2 Cops 1 Donut
We were asked “what exactly is the point of this show?”Answer: social media is an underutilized tool by police. Not just police, but firefighters, DA’s, nurses, military, ambulance, teachers; front liners. This show is designed to reveal the full potential of true communication through long discussion format. This will give a voice to these professions that often go unheard from those that do it. Furthermore, it’s designed to show authentic and genuine response; rather than the tiresome “look, cops petting puppies” approach. We are avoiding the sound bite narrative so the first responders and those associated can give fully articulated thought. The idea is the viewers both inside and outside these career fields can gain realistic and genuine perspective to make informed opinions on the content. Overall folks, we want to earn your respect, help create the change you want and need together through all channels of the criminal justice system and those that directly impact it. This comes from the heart with nothing but positive intentions. That is what this show is about. Disclaimer: The views shared by this podcast, the hosts, and/or the guests do not in anyway reflect their employer or the policies of their employer. Any views shared or content of this podcast is of their opinion and not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, individual or anyone or anything. 2 Cops 1 Donut is not responsible and does not verify for accuracy any of the information contained in the podcast series available for listening on this site or for watching shared on this site or others. The primary purpose of this podcast is to educate and inform. This podcast does not constitute medical or other professional advice or services.
2 Cops 1 Donut
What is a Police Oversight Monitor? with Bonycle Sokunbi
What if the key to better police-community relationships lies in the art of open dialogue and understanding? Join us as Bonycle Sokunbi, a distinguished police monitor with a rich background shaped around being a "military brat", shares her transformative journey from public relations to law school. Driven by a passion for positive change, Boncyle highlights the crucial role mediation programs play in reshaping perceptions and fostering trust between law enforcement and communities. Her insights, rooted in personal experiences, offer a fresh perspective on the challenges and triumphs of police oversight.
This episode is a deep dive into the world of law enforcement culture, feedback, and oversight, revealing how these elements intertwine to enhance policing effectiveness and accountability. Discover the impact of body cameras on case quality and jury expectations, and the delicate balance of traditional methods with modern advancements. We also navigate the complexities of federal consent decrees, shedding light on the vital role of police monitors who ensure departments adhere to constitutional standards. Bonycle's expertise provides a compelling exploration of how oversight can bridge trust gaps and address systemic issues within police departments.
As we journey through the intricacies of police discipline, training, and community relations, we underscore the importance of diverse perspectives and ethical considerations in oversight roles. Explore the nuances of community policing, the need for clear policies, and the significance of transparency and accountability in law enforcement. This episode promises to equip you with a deeper understanding of the dynamics at play in policing today and the transformative power of bridging gaps between law enforcement and the communities they serve.
#police #lawenforcement #cops #policemonitor #policeoversight #policeoversightmonitor #bridgethegap #bethechange
đź”— Visit us at TwoCopsOneDonut.com
📧 Contact us at twocopsonedonut@yahoo.com
🎧 Subscribe to us on Apple, Spotify, and Amazon Music at “2 Cops 1 Donut”
🔔 **Don’t forget to like, share, and subscribe for more insightful discussions on law enforcement and community safety!**
đź’¬ **Join the conversation in the comments below!**
#TwoCopsOneDonut #PublicSafety #ErikLavigne #firtsresponders
Our partners:
Ghost Patch: tell them Two Cops One Donut sent you and get free shipping on Flex Shield orders!
The8thStreet.com/discount/TCOD: Find hidden cameras and gps trackers for under $60, use the code 'TCOD' to save 15%
Peregrine.io: Turn your worst detectives into Sherlock Holmes, head to Peregrine.io tell them Two Cops One Donut sent you or direct message me and I'll get you directly connected and skip the salesmen.
Please see our Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/c/TwoCopsOneDonut
Disclaimer Welcome to Two Cops One Donut podcast. The views and opinions expressed by guests on the podcast are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Two Cops One Donut, its host or affiliates. The podcast is intended for entertainment and informational purposes only. We do not endorse any guest's opinions or actions discussed during the show. Any content provided by guests is of their own volition and listeners are encouraged to form their own opinions. Furthermore, some content is graphic and has harsh language language viewer discretion advised and is intended for mature audiences. Two cops one donut and its host do not accept any liability for statements or actions taken by guests. Thank you for listening.
Speaker 2:Coming up next on two cops one donut I say this because I believe in small wins being big um. In both jurisdictions I've worked in, we've had a mediation program and so recently launched one here, and I've had an officer who went through mediation. So these are like low level complaints went through a mediation and I can't talk about the details of what the mediation is because it's for confidentiality. But what I'll say is that there there was not force, but there was force in the conversation. There was race in the conversation and both parties walked away with their minds changed about that interaction.
Speaker 2:That is powerful, and so sometimes people are like that's one case, yeah, but then that officer went and he told his friends about that interaction and that community member now has a completely different perspective of what is happening with policing in general and understands why the officer was doing what they were doing, and not just because someone came in with a badge and said, well, I'm allowed to do it, but rather for my safety and I actually I understand your pain and what you're talking about, and so that's something that I'm very happy about, because it's not punitive, it's an open opportunity for conversation. It's what we're doing here. It's discussing the things and allowing people to be free to have free-flowing conversation in a safe space and provide what they're experiencing during those interactions. So our mediation program is a huge success and everyone that goes off without a hitch we have 100 success rate right now is a powerful impact for the city as a whole all right, welcome back to two cops.
Speaker 1:One donut. I'm your host, Eric Levine. Today I have a special guest with me. I got somebody that is not a cop.
