[ad_1]
Speaker 1: (00:00)
A package of proposed changes to the access and powers of the San Diego District Law Enforcement Committee is moving forward. These changes were approved by the Board of Directors. Last week’s reforms included allowing the committee to extend oversight to medical staff and county jails, and allowing a qualified committee representative to participate in site investigations into deaths and allegations of wrongdoing. I’m joined by the executive officer of the law enforcement committee or the county case officer, Paul Parker and Paul. Welcome.
Speaker 2: (00:40)
Thank you for this opportunity. now
Speaker 1: (00:42)
They presented this package of proposals to the board of directors and it was cited as the biggest change proposed to clubs since they began 30 years ago. Why did you take this step?
Speaker 2: (00:53)
Maureen? I looked at the current state of law enforcement and community relations, not just in San Diego but across the country. When we were founded 30 years ago, the whole purpose was to have a transparent and independent regulator overseeing the actions of sworn members of the Sheriff’s Department and Probation Service. Over the years this transparency has been reduced, almost eliminated, even eliminated, by some changes in case law and legal changes. And that is why our independence comes into question even if we cannot be as transparent as we are.
Speaker 1: (01:33)
Can you tell us how investigators are now conducting death investigations in detention and what restrictions are you subject to?
Speaker 2: (01:41)
Right now, when a fatality occurs on remand, the sheriff or probation department notifies us pretty quickly, they give us the general circumstances right down to the name of the deceased and the location where they died. And then we wait several months for her examination to be completed. It can take more than a year or more in some cases. Then, after we have received the records so far after death, we simply review what they have given us and assess whether there has been a breach of guidelines, whether there has been any breach of the law, whether there is anything we can recommend they do different.
Speaker 1: (02:20)
They have no independent examination, routine access to autopsies, and no supervision over medical staff.
Speaker 2: (02:29)
We are currently not conducting an independent evaluation of the death investigations, as we are only waiting for the materials from the respective departments. And that’s mostly the sheriff’s department. The purpose of this particular request is to be independent, do an independent analysis, be present, receive this information and then also review the information that will be made available to us at a later date in relation to the medical staff. We have no jurisdiction over those who provide medical or psychological care and detain inmates. Therefore, we believe that without the ability to review care by medical staff and assess whether or not the standard of care has been adequate, we cannot get a full picture of the deaths that have occurred in custody.
Speaker 1: (03:14)
Do you think Cleared has been able to fulfill its mandate of overseeing the county law enforcement under the existing regulations?
Speaker 2: (03:21)
I would say no. I would say that because we lack transparency and independence, or we are simply waiting to review the documentation, we are certainly not living up to the spirit of our founding in 1990.
Speaker 1: (03:40)
The proposed changes to the case officer require new legislation
Speaker 2: (03:44)
Increase the transparency of government and civil oversight in the state of California. We believe that this is only possible through new legislation. We are paralyzed by court rulings from 2003, 2006 and 2008. And so far, I don’t think anyone has tried to make civil oversight more transparent, which is exactly what we are trying to do.
Speaker 1: (04:07)
And you give us an idea of what those court decisions and how they hampered your investigation.
Speaker 2: (04:14)
Prior to 2003, our club meetings where we discussed the cases were held publicly or investigative reports were public documents and were made available to the public. We were also able to identify MEPs by name in public. In 2003 our meetings were closed. We couldn’t discuss a case in public. Our investigation reports later, and a few years later, we too are restricted. We can now just publish a heavily edited version of the reasoning that we use to build our findings on each allegation. And nobody knows any citizen, complainant, or family member of the deceased, knows the exact content of the conversations of the clerks or the exact content of the thoroughness required for many non-desperate investigations. Nobody knows because it’s behind closed doors.
Speaker 1: (05:12)
Your reform proposal has now cleared the first hurdle by obtaining the approval of the Secretariat. What other permits do you need?
Speaker 2: (05:19)
It depends which one we’re talking about. Go increase the transparency. I need to work with the district staff of the Bureau of Strategic and Intergovernmental Affairs to identify or begin drafting laws for the Board of Directors to submit to the Board of Directors to support the advancement and responsibility for medical and mental health I will essentially be working with the county staff to write a letter to the board of directors requesting an amendment to our administrative law, statutes, rules and regulations so that we have that jurisdiction. And then at that point we will also meet with the unions of the people who are concerned about responding to death scenes and sealing court opinions on behalf of the sheriff’s department, these are policy recommendations, and we just got these the sheriff- Department and awaiting a response on whether or not the Sheriff’s Department allows us to go to death scenes and whether the Sheriff’s Farm allows them not to routinely seal information from the public about certain deaths in Custody.
Speaker 1: (06:26)
Now, before you came to the clerk, not only did you work as a police officer for several years, but you also worked as a clerk a few years ago before you came back last year. Police officers in general have not always been terribly supportive of the law enforcement review body. Then what made you come back to Clara, what made you propose these changes?
Speaker 2: (06:50)
Going back to the case officer was a fairly straightforward decision as there had been some changes at the county level. There was some national dialogue that apparently began after the George Floyd incident and after the George Ford murder. So I have come back to look at it from that perspective and to make these proposals which I believe will dramatically increase transparency and hopefully add to public confidence in what is going on at the law enforcement level. That is why we are here to be transparent and independent and to facilitate communication between law enforcement and the community, hopefully to help improve the practices that may need to be improved and, ultimately, to try and help law enforcement with that To assist in preventing deaths in the future.
Speaker 1: (07:46)
I spoke to Paul Parker, the district law enforcement officer, and Paul, thank you very much.
Speaker 2: (07:53)
And thank you again for the opportunity.
[ad_2]
Source link
