Page 76 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 76 of 223 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
64
According to an extensive memorandum titled “Final Report to the Attorney
General on the Riverside Police Department Investigation”26 written by the attorney
charged with overseeing the Tyisha Miller shooting inquiry, a diverse team
represented by members of the Attorney General’s Office and outside law
enforcement experts embarked on a civil rights investigation that broadened as it
evolved. The initial phase of the probe, which occurred before the official
investigation, coincided with the Riverside Police Department’s internal affairs (IA)
inquiry into the shooting. Investigators from the Attorney General’s Division of Law
Enforcement, California Bureau of Investigation monitored the RPD’s review. The
officers involved in the shooting and the only supervisor at the scene were fired as a
result of the RPD’s internal investigation (Ichinaga 2000, 2-5; Verdugo 2008).
The next phase of the investigation, which began the official inquiry into the
shooting, was the result of a high-level meeting in Sacramento in early July 1999.
Participants in the meeting included the Chief Deputy Attorneys General, the two
highest-ranking officials in the Attorney General’s Office, as well as the heads of the
legal Criminal and Civil Divisions. Additionally, the Director of the Division of
Law Enforcement and the Chief of the Bureau of Investigation joined the head of the
Civil Rights Enforcement Section, two Special Assistants to the Attorney General,
26 The primary sources of information on the California Department of Justice’s investigation and
findings were Deputy Attorney General Jon Ichinaga’s “Final Report to the Attorney General on the
Riverside Police Department Investigation” (2000), and interviews with Ichinaga and Senior Assistant
Attorney General Louis Verdugo. Ichinaga was the attorney assigned to the Miller investigation.
Verdugo served as the head of the Civil Rights Enforcement Section and was the Attorney General’s
point person throughout the investigation, drafting and negotiation of the consent decree, and the
oversight compliance period.
Object Description
| Title | Policing accountability: an empirical investigation of state-sponsored police reform in Riverside, California |
| Author | Gomez, Jose Adolfo |
| Author email | jagclash@yahoo.com; jgomez@treasurer.ca.gov |
| Degree | Doctor of Philosophy |
| Document type | Dissertation |
| Degree program | Political Science |
| School | College of Letters, Arts and Sciences |
| Date defended/completed | 2008-08-01 |
| Date submitted | 2008 |
| Restricted until | Restricted until 13 Oct. 2010. |
| Date published | 2010-10-13 |
| Advisor (committee chair) | Renteln, Alison Dundes |
| Advisor (committee member) |
Newland, Chester A. Wong, Janelle S. |
| Abstract | The police have the ability to detain, arrest, and use force when necessary. Police accountability is thus of paramount concern to the public. Numerous examples of police misconduct, including cases of excessive force, brutality, and corruption, appear regularly via the news media. These incidents often evidence systemic organizational problems in law enforcement agencies. Scholars have observed that attempts at police reform have placed too much emphasis on individuals behaving badly, rather than on the systemic problems of the police department.; Beginning in the second half of the 1990s, federal and state Attorneys General began employing institutional reform litigation, in the form of consent decrees, to reform law enforcement agencies and enhance police accountability. The consent decrees were crafted to address systemic organizational dysfunction in local police departments. The United States Department of Justice (USDOJ) conducted most of these reform interventions. However, a notable exception was the settlement agreement between the Attorney General of the State of California and the City of Riverside, California.; There has been little research on the efficacy of these efforts to rehabilitate law enforcement agencies. This analysis is a case study of the effectiveness of the institutional reform intervention by the California Attorney General into the Riverside Police Department (RPD). The detailed examination revealed that the intervention produced constructive changes in the way the RPD conducts its business. The RPD became more professional, effective, transparent and accountable as it implemented the provisions of the consent decree, demonstrating that institutional reform litigation can result in meaningful police reform. The shadow of the law was ever present, encouraging an ethos of cooperation and exerting pressure for meaningful organizational change. The Riverside experience suggests that a facilitative oversight style produces constructive collaboration between the parties, improving the likelihood of durable police reform. Moreover, consent decrees to correct systemic police misconduct should not be the exclusive purview of the USDOJ. State Attorneys General can effectively initiate police reform and in some cases state intervention is a more appropriate alternative. |
| Keyword | institutional reform; police reform; police accountability; state attorney's general; police misconduct; organizational change; consent decrees |
| Geographic subject (city or populated place) | Riverside |
| Geographic subject (state) | California |
| Coverage date | 1993/2008 |
| Language | English |
| Part of collection | University of Southern California dissertations and theses |
| Publisher (of the original version) | University of Southern California |
| Place of publication (of the original version) | Los Angeles, California |
| Publisher (of the digital version) | University of Southern California. Libraries |
| Provenance | Electronically uploaded by the author |
| Type | texts |
| Legacy record ID | usctheses-m1664 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Rights | Gomez, Jose Adolfo |
| Repository name | Libraries, University of Southern California |
| Repository address | Los Angeles, California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Filename | etd-Gomez-2358 |
| Archival file | uscthesesreloadpub_Volume29/etd-Gomez-2358.pdf |
Description
| Title | Page 76 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 64 According to an extensive memorandum titled “Final Report to the Attorney General on the Riverside Police Department Investigation”26 written by the attorney charged with overseeing the Tyisha Miller shooting inquiry, a diverse team represented by members of the Attorney General’s Office and outside law enforcement experts embarked on a civil rights investigation that broadened as it evolved. The initial phase of the probe, which occurred before the official investigation, coincided with the Riverside Police Department’s internal affairs (IA) inquiry into the shooting. Investigators from the Attorney General’s Division of Law Enforcement, California Bureau of Investigation monitored the RPD’s review. The officers involved in the shooting and the only supervisor at the scene were fired as a result of the RPD’s internal investigation (Ichinaga 2000, 2-5; Verdugo 2008). The next phase of the investigation, which began the official inquiry into the shooting, was the result of a high-level meeting in Sacramento in early July 1999. Participants in the meeting included the Chief Deputy Attorneys General, the two highest-ranking officials in the Attorney General’s Office, as well as the heads of the legal Criminal and Civil Divisions. Additionally, the Director of the Division of Law Enforcement and the Chief of the Bureau of Investigation joined the head of the Civil Rights Enforcement Section, two Special Assistants to the Attorney General, 26 The primary sources of information on the California Department of Justice’s investigation and findings were Deputy Attorney General Jon Ichinaga’s “Final Report to the Attorney General on the Riverside Police Department Investigation” (2000), and interviews with Ichinaga and Senior Assistant Attorney General Louis Verdugo. Ichinaga was the attorney assigned to the Miller investigation. Verdugo served as the head of the Civil Rights Enforcement Section and was the Attorney General’s point person throughout the investigation, drafting and negotiation of the consent decree, and the oversight compliance period. |