Speaker 2:I'm not a cop.
Speaker 1:You're not a cop and I am not going to butcher your name, so I'm going to let you say your name ma'am.
Speaker 2:Well, how about you practice saying my name, and then you won't butcher it?
Speaker 1:You say it, and then let me all right, let's go.
Speaker 2:First name, first you ready okay bond seal bond seal bam didn't butcher. Now you're ready for the hard part. All right, show, show, coon coon b b show can be show can be bam, look at there, winners win, love it, love it.
Speaker 1:All right. So, guys, for those that are going to be listening to this episode, here's what you're going to get. You're going to get our first police monitor, and that is a hot button word for cops. When they hear that, they automatically cringe and they're like oh shit.
Speaker 2:I'm such a scary person.
Speaker 1:No, but you're not. I actually got to. We just did a training video for another department and I got to hear a lot about what is involved with police monitors and all of that stuff. So I'm actually very excited about it and people that listen and understand. What we do here on the podcast is we try to hit both sides of the house and it's not all cops are great, but not all cops are bad. So we try to do an even keel with that and I think police monitor is just another way of checks and balances working themselves out. If you're doing what you're supposed to do, it shouldn't be a problem.
Speaker 1:If you're not doing what you're supposed to do. Well, you're going to find out, so, but you guys know the format of the show. The first thing, I want you guys to get to know and understand my guest and figure out if you think that she's full of shit yourself or if you think she's a genuine person. Yeah, that work, sure, why not All right. So, first and foremost, how did we get you to this level? Where are you from, what's your background and what kind of drew you to the criminal justice side of the house?
Speaker 2:On a snow day in December many, many years ago. No, so my name is Bonsal Shokumbe and I am the child of an Air Force veteran and a therapist, and I think that that helped create a pretty unique perspective. My father served in the United States Air Force for just under 30 years. He is still working for the military and he's one of those people who did things that I don't know what he did, but my mother was a therapist. So there is a lot of rules and regulations, but also thoughts and feelings in my household.
Speaker 2:I am from nowhere, because I'm a military brat and I've had the opportunity to live across the world and have a lot of great experiences. But after I went to undergrad I decided I still wanted to do some other things with my life. I got a degree in public relations and marketing because my parents told me I had to graduate. I was originally pre-med. They said they're paying for four years and I was like, hey, what can I finish in four years? And so public relations and marketing was an easy switch for some reason. But I love all of that, I love marketing, I love the art of persuasion, things of that nature, and then I was doing that work for a nonprofit and I realized I didn't have enough impact and I wanted to do more and I could do more.
Speaker 2:I was still fairly young, so I went off to law school thinking I was going to do like public policy work, something of that nature. I hated law school. I hated every second of law school Absolutely horrible. But I was pretty good at trying cases. I did mock trial and all that stuff when I was at law school and so some people took interest in me and said, hey, that should be your skill, that you should hone. And so after I graduated and took the bar, a lot of I guess, firms were interested. But I'm one of those change the world people Again. My dad was in the Air Force and my mom was a therapist, so I wanted to do work that I felt like had an impact in the community honestly, and so I went to the prosecutor's office and I tried cases.
Speaker 2:For the first half of my legal career I've tried everything from low-level misdemeanors to murders, rapes, things of that nature. Doing that work day in, day out can be taxing on anyone. And so then I transitioned to police accountability because I had so much experience in the world that I was in crime and the location that I was in. I had an opportunity to see policing in a different aspect rather, and so my very first case was actually littered with police misconduct the first case I ever tried and that was my introduction to internal affairs what red tape really was the impact it would have.
Speaker 2:But I also had the opportunity to prosecute people who were responsible for killing officers, but it was a seamless transition. I started doing community relations and trying to rebuild the trust with the community, then went into use of force because apparently I don't mind seeing a dead body, and we had to monitor autopsies and see where the gunshot wounds went and for some reason see someone's head cut open. I don't know the point of that, but you know, watch that, um. And then ultimately I was second in command for that office and then I came to my current city and run the office for police oversight okay.
Speaker 1:So if you guys are listening like, why isn't she saying where it's the same formula for me? You guys know, I never mentioned my department on here she's doing the same thing.
Speaker 2:We're keeping it um of cities and former cities.
Speaker 1:Yeah, we're doing vague and, uh, trying to. We're both still employed, so we we have to be very careful of how we represent our departments and stuff, even if we're not intending to represent them. It's what makes doing this so difficult when you're trying to have real conversations. But, um, in that you brought up that you did prosecution so common questions that I get all the time is or more like accusations, is like the police are in bed with the prosecutors.
Speaker 2:The prosecutors, they work together to go after all the bad guys and and and even the non-bad guys to make money for the city, and I'm not going to say that's not true, but it was never the case for me guys to make money for the city and I'm not going to say that's not true, but it was never the case for me, and I mean for the people I worked with. That was not how we operated to the extent that if a case came across my desk and it was bull, quite frankly I'm not prosecuting, enter a no-prosecution and keep going. Go do your job.
Speaker 1:So what you're telling me is that prosecutors have discretion, just like officers have discretion.
Speaker 2:Absolutely.
Speaker 1:So that's kind of the educational side of things that I kind of want to hit on at first is that people understand in prosecution they have a level of discretion. Officers have a level of discretion. It is the checks and balances that keep the system flowing as best it could without it getting more overburdened than it already is.
Speaker 2:Right, and also, as an attorney, you have a responsibility and you have your license and things that are on the line, and so I can't just do something because an officer said it.
Speaker 1:X.
