Legal Commentary

Civilian Oversight and Police Accountability

By TChris

Civilian oversight of police departments is essential for the reasons advanced by Oakland's city attorney:

[T]aking Internal Affairs out of the Oakland Police Department would clarify the line between officers and the investigators who hold them accountable for misconduct. The concentration of investigators in Internal Affairs is a result of the Oakland Police Department's not-too-distant history of not investigating its own. In the past, Internal Affairs did a poor job of holding fellow officers accountable. A few years ago, for example, newly assigned commanders found boxes containing about 700 inquiries and possible complaints of misconduct that were never investigated.

Yet the concept is often resisted by police departments (large and small) that apparently see a danger in civilian oversight. What's wrong with accountability? And, for that matter, why shouldn't Chicago's aldermen be entitled to learn the names of "the 662 Chicago police officers with more than 10 complaints filed against them"? Police officers work for, and are accountable to, the public. Shouldn't the public's elected representatives be entitled to know what public employees are up to?

Full post as published by TalkLeft on June 05, 2008 (boomark / email).