“STIFLES EVIDENCE AT THE FRONT DOOR”
By JW August
Armando Flores is a commissioner who sits on the City of San Diego’s board of the Commission on Police Practices. (CPP) In his year on commission working on his own initiative, Flores found serious flaws that both the San Diego Police Department and the City have long overlooked in how they handle incoming complaints from citizens about the police.
Flores, like other commissioners, reviews police cases and offers policy recommendations where issues have arisen over officer conduct. In his time on the board, he launched an effort that would use his expertise as a professional from the software engineering field and his previous experiences in the nonprofit sector, which involved interacting with community members who have accessibility needs, like the blind and the deaf.
“In the past decade” he says, “I’ve taught people how to use those accessibility tools on their Mac, Windows system, on their Android device, on their iOS device.”
Flores was curious about the SDPD’s portal — it’s often the first and possibly only contact a citizen may have with the department. He says, “Personally, I’ve never had a horrible interaction” with the department. “There’s these incidents that our community tells us about that they have with the police.” He grew up in Southeast San Diego; he never had to use the department’s complaint portal.
SDPD complaints are classified primarily on the type of allegation; serious ones such as using excessive force, criminal conduct, unlawful searches, and the other allegations which deal with the quality of the service; for example the officer was rude, they were slow to respond to a call. (For city website on SDPD complaints, go here.)
These less serious complaints are usually handled by the officer’s supervisor.
The more serious charges immediately launch an IA investigation.
In California, there is a one-year statute of limitations for filing criminal charges for most misdemeanor police misconduct, three years for most felonies.
The complaints provide the commission details on Internal Affairs decision making processes and are used to review evidence against the officers from the beginning to the end of an investigation. The portal data Flores reviewed revealed how long it takes to process a case, what resources the police have and how long it takes to get those resources activated.
Commissioner Flores says he was careful with the information eventually reported in his research findings. He explains it came from “publicly accessible sources or my own testing; I’m careful not to disclose closed-session information or draft documents still under review.”
Last year the commission found SDPD Internal Affairs would run the clock down on an investigation, so when the commissioners began reviewing a case, they were on a short leash to complete their work. The timeliness issue was one of several concerns raised in the report done by independent auditor-Attorney Jerry Threet that was part of an OB rag story last December.
This has been the case in prior years as well, as told to this reporter by sources that were members of the prior police board. And as Flores found, it’s still an ongoing problem. But his research finds the delays SDPD has in reaching outcomes on cases are “not deliberate foot-dragging.” He says, “Extended case timelines appear tied to design flaws and evidence submission limits, which in turn strain IA resources and overtime.”
The commission’s June 5th report to the public reads that Flores has ” identified several deficiencies… regarding functionality and accessibility”. The audit is described by its author as a “professional, evidence-based critique aimed solely at identifying and fixing practical accessibility gaps, not at assigning blame or casting aspersions.” Commissioner Flores also offers some solutions to the problems he found.
See Police Review Board/Portal flaws
He found the police portal limited the amount of information the public could provide the department to consider action against an officer. The”evidence of submission limits” were revealed in an analysis provided to the commissioners at their June 5th meeting.
For example, there is a 250 megabyte photo/video threshold on complaint submissions that restricts how much a citizen can provide the department in their complaint on a desktop version but on a mobile site the ability to add evidence is not available at all as the attachment icon is missing.
As far as video, it limits both the quantity and quality of video that can be loaded into the system. Under that same limit, there is a 1500 hundred character limit or 250 words. Additionally, complaints in Spanish or other languages, “on average translate from into 15- 30% more words, which adds further limitation”says Flores.
Flores believes the portal underserves San Diegans who don’t have access to a desktop, don’t speak English, citizens who are blind, citizens who are hard of hearing, citizens with mobility impairments (switch control navigation) and citizens with cognitive impairments. It does not provide the same services you may find on other city websites. He contacted representatives from nonprofits focused on supporting a variety of accessibility needs as well as representatives from both the Deaf/Hard of Hearing and Blind communities and they validated his findings.
It should be noted that the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, in a January 8, 2008 letter to SDPD said the agency needed a better understanding of the “language assistance needs of its service population”. They were not in compliance and needed to “establish reliable systems”.
We did ask SDPD to respond to these current findings as well as the 2008 letter from the DOJ pointing out the need to improve the system. Lieutenant Daniel Meyer responded quickly, saying “We take this matter seriously, and it is currently being evaluated by our IT team.”
Flores believes the department’s IT team does have access to the technologies to upgrade the portal. If not from current police support staff, then from other city departments with graphic designers, programmers, and other resources. As an example, Flores points to the popular city app ‘Get it Done’. Everything has already been created for that app and would help SDPD upgrade their portal for the public. “The resources are there,” says Flores.
He also found some basic information was incorrect, the complaint form doesn’t list the Commission on Police Practices address accurately, it lists the previous addresses for the prior board. He also noted the welcoming page for citizens on the portal includes a “Legal Requirement” that those less knowledgeable about the police might find off-putting. It reads”you have a right to make a complaint” but if you “make a complaint against an office you know is false you can be prosecuted.” On the same page, instructions for ‘What’s Next’. But it’s not much help, it appears to be a photo that was posted on the site which show links and information except they are not navigable, they can be used because it’s a photo. Flores believes other language on the page implies you need to turn the complaint into “any” police station, which again, for some, also might be off putting. Both the “Legal Requirement” and the ‘What’s Next” are provided below.
Flores’ research concluded the “portal dissuades residents daily, especially those who are mobile?only, Deaf, Blind, or Limited-English-Proficient. It “stifles evidence at the front door”, inflates investigative timelines, and exposes the City to multimillion-dollar liabilities.” He believes if the department buys into upgrading the portal it will “assure the communities, impacted by policies and procedures that the SDPD is working towards transparency“