Speaker 2:Y and Z, so you make sure that you want to be complying with your own ethics and standards.
Speaker 1:And that is something that I try to convey. But when you're not in that position, when I try to tell people, I'm like, listen, I'm not going to cover for another officer, they're like oh cops, they always cover up for each other. No, you just saw, I have wife, kids, all that stuff I'm not covering for him because he did something criminal.
Speaker 2:Correct.
Speaker 1:Now, if he's on his cell phone and that's against policy, and he's on his cell phone in his car and I saw him, I'm not gonna go rat on him for being on his cell phone.
Speaker 2:I don't care but what if I come and ask you was he on his cell phone? He's driving. I'm gonna tell you yeah, all right.
Speaker 1:But I'm not gonna openly just go. Oh, you know, paul was on his cell phone today while he was on duty. Like I'm not gonna, do.
Speaker 1:Shame on paul, I'm just saying do better yeah, but when it comes to something criminal like that, is my life and stuff that's on the line. So the same comes when we go to file a case. Right, the prosecutor's license and everything else is on the line. They're not going to cover for it. That's the checks and balances they come into play, and what I have been fortunate to have as a detective is my prosecutors don't just say, no, this is no good, we're not taking it. They say, hey, here's why it's not working.
Speaker 2:This is what's wrong with the case this is where we need to improve.
Speaker 2:This is what's missing. Yes, that's the whole idea. Now are there conversations surrounding investigations and things of that nature? Yes, because we want to make sure that it goes all the way through. But if it's bad, it's bad. If it's bad and there's a murder, that's going to get turned loose. Guess what? Do better next time? Yeah, do better, because I'm not going to put someone or be responsible for someone going to jail that procedurally shouldn't, because you didn't follow the rules along the way, right?
Speaker 2:So one of the, the story that I tell most often of what was my introduction into police misconduct, as I said earlier, was my very first case. So imagine this I'm barely an attorney, like I think the ink is still wet on my license. That's still an envelope. I'm barely an attorney, like I think the ink is still wet on my license. That's still an envelope, despite paying a lot of money to earn that degree. And I try a heroin case drug dealer selling heroin in the neighborhoods. You go through all the things. You choose a jury. It's hard. This is a city where people are not fond of the police. All the things we somehow another secure a guilty conviction, unanimous jury, great, fantastic. I'm thrilled I've given the closing argument. I think of a lifetime. It was pretty horrible. I want the truth.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I hit the table all the things.
Speaker 2:But fast forward and all of a sudden the first assistant comes to me and says hey, Bonsil, you remember that case? Yeah, I remember. You know what? He tells me that conviction's in trouble because the officers that were involved in that case just got federally indicted. Well, what do you mean? Oh, they were stealing money from controversial informants. Oh, okay, Well, I didn't have CIs in my cases.
Speaker 2:And he said, yeah, but you went to law school and you understand what Brady is and you understand when you're not honest and truthful in one case, how it can impact another. And so for me, I guess I had the benefit of seeing immediately the power that I had and the responsibility that I had to hold officers accountable, even in prosecution, because it has a big impact on the community. You took a week out of the public's time to say are we going to take this drug dealer out of our communities? You had jurors scared that they were going to be targeted. You had all of these things and poor behavior is what the impact is. Then it's my responsibility to say when I see something in the case no, we can't go there, this isn't going to work, this isn't the standard that you've set for yourselves or the Constitution has set.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and to improve things for anybody listening on. Okay, levine, I get what you're saying, but how do we take that information to improve things If you're a detective, if you're out there and you're like my prosecutor's not really giving me any feedback? Ask for feedback.
Speaker 2:Absolutely.
Speaker 1:Where are my cases falling apart? This is the third case I've had in a row. What am I doing? Poorly? Some most, I would assume would be more than willing. You may get a few assholes out there that are like figure it out, I ain't got time. That can happen, but that is how we start to improve, if you care.
Speaker 2:I hope you care.
Speaker 1:I hope you care. If you're putting your time into these cases, then you should be asking these questions, and the same can go for prosecutors and stuff. I had a couple prosecutors on before and part of that conversation was you know, how do we improve? Do you guys take the time to help us improve? And I got good feedback from those guys as well, saying yeah, anytime we can help an officer improve. It's not to screw over somebody on a case, it is to shore up the shortfalls in beginning a case and for a lot of new detectives you didn't learn that in the academy you don't know what you don't know yeah, so you, you, you get beat up a lot.
Speaker 1:When you first started as a detective I got beat up. I'm sure everybody, the prosecutors, I bet it is embarrassing to get beat up by you know, a seasoned defense attorney on your first time I don't know that experience you don't you have that experience? I didn't have that experience. She came out the gate, just awesome, huh.
Speaker 1:You know, I like it. Humble brag it's cool, but I think that's where we can start out when we're trying to educate the public on where we're going with our cases. It is not a we're in bed with the prosecution.
Speaker 2:No.
Speaker 1:But it's not to say that corruption and stuff like that hasn't existed and hasn't been, you know, shown before. That's not what I'm getting at. What I'm getting at is, for me and my experience and what I've been dealing with prosecution is they hold you accountable. They're the checks and balances to make sure your case isn't screwed up, just like the field officer is the detectives the checks and balances for the field officer. I should be giving feedback to the field officers of hey, the information you gave is incomplete. Like your story needs to paint a picture. If I don't have body cam footage, I need to be able to read this and have the same visual in my head.
Speaker 1:Yes, and let me go down a little rabbit hole with you real quick.
Speaker 2:All right.
