“Policing the Police” A Fact-Finding Investigation into the Effectiveness of Charlotte’s Citizens Review Board Professor Jason Huber John S. Arco Lee Miller-Finkel Crystal M. Richardson April 27, 2011

White Police Officer shoots unarmed 19- year old five times at traffic stop, killing him. Over 200 citizens protest outside D.A.’s office for failure to prosecute officer involved in shooting Police fire 22 shots at car passing through checkpoint, killing 48 year- old passenger Charlotte City Ordinance 849 adopted, creating Charlotte’s Citizens Review Board Nov. 19, 1996Dec. 10, 1996 April 8, 1997 June 9, 1997 “Police shootings tarnish Charlotte image; 2 deaths rock reputation `New South' city earned” - Associated Press, April 14, 1997

Composition of the CRB Member Appointed by City Council Appointed by Mayor Appointed by City Manager *Chair and Vice-Chair elected annually by CRB

Number of Appeals considered by Board since

Number of Appeals considered by Board since Number of Times CRB voted to have a “Hearing” 6

Number of Appeals considered by Board since Number of Times CRB voted to have a “Hearing” 6 Number of “Hearings” actually held 4

Number of Appeals considered by Board since Number of Times CRB voted to have a “Hearing” 6 Number of “Hearings” actually held 4 Number of Times CRB has determined that the Chief of Police “Abused his Discretion” 0

Meeting Minutes Annual & Other Reports Internal “Rules” & “Regulations” Dispositions Recommendations Member Information Statistical Data Other Records?

1 st Public Records Request December 3, – 2010

City’s Response to 1 st Public Records Request March 1, 2011 Received Two Annual Reports (FY 2004, 2009) CRB Member Info. (incomplete) 2008 Amended Rules Some Minutes (“Open” & “Closed”) “General Materials” Promised Additional Annual Reports, Minutes ‘Missing’ Information RE: CRB Members Other CRB – Made `Rules

Complaints Appeals Dispositions Recommendations Made to CMPD

Do these RECORDS Provide ANSWERS ? Do these RECORDS (or Lack Thereof) Simply Raise More QUESTIONS ? DOCUMENT REVIEW

 “Boilerplate” Language  Insufficient Descriptions: Nature of Complaint “Defenses” Investigation Evidence Methodology Determinative Facts Justifications - Excerpt taken from April 2006 CRB Meeting

- Excerpt taken from December 2006 CRB Meeting  “Boilerplate” Language  Insufficient Descriptions: Nature of Complaint “Defenses” Investigation Evidence Methodology Determinative Facts Justifications

2 nd (Supplemental) Public Records Request April – 2006 “Missing” Documents from 1 st Request

Getting to know the Complainants: The Questionnaires  Who?  What?  Where?  When?  Why?

19 complainants listed in the minutes 17 researchable names 8 confirmed addresses and phone numbers thus far  5 interviewed up-to-date

The Questionnaire

What were the events that occurred which caused you to submit your complaint against the police? Please feel free to tell your story. Question 1 How did you feel about the complaint process with the police department? Question 4 Did you feel that the Board took your complaint seriously? Question 15 Do you feel that the Board favored the police during the process? Question 16 Do you feel that the Board adequately addressed your complaint against the police? Question 19 Overall, how satisfied were you with the entire process? Question 20

Do you have a copy of the complaint that you filed with the Police Department? Question 2 We also asked if any of the complainants had any pending criminal or civil cases that extended from the events that lead to their complainant.

How were you informed about the police department’s decision? Question 7 How difficult were the forms to fill out? Question 9 How easy was it to submit your appeal? Question 11

How did you first find out about the CRB and the appeals Process? Question 5 How did you obtain the forms for your appeal? Question 8 Did the forms and information adequately explain your rights and responsibilities regarding the appeals process? Question 10 How were you contacted? Question 12

How long was it before you found out the Police Chief’s decision? Question 4 How soon after receiving the police department’s decision did you file your appeal with the Board? Question 6

 Take people’s feelings into consideration  Board should take claims more seriously and get rid of the bad attitudes  Hold police more accountable and at least make them apologize  Should be able to face the accuser and address discrimination  Have past victims/complainants or those that can relate to serve on the board

Our next research steps:  Continue to investigate all 63 complainants  Explore possible litigation regarding the public records and whether the minutes comply with the open meetings act  Examine the documents filed with the Civil Service Commission (agency responsible for hearing police officer’s complaints when the Police Chief recommends to discipline an officer for misconduct.

“Policing the Police” A Fact-Finding Investigation into the Effectiveness of Charlotte’s Citizens Review Board