By Atlanta Citizen Review Board Member Dr. Michael Woodard
Every Atlanta resident wants to feel safe in their neighborhood. And in the event of any criminal incident, residents want to be confident in the reliability and strength of the police to respond quickly. In other words, residents want to have trust in the police who serve their community.
Trust in the police is developed by their professional and ethical conduct over time. In return, communication with residents is enhanced and a shared interest in preventing crime is promoted. Trust is fundamental to effective community policing.
Fortunately, most American communities enjoy a relationship of trust with the police. However, research consistently shows that residents who live in predominately minority communities are more likely than residents who live in predominately white communities to view law enforcement with suspicion and distrust. Minority residents frequently report that the police single them out as criminally suspect on the basis of their race and/or ethnicity. In other words, police interact with minority residents based on a strongly held stereotype that a minority citizen is criminal in some way. Thus, being contacted by the police for “Walking while Black” or “Driving while Black” is a reality of daily life for law abiding minority citizens.
Over time, police conduct based on stereotypes has eroded trust among many residents of minority communities. Policing, based on stereotypes, has caused minority citizens to question the legitimacy of law enforcement and has frequently resulted in minority citizens being denied constitutional rights afforded to other American citizens. Put differently, police conduct guided by stereotypes has led to a fractured trust within minority communities. The question is, “how can trust be established?”
The Call for Civilian Oversight
The call for civilian oversight of law enforcement advanced during the 1960s. Civilian oversight has been advocated as an effective means to improve the professionalism of local police departments. Consideration of civilian oversight frequently emerges when a member of a community has been injured or killed during an encounter with the police. American history is replete with instances of minority citizens being injured or killed by the police, especially African American males. We can recall the names of some of the killings that impacted the national conversation over the year: Breonna Taylor, Philando Castille, Eric Gardner, Walter Scott, Rayshard Brooks, George Floyd, Amadou Diallo, and Kathryn Johnston.
Atlanta is no stranger to civilian oversight. The incident that led to the re-vamp of civilian oversight of the Atlanta police was the 2006 fatal shooting of a 92-year-old Kathryn Johnston. Mrs. Johnston, a grandmother, was shot multiple times and killed at her home by the Atlanta police who were trying to execute a “no-knock” warrant in a drug raid at 2am, based on information provided by an informant. No drugs were found in Mrs. Johnston’s home. After an internal investigation, two officers were fired for falsifying documents, another officer resigned and fourteen (14) more were disciplined for misconduct. Civilian oversight improves policing for all citizens.
The Atlanta Citizen Review Board
The Atlanta Citizen Review Board (ACRB) was established based on the Investigation Model. According to the National Association of Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE), the investigation-focused model involves routine, independent investigations of complaints against police officers. Independent investigations may replace or duplicate police internal affairs processes. However, independent investigations are staffed by non-police, civilian investigators. The Atlanta City Council passed legislation in March 2007 that created the ACRB composed of eleven citizen volunteers that reflect the diversity of the city. The volunteer ACRB members, currently fifteen members, represent the 240 unique neighborhoods and various stakeholder organizations in the City of Atlanta.
The ACRB is empowered to review and investigate grievances of citizens who submit complaints against any sworn officer of the Atlanta Police or Corrections Departments. Citizen complaints may be related to abuse of authority, abusive language, appropriate action required, conduct, discrimination, discriminatory references, failing to provide identification, false arrest, false imprisonment, harassment, retaliation, use of excessive force, serious bodily injury, death, and violation of department standard operating procedures. Citizen complaints must be filed within 365 days of the incident.
In my professional work, I provide equal employment and diversity training to government agencies, including law enforcement agencies. My journey to the ACRB began after the killing of Rayshard Brooks. His killing sparked an interest to explore the ACRB. I felt compelled to volunteer to contribute to the professional development of the Atlanta Police Department so that citizens in my neighborhood might better enjoy policing afforded to citizens in other neighborhoods on a daily basis.
I contacted my NPU chairperson and volunteered. I was put to work immediately on public safety matters in the NPU. Most of my time has been invested in providing training and technical assistance developing Neighborhood Watch Programs throughout the NPU. A vacancy existed on the ACRB, and I was nominated to fill the vacancy. Since March 2021, it has been my honor and privilege to serve on the ACRB.
What I have learned
Multiple on-board training sessions are required for new members. New board members then observe the functioning of the ACRB for a period of time before participating in board decision making. In addition, there are in-service training sessions required to stay abreast of issues related to civilian oversight of public safety agencies. Also, board members engage in community outreach to make Atlanta citizens aware of ACRB services. Participating on the ACRB requires a substantial commitment of time.
ACRB decisions related to alleged police misconduct are evidenced-based. The ACRB meets on the second Thursday of each month to address citizen complaints. Typically, two to four fully investigated citizen complaints are reviewed each month. The board reviews the evidence submitted by a staff investigator and either supports, rejects, or modifies the staff recommendation. A significant amount of time, 2-6 hours per month, must be invested by each board member to review the investigative file.
The ACRB has a dedicated and well-trained staff that investigates each citizen complaint of officer misconduct. The investigation occurs over a period of weeks or months depending on the complexity of the matter. When completed, the staff investigator provides the board with a report that details their findings and includes a recommendation based on the evidence.
In the brief time that I have served on the board, the evidence has supported the exoneration of Atlanta Police officers as frequently as the evidence has supported a finding of misconduct. The sanction for minor misconduct issues may be a verbal reprimand while a finding of a pattern of serious misconduct over time may warrant a suspension without pay or recommendation of termination. For each complaint filed against an officer, the ACRB provides a recommendation to the Chief of Police for his/her final determination of appropriate action.
The members of the ACRB are very dedicated in their service to the City of Atlanta. Each board member has a passion for enhancing the professional conduct of the police as well as rejecting unsubstantiated claims of police misconduct. The ACRB is the policy manifestation of Atlanta’s commitment to build resident trust in policing and to promote professional conduct among Atlanta police. If history provides any guidance, policing will deteriorate without ACRB oversight. Build the trust.
Michael D. Woodard, Ph.D.
ACRB Representative for NPU G-L
References;
Horowitz, Jake, “Making Every Encounter Count: Building Trust and Confidence in the Police,” NIJ Journal 256 (2007): 8–11, NCJ 216524.
Weitzer, Ronald, and Steven A. Tuch, “Determinants of Public Satisfaction With the Police,” Police Quarterly 8(2005): 279–297.
Skogan, Wesley G., “Citizen Satisfaction with Police Encounters,” Police Quarterly 8 (2005): 298–321.