Speaker 1:Some of and this still has nothing to do with police monitor stuff. By the way, we're going off of the prosecution stuff. Yay, body cam and putting cases together. Do you see a trend where we are going to start leaning to the point where we don't even listen to an officer's word anymore? We're only going to go off of if we have video evidence or not.
Speaker 2:I do think that there is an expectation of there to always be video. Do I think that we'll never listen to the word and only take in the body on camera video? I don't think so. I don't, because perspective is really important and what is seen on video can be confusing and confounding, and so I don't think that we'll completely get away with it. But I had the opportunity to be prosecuting when body camera was introduced and watch the transition from. You don't have camera footage. In the improvement in cases, let's just say, of at least what's being prosecuted of, we have footage of what happened. So this outlandish police report that you would never think happened, wait, there's a video that says it happened. But when you get a case that doesn't make any sense and you don't have video, do we have reasonable doubt or a question of credibility?
Speaker 1:Okay. So and that's the view from a prosecution is like they're starting to try to think like the jury would think Correct and make sure that the case is worth pushing. Okay, fair enough. Yeah, because that's my concern as a cop is that the word is not going to be enough and they're only going to go after the cases that we're putting together or starting, you know, from the ground level to the detective, Like we didn't have video.
Speaker 2:I hope we don't get there, but that's just the reality of the expectations of the public. Now it's been a long time since I've been in the courtroom, but oftentimes, when I would start my voir dire selection selecting the jury, I would tell them this isn't CSI, I'm not going to have video cameras on every corner, I'm not going to come in and tell you that I got a breath sample from the sister's uncle, etc. And so it's creating the expectations of what you see on TV or social media isn't always reality, but we're going to bring you the best case that we have and with the information that we have. Does reasonable doubt still exist? If not, then you can convict without it being on video. But as cameras become more readily available, yes, there's going to be increased expectation, but I think that you can always prosecute without it, and I think that people who are passionate about the work and seeing people held accountable are still going to go forth and do their job whether or not the video exists.
Speaker 1:OK, how long did you do prosecution for?
Speaker 2:Probably about five and a half years. I was a prosecutor, but I got to do a lot in a really short time, so it was a great time, though Best years of my life.
Speaker 1:Well, one of the ways that we look at field officers, you know, police officers, however you want to call it deputies you're considered a rookie until you've hit your five-year mark in the street.
Speaker 2:Yeah, but you know, when you've been through something, you're a vet. Now I am a vet, that's what I'm saying. You're a vet now through some things, I've seen some things. So, uh, yeah, I've made it, I'm official.
Speaker 1:And then it also goes into what I like to call how busy were you staying as a officer in the field, you know, are you working the country where you're only taking a couple calls a week, right, or are you working in the inner city where you're taking 10 calls a night? You know, the experience level is huge and where you were, I know you were taking a lot I tried to murder before.
Speaker 2:I've been an attorney for a year, so yeah, that's, that's crazy that's crazy.
Speaker 1:So, okay, cool, now let's transition. Let's get into going from the prosecution side to the police oversight stuff, right, um, it's kind of a new thing, it's, it's it's, it's developing like it's still in its infancy, in my opinion, just like body cameras and drones and all this other stuff that police now have available. So you're kind of at that. I still consider it the ground level.
Speaker 1:We're still trying to figure this out and what's going to be a good formula. But before we get into that, for anybody that's out there that may be interested in doing this, what's the process like? How did you even find this type of position in?
Speaker 2:doing this? What's the process like? How did you even find this type of position so honestly? A defense attorney came up to me and said I think you'll be great at this work because I was passionate about rules and accountability on both sides. So a lot of major cities do have an office of police oversight, or either there are a lot of federal consent decrees that are popping up and it's either under the IG's office or they have a standalone office that operates. Most offices are small, but that's kind of how they function.
Speaker 1:Can you kind of explain the federal consent decrees for me?
Speaker 2:All right. So a federal consent decree is basically when the Department of Justice comes in and does an investigation to see if there's patterns and practices by that police department that warrant the federal government coming in and taking over. And so there are a number of cities who are under federal consent decree. There are very large consent decrees and smaller consent decrees where it could be. There's one specific thing that they're looking at. I mean, there are some where it's just throw the entire department away and start completely over and there is a court that oversees that. They bring in a private police monitor, who's called the federal monitor, and they put together a team to look at all the facets of policing that need to be improved on that department. The things that could range from like bias-free policing, it could be use of force, things of that nature and how it impacts that community in order for them to get compliance with just the Constitution, let alone what we expect as a community.
Speaker 1:OK, and I want anybody that listens to this. I want you guys to know we did not meet, we did not practice, we did not do anything for this podcast. So one of the things I want you to pay attention to with her is she is firing at the hip, nailing all of this stuff that we're asking, and it's amazing. So it just shows more credibility to your credentials.
Speaker 1:Thank you, I appreciate that I really like the way that you're just firing off at the hip on this stuff. Okay, I wanted people to understand the consent decree. I always mispronounce it, so I'm trying to be very focused. I wrote it down, so I said consent. I keep saying dissent decree.
Speaker 2:And I'm like that's not right. A lot of people hate them, so that kind of goes with it.
Speaker 1:Right, um, now, uh, going. So a defense attorney hit you up on this. That's, that's interesting, because I would have pushed somebody with that mindset, um, and known reputation like yours to push for judge. I mean, that seems like the next logical yeah, no, no, no, no judge in you.
Speaker 2:Absolutely not. No, no, don't tell my dad.
Speaker 1:What's not appealing about that to you?
Speaker 2:I don't like playing God.
