"Policing" the police may be getting a whole lot easier for North Carolina's residents.
Durham’s Civilian Police Review Board is an volunteer committee whose purpose is to review complaints of police misconduct. Some in Durham, however, feel that the board has been incapable of providing proper oversight over the police force and in some cases serves as little more than a “rubber stamp.” House Bill 193, titled “Prohibit Discriminatory Profiling,” looks to change this perception by expanding access to similar review boards in more N.C. communities.
“This is a civilian protection piece,” said Graig Meyer, who co-sponsored the bill with fellow state representative and Democrat Rodney Moore. “It gives the people the opportunity to say whether or not the police, who are part of our government, are trusted in situations where they have to sanction officers.”
In North Carolina, civilian review boards do not conduct independent investigations of complaints against the police. Rather, their mandate is to review the results of completed internal affairs investigations and recommend to the city manager whether the investigation was conducted fairly and issue recommendations, at which point the city manager has discretion on whether to reopen the investigation or follow those recommendations.
However, communities looking for greater police accountability often see civilian review boards as being ineffectual as a direct result of not having independent investigating powers, said Lewis Pitts, a former civil rights attorney.
“Its part of a charade,” Pitts said. “They aren’t vested with subpoena power. They are stuck somewhere in the chain of command, and they ultimately have no power because they are simply handed what the initial investigation by internal affairs but can’t probe any further.”
Pitts said that, in particular, this is problematic because of the current state of police mistrust among many minority communities.
“The police go around and conduct an investigation, and at that point the evidence could be tainted, slanted and concealed,” Pitts said. “If the incriminating evidence is destroyed or concealed or there is a collusion on how to frame the story, its difficult to unpack it unless the civilian board is allowed to move in and investigate earlier.”
The proposed legislation would give newly formed civilian review the power to compel witness testimony and the production of evidence, Meyer said.
“Having the power to subpoena is a necessary tool to being able to have a process,” Meyer said. “If you can’t compel the production of evidence, you can’t actually make an informed decision.”
Stephen Kraus, a member of the DCPRB who personally supports the legislation, said that another limitation of the board is that it doesn’t have the power to actually enforce the recommendations it makes—the choice of whether or not to do so lies with the city manager.
“The city manager can accept or reject any recommendations that the board proposes, so the board today works in a strictly advisory capacity,” Kraus said. “It puts the city manager in a very awkward position, because a decision against the police opens the path to lawsuits and cost. That’s what cities care about at the end of the day—liability.”
The legislation would change the board’s role by giving them binding authority, Kraus said.
“With the new legislation, the board would be able to say not only that we think the investigative process wasn’t handled correctly, but also that we disagree with the decision, and we’re going to change that decision,” Kraus said.
The idea of giving a civilian board this much power has drawn criticism from the North Carolina Sherriff Police Alliance, said Andy Miller, president of the SPA.
“The wording leaves it open to interpretation that they can recommend to the head of the police and the head of the police must adhere to firing officers or disciplining them,” Miller said. “We don’t believe that the review board should be in the position of handing out punishment.”
Pitts, however, disagreed, adding that civilians are perfectly equipped to make those type of determinations.
“We allow and in fact we tout as part of our democracy the ability to serve on a trial by jury,” Pitts said. “Regular citizens decide automobile and medical malpractice damages and the ultimate taking of liberty all the time.”
Not all members of the DCPRB share the same perspective on the legislation. DeWarren Langley, chairman of the DCPRB, said that while he supports the legislation, he is not convinced it is necessary to give civilian review boards more power than they already have.
“I trust our city manager, and I trust our city council, and I don’t believe there will ever be a situation where something would be brought to the attention of the city manager and appropriate action would not be take,” Langley said. “I wouldn’t, as a civilian, feel comfortable actually conducting an investigation, but I do believe my skills are sufficient to review an investigation that has already occurred.”
Miller added that, even though the legislation has to be refined and debated further, the goal of trying to provide civilian oversight of the police is one everyone should agree upon.
“In a world where government is striving to be more and more transparent,” Miller said. “We shouldn’t have a problem with this, should we?”
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.