviews is eyed

Berkeley officials back bill to make charges of misconduct public

By Doug Oakley / Daily New Staff Writer

Berkeley officials are supporting a bill in the state Legislature that restores public hearings for police officers accused of misconduct.

Assembly Bill 1648 introduced Feb. 26 by Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, requires police departments to establish procedures to investigate complaints by citizens and it makes those procedures and personnel records open to the public.

The bill is headed to the Public Safety Committee on March 27.

Police review commissions across the state, including Berkeley's 34-year-old Police Review Commission, closed their hearings to the public in August. That was after the state Supreme Court ruled in Copley Press v. Superior Court of San Diego that state law protects police from having their personnel records made public. A subsequent case won in Alameda County Superior Court by the Berkeley Police Association against the Berkeley Police Review Commission affirmed the Supreme Court decision.

The new bill would open police review commissions, and it specifically seeks to overturn the decision in Copley Press v. Superior Court.

Under the bill, public information in police misconduct complaints will include a police officer's name and badge number; the name of the person bringing a complaint; a summary of the allegations; charges brought against an officer; findings and discipline taken.

Berkeley City Council Member Laurie Capitelli has introduced an item for the March 13 meeting asking the council to support the bill.

In a letter to the council, Capitelli said having closed hearings at Berkeley's Police Review Commission "prevents the public from learning about the extent to which problems exist within the police department, but also from learning about how management addresses misconduct when it occurs." Not having open hearings, he said, "makes it more difficult for police agencies to foster trust in the community and ultimately damages police-community relations."

Victoria Urbi, a Berkeley Police Review Commission officer, said while she supports the bill, she doesn't have much hope it will pass.

"My only concern is once it goes to the governor's desk, will he sign it?" Urbi said. "This is a very pro-law enforcement governor. The police union in California is so powerful, they will do what it takes to make sure it doesn't get passed. But it doesn't hurt to support it at this point."

Urbi said Berkeley has not held a single police officer misconduct hearing, open or closed, since August, following the Copley Press v. Superior Court decision.

There are now 44 police misconduct cases before the commission, she said. Five are ready to go to closed hearings, five are proposed for dismissal and the remainder are still under investigation. Urbi said the commission will need to vote on new closed hearing procedures March 14 before any hearings take place.

Urbi said she believes the commission can still be effective despite the fact that the public cannot attend hearings or see information on police officers accused of wrongdoing.

"We will still make findings, reports and recommendations to the city manager and to the chief of police," Urbi said. "Police will still need to go before three civilian commissioners, so you still have civilians reviewing these allegations of misconduct."

Henry Wellington, president of the Berkeley Police Association, said while he has not seen Leno's bill, his association is happy with closed hearings.

"I believe that all the protections that are in current law, and as they are interpreted in the Copley case and in our recent suit (against the Berkeley Police Review Commission), are appropriate and warranted," Wellington said.

Berkeley Police Department spokesman Ed Galvan said the department has no position on the bill.

"If a law comes down from the federal level or from the state, we will play by the rules," Galvan said.


E-mail Doug Oakley at doakley@ebdailynews.com.