Speaker 1:That's just the way that I see it. Absolute power corrupts absolute type of thing.
Speaker 2:It's not my thing. I like being part of the system and providing impact and opinion. However, being the final decision maker when I know that I don't have absolute truth, it's not something that I want to participate in. I respect the people that do it and I know that's a heavy crown, but that's not for me that's so deep I like that I'm going to.
Speaker 1:That's going to be a sound clip, for sure.
Speaker 2:That was great and watching for years. It's going to be a sound clip for sure. That was great and watch it for years.
Speaker 1:It's going to be like Tom's hip now hey the thing is, you are more than welcome to change your mind with new information, new experience, new time.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I don't see that one.
Speaker 1:I hate when people try to corner somebody for something they said I would hope we change.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I would hope so.
Speaker 1:I got new information. I changed my mind.
Speaker 2:There, you go.
Speaker 1:That's just how it works, you know.
Speaker 2:That's growth.
Speaker 1:Yeah, it's growth. Calling it flip-flopping, I think that's more of a political move. I hate that. It's not how it works.
Speaker 1:Okay, hey y'all Eric Levine, Two Cops, Peregrine I've roughly got about 18 years of law enforcement under my belt and I've seen a lot of really cool advancements in law enforcement. The biggest advancements in law enforcement, I think, are like fingerprints, DNA testing and then, more recently I would say, license plate readers. Those things have all changed the game in law enforcement and now I think Peregrine is on that level that's going to change it up. But I've had people ask me what is Peregrine, and I want to talk about that. Now there's a caveat to it. Peregrine is so in-depth I'm only going to talk about one small feature that it's able to do, because I can't fit everything that they do in one little ad. All right, I'm going to take you on a little mental journey.
Speaker 1:So if you're law enforcement, you work for an agency. This is for you guys, so follow along with me. Imagine you're an investigator and you're working on a property crime. We'll say a property crime specifically like air conditioning thefts. That's a big one. In Texas. You've had two cases this week alone and, typically speaking, unless you go talk to the other detectives that you work with, you're not going to know for at least a week or maybe a month or two that they also have AC thefts that are related to your thefts In investigations.
Speaker 1:There's like this internal gap of sharing information. Here's where Peregrine starts to flip things on its head, so to speak. Peregrine can sift through your reports and start to identify the detectives and the cases that match the similar MO to your cases that you're working, and it can bridge that information and present it to you in an easy to read package. Hold on, it gets better, I promise. Peregrine can scan your CAD calls for related incidents and can even comb through suspect history in your report rating system. Like RMS, it's able to match possible suspects based on the MO and the geographical locations. Oh wait, the rabbit hole goes deeper. If you've got a suspect name, Peregrine has the ability to analyze your stored body cam videos and search for that suspect's name and find videos of them to give you up to the most up-to-date contacts with that suspect. And what's great about that? As an investigator you know your body cam has the ability to geolocate so you can see the latest locations, specifically where your suspect was last seen.
Speaker 1:This is just the tip of the iceberg and all I wanted to do with it is tease you guys enough just to seek out more information. So please reach out to me personally, DM me, or reach out to Peregrineio and just tell them that Eric Levine, from Two Cops, One Donut, sent you. I don't endorse things I don't believe in and I would stake my reputation on their product. Please check them out, because I know it's going to. I digress. Let's go down to now getting into the monitor position and seeing. So they have them all over major cities, all that stuff. We're probably not seeing them too much yet for small agencies.
Speaker 2:There are some small agencies that have them, but not for the most part.
Speaker 1:OK, and for those listening, anything that we're starting to get under 100 officers I'm going to start calling you a small department. Midsize is going to be 100, hundred to a thousand, and then anything over that it's a fairly large department. So, um, you see, they get you into this. Did they give you a specific spot that you should do it, or were they just saying this type of job in general?
Speaker 2:so there was a position um that I applied for that I was not qualified for. Let me say that right now, and it was the second in command.
Speaker 1:Worth a try.
Speaker 2:And I was just like I'll show up and see what happens. No, but they created a position for me.
Speaker 1:Okay.
Speaker 2:Because I do have the weird background of non excuse me, of nonprofit work, of public relations. I helped start a trial ad thing for young kids and then I have all the homicide, murder, rape experience where they made me the executive director of community relations. So I spent a lot of my time going out teaching the youth their rights in a very neutral way of like this is what, this is how you stay alive, because this is important. But these are the rules and expectations and this is, if that encounter doesn't go the way that you would expect, this is what you can do about it and where you should do something about it. Right, right.
Speaker 2:But I also spent time going to crime scenes and helping navigate those investigations and then the other part that really tied it in together in the jurisdiction I was in, we had a lot of murders, a lot of murders, but we had a lot of cold cases, and so you would see these police complaints of like my detective didn't do a good job or they didn't solve my son's murder, quite frankly. So I'll be the person that sit at the table with the homicide detective the mother who's lost her son and explain and translate the gap and do liaison work okay okay, this isn't a complaint, but let me tell you what exists in this case.
Speaker 2:because they don't have an attorney and an attorney, you don't get a public defender to say there's no one to be prosecuted, like there's no one to stand in the gap for you and so that was my job and then to also push back with the department and be like so I see some things you miss, like I don't know, but in a normal investigation we would have expected that. Did you actually do it in the reports? Just not generated things of that nature?
Speaker 1:so that's. That's something that I noticed as a detective is um, for the most part, in general assignment. There really wasn't any oversight of my case unless I asked another detective hey, can you take a look at this, make sure I got everything and they got their own caseload going on you know how it is, and so they're gonna.
Speaker 1:You know, I'm hoping they invest a little bit of time into it, but how much can you really expect? So then when you do put a case together and let's say, you get a conviction or whatever, but then you have somebody like you that can come in and say, like you, there was, you got the conviction, but there's a lot more that you could have done and I don't know any better. So I do see that as a gap in police work in general, like to this day.
Speaker 2:One of the things that kind of frustrated me in general when I was practicing was that gap and where it existed, because what I found a lot of times is officers didn't necessarily know where their attorneys were stepping in in the gap, where their cases were, quite frankly, being cured, or how we were able to get it in front of a jury, where you didn't mirandize somebody properly, but this was the exception that you didn't even know existed, or what the fight was to get the case to go forward, what evidence was missing, and you just think, as an officer, like I did a good job and I'm gonna go do this again. No, no, no, no, no, no. Like you, you don't know what went into it, and so making sure that those conversations happen along the way of this is how we improve policing and improve the safety for the community as well yeah, I love you brought up miranda.
Speaker 1:That always cracks me up. When you see them on tv, they're like putting the cuffs on. You got the right to remain silent. I'm like that is not how maybe in new york, because every new york tv show you see like that's how the detectives are, like I love it, you know, on Blue Bloods, because I watch Blue Bloods. Everybody wants a Tom Selleck chief. You know he's the best chief.
Speaker 1:He's well-rounded, right, he's great, but yeah, I see that gap in, just in detective work and then in general, and nobody, what are the? There's a bug bite by my face.
Speaker 2:It was. I was trying to ignore it, but I got him, you did not. I did get him, okay, all right, if I see it again, I'm calling it out. I got him Good job.
Speaker 1:There was the DNA dead body crime scene. Anyway, finding these gaps in training and police work is kind of one of the points of doing these podcasts, by the way is how do we start to fix that? So we've got the police oversight, police monitors, things like that. It isn't just hemming up cops. I hope not, but at the same time finding gaps and improving police work down the road. To me that's the biggest picture. That's how I would hope my police monitors would be so, without stealing your thunder I mean, you stole it already.
Speaker 2:I did.
Speaker 1:I'm a thunder stealer. People are who's he keep looking at. We have a guy in the corner just watching us hi, friend, how are you so?
Speaker 2:yeah, that's essentially what police oversight is. So my first line is always that our goal is to make sure that the department is complying with its own policies and procedures. Right, that's what we want to ensure, but the next step of that is also ensuring that you have the policies and procedures in place that you should have. So, if you have a bad policy and you complied with it, when I'm going through a disciplinary action, like sure, that officer followed it. But now we see why that's problematic and how we can improve.
Speaker 2:Right, high department, here's my recommendation where we can do policing better, because oftentimes officers have so many things going on. You have a lot on your shoulders leadership. If you're actually out on the streets, whatever it is, I have the opportunity to sit down with videos and policies for a long amount of time and review it and look at it, um, in a more worldview and also compare it to other policies and go. This is where there's room for improvement. This is where you could do differently, yeah, where you could do something differently, because that makes better sense. Um, and try to provide those recommendations. And how can we improve policing to improve the relationships between the police and the community as a whole now my question to you is when you're doing that?
Speaker 1:because I agree we need to have somebody that's outside of our fishbowl looking at things from a different, different perspective.
Speaker 2:I'm glad you agree.
Speaker 1:Um, do you take the time to pull somebody in and say, hey, this is how I see this. Do you guys have any reason for why you're doing this? Oh, absolutely Okay. So you've taken taking the feedback as well.
Speaker 2:I take feedback and there's nothing that I've ever put out um in my time of doing this in any jurisdiction that didn't get communicated with the police department ahead of time. Now there are times where I might dig my heel in and go. I understand your position and give you an opportunity to respond to it, but this is still where I stand on the situation.
Speaker 1:I disagree.
Speaker 2:I agree to disagree but I'm still going to take this stance for these reasons. But a lot of time, a lot of the work for police monitors happens behind the scenes. It's a lot of conversations with those who are involved, whether it be leadership or specialized divisions or whomever, where we're talking about it ahead of time and not it's not a gotcha moment. That's not what we're trying to do. It's let's have a conversation so we can have understanding and agreement and move forward together if possible, and if not, then great, we'll both make our positions and we'll go and see what happens.
Speaker 1:Yeah, Now what is the authority over you find? A change like this has to change Like what authority do you have now?
Speaker 2:So that's what differs between jurisdictions. For my jurisdiction, I am a monitor and I'm purely a monitor, so I can make the recommendation, but the police chief has the ultimate authority to make a decision. So if I say something and I'm like this policy needs to change, and he says, no, boncil, I disagree, that's great. I just have it in writing that when Judgment Day comes, that I've already said this is what you should have done. Right, and I have public support. Now there are some communities where they have authority over the chief or either they answered to counsel, things of that nature. That's the confusing thing about oversight is there's so many different versions, but we have very limited authority but a whole lot of access to information in my situation to provide that input.
Speaker 1:Okay.
Speaker 2:I'm sorry. That is also the biggest difference between in my opinion, between a lot of the monitor's office and a federal consent decree, Because a federal consent decree, once it's put forth, the department has to do it. If the judge says yes, it has to be done.
Speaker 1:Okay.
Speaker 2:And so that is a substantial difference than having local oversight.
Speaker 1:So when you have your recommendation, that's getting pressed directly to the chief and I having local oversight.
Speaker 2:So when you have your recommendation, that's getting pressed directly to the chief and I'm assuming city council and the mayor probably looking at that stuff as well. No, no so. I don't have political influence on my office or political feedback on what we do, which is how we are independent. So it doesn't, everything doesn't necessarily go directly to the chief, but he has a final say. So so I work directly with internal affairs, or use of force, or whoever it is in that specialty.
Speaker 2:But ultimately the final decision maker is the chief. There are times where you have to go to the chief and go hey, I talked to such and such unit about this, but I want to bring it to your attention and he has to say so. And that goes on discipline as well.
Speaker 1:Okay, Now how does a case even start making your way?
Speaker 2:For like a disciplinary For anything?
Speaker 1:How does it come across to you? Is it a use of force? Is it a policy issue?
Speaker 2:Any, of it.
Speaker 1:Any of it. So somebody has to make a complaint and then say what about a complaint from an officer?
Speaker 2:Yep, I look at those too.
Speaker 1:Okay, because one of the things that frustrates cops is when you have a general order and then policy or two general orders that kind of conflict with each other, things of that. That frustrates me too. Yeah, so I was curious. Is that some of the things that come across?
Speaker 2:Yes, absolutely. Or promotions and people not feeling like that process was fair, or things of that nature. All of that can come through my office and other jurisdictions I've been in. It's something that we look at as well the way that overtime is assigned, which shift you get. Those things come to my office.
Speaker 2:Issues with the compliance with policy that you've trained me in one way. You wrote a policy to do another thing and then you're not holding me accountable or my colleague accountable. To either one, what is the expectation of the department? Or you put me in a dangerous situation and nobody cares. I need somebody to say something and maybe as an officer you don't feel comfortable, but now you have.
Speaker 1:Hey, I don't care, I'll go to the room, I'll say it, let's do something about it. Oh, I'm excited about that. I like that. I didn't know that. I just I I guess I assumed it was the big guns, it was use of force, um, or some sort of, you know, internal corruption type stuff.
Speaker 2:But yeah, that's the stuff that we care about, but it's all of it.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:Because all of it impacts the ability for the police department to do a good job and all of that impacts the community's experience. Okay, so if you have a disgruntled officer who doesn't know what they're supposed to do and their sergeant keeps yelling at them and mistreating them, I need to know about that, because that's going to impact how you're interacting with that civilian right.
Speaker 1:So, versus going to ia, they would go to you. They can, so that's an option.
Speaker 2:Yes, but even if they don't go to my office, I review every single thing that goes through internal affairs. Okay, everything, so it doesn't have to originate with my office. If it exists for that police department, I will see it okay every use of force, every misconduct, investigation okay.
Speaker 1:So I see the checks and balances, because the public there's, there is a certain portion of the public that, oh, it's just I, is just the people investigating their own people and they and they don't. There's a a general distrust for that right off the bat, but a lot of people don't understand the processes behind ia at least a properly ran ia right and when they run properly.
Speaker 1:There are. I've had a couple ia guys on here now but the checks and balances I think are pretty good, at least where I've been at um. But now we have a third party option to make sure that if you felt the ia was not doing things properly, you're there to catch, catch and find those things.
Speaker 2:So what people think all the time is that like I'm just here to say, like hey, officer, you did horrible. That's not necessarily true. Yes, officer, if you did horrible, I'm going to call it and say that you did something horrible. But also of officer A and officer B, both did something horrible. I want to make sure that they're treated the same. Yeah, I want to make sure that happened. I want to make sure that they're treated the same. I want to make sure that happened. I want to make sure that all of the evidence was actually brought forth in the investigation and that we didn't miss something that could exonerate or either show that that person's more responsible for their behavior. These are things that I'm looking for. I want to make sure that I don't know leading questions weren't asked during an investigation. Leading the outcome of an investigation those are things that I'm concerned with, not just the behavior of the underlying officer or what the civilian's concern is. I'm looking at all of it, but it's more than that. I'm looking for patterns, practices, things of that nature.
Speaker 1:Oh, man, and we like to use leading questions as cops. I know, don't y'all, don't you all, oh my gosh Well, we're not classically trained in practicing law like y'all are. You know, yeah, but no, that makes sense now that they would pick somebody with a prosecution background.
Speaker 2:Now to be clear you can do this job and not be a lawyer. I just happen to be one.
Speaker 1:Fair. But now that you've experienced that, would you say that you are doing more of a disservice by not having somebody with a law degree?
Speaker 2:I won't say that I think that I bring a unique skill set that's beneficial to law enforcement by having a law degree.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and again, like I said, we're at the infancy of this career field in a sense, so maybe that is something that should be considered, because I don't want somebody coming in that has no criminal justice experience you need to have some public policy experience, some criminal justice Like.
Speaker 2:You need to at least know something in the world, more than something um, but you do need experience in that world. Whether or not it's a jd um that got you there, that's a question, but you definitely need to have some experience in the world okay, fair enough.
Speaker 1:Um, yeah, I'm just, I'm trying to think of people that you know, that I just wouldn't want to see in there, but judges, lawyers, that would be a good spot. Obviously, I don't think you're going to want a retired cop, a retired chief.
Speaker 2:We see it, we see it, but what happens in that situation? Is they really have to check their biases?
Speaker 1:That would be my concern.
Speaker 2:You really have to look at that and make sure that there's balance, or either you create the balance within the office. I have a former officer in my office but I'm not, and so that's something that I'm always checking for. There is a level of appreciation that I have for his training and expertise through going through the academy and doing the actual activities of policing, but I have to make sure I don't want to hear what you would have done in that situation. But let's talk about policy. Yeah, things of that nature.
Speaker 1:I would love to see, I would love to know that anytime you're digging into something and it may be a little dirtier than than what you expected, you know it's not like a clean cut case or anything like that. I would love to know that you are seeking counsel or advice from your street-level officers. Right, because you're going to get the ivory tower. You're going to get that mid-level sergeants and lieutenants that you start to. When you become a sergeant, you start to lose touch. I'm a sergeant now.
Speaker 2:I'm a baby sergeant, so you still have a little bit of touch left.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I still have a little touch left, so I'm trying to get these thoughts out before I lose them before, before the dark side takes me over. Um, but I would love to know that that type of reach and that's just personal advice they don't. You don't have to follow it, but I think I think, coming in and already having a fight to prove your position and and that you aren't here just to screw over cops If they knew that you were bringing in street level cops, even if it was from adjacent agencies as long as the culture is somewhat similar, I think that would go a long ways with cops out there.
Speaker 2:I think that people will be shocked at the number of conversations that I have surrounding an incident and how much intentionality there is in being open-minded and remaining neutral in difficult situations. I think a lot of people would be shocked in what that really looks like at the end of the day.
Speaker 1:Yeah well, I mean just from your statement earlier of not wanting to be a judge. That's deep. That's actually very respectful. I think that that's cool. So I give you props for having that self-awareness that you just don't want. That type of power I try to instill in my young officers right now. I'm like just your uniform. You have to keep in your head how powerful that uniform is. And we're dealing with the Constitution, we're dealing with people's rights. You have the ability to take somebody's freedom away, even if that's for a second. That is a lot of power. So keep that in mind when you're talking to people and you're doing what you got to do. Make sure you have legal justification to be there. You're not just randomly stopping people. Check your biases. We all start to get those. You get police biases. It's just weird how that works out.
Speaker 2:I mean, it's human nature how that works out.
Speaker 1:Yeah, our brain just happens to follow patterns. And if all you're looking at is criminal patterns, it's like when you're out and hunting I grew up in Michigan so I like to hunt deer. When you're out there looking for a deer, a squirrel becomes a deer really quick, because anything that moves you're like ah, I think it's got antlers.
Speaker 2:That's anything that moves. You're like oh, I think it's got antlers. That's why my dad took up squirrel hunting too.
Speaker 1:He's like I just need to shoot something what did your dad do in the air force? I?
Speaker 2:really I I don't know. You don't know what he did. I know at some point he was a ballistics missile specialist, but my dad's like one of those guys.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I already know his top secret clearance yeah, okay, if he's working in ballistics. Yeah, that's. Uh, that's I already. I was just the guy when you came through the gate welcome to the military police, yeah wait till the gate.
Speaker 2:Welcome to the gates of lackland I have a cousin that was a mp. That's fantastic.
Speaker 1:We need you all yeah, that's where the name came from. Two cops, one donut. I'm a military cop and I'm a civilian.
Speaker 2:I've been trying to figure out where the other person was. Don't tell anybody that figured it, you got it. Wait, there's no donuts here today. I was kind of hungry. I know Everybody asks that. That's kind of disrespectful, I never come prepared. Maybe you should rename the show.
Speaker 1:No, I've already bought products.
Speaker 2:It's already set in stone. Then buy donuts.
Speaker 1:I know hey, there is when we talk offline. I'll tell you about a spot you need to try out Are you buying, I buy. Yeah, and especially in March, they make a margarita donut. Wow, you have to be 21 and a half.
Speaker 2:I don't know if I made the cutoff.
Speaker 1:But yeah, okay, let's get back into it. I had IA question marks, so being involved with internal affairs, from where you're at, what is that? What is that introduction like? Because they never had a monitor until you came.
Speaker 2:They did have one monitor before me.
Speaker 1:Oh, there was one before you. There was one before me, the first no.
Speaker 2:I'm not the first. There was one monitor before me, but we've also changed leadership multiple times being internal affairs, sitting down with either the captain or the lieutenant and saying this is my role, where you feel comfortable, and making sure that your executive staff also supports you and what your goals are, um, and setting the parameters. We have unfettered access and our governing statutes provide for what we're allowed to do and trying to build trust and rapport, first and foremost, um, so like we meet monthly just so our teams can get along, because I have people who are not officers calling and being like hey, I disagree with your investigation, um, and you have officers who have been there for you know, 20, 30 years going. What do you mean, kid?
Speaker 2:you disagree with my investigation yeah well now, if we can respect each other. You know where I'm coming from, um, and making sure that we have that level of understanding, but, from the very beginning, just creating that rapport of they know what my expectations are, what my goals are and what feedback that I'll be providing.
Speaker 1:Now, as you're going through that process of the cases, are you looking for gaps in training, not just errors in policies and procedures? Okay, oh, absolutely, oh, that's awesome.
Speaker 2:Policy training in practice. Absolutely OK, oh, absolutely, oh, that's awesome Policy training in practice. So this, this is a different jurisdiction. But no, I'm not going to tell a story.
Speaker 1:All right, that's OK, yeah that's all right, but yeah, so that's one of the things that I would be concerned of is like, ok, we see a problem, but how much do you know about the training to even be able to call that out? Like now, you got to be OK, is this because of training, and now somebody is going to have to research that for you, right, and so we research it.
Speaker 2:So, that's also one of the reasons why it's important to have a good relationship with the police department is so that I can pick up the phone and call the person who's over teaching the recruits how to drive and figure out. Hey, like I'm reading and I see what was supposed to or have the PowerPoint from 2019. What are you all actually training on? But my other expectation is, during the course of the investigation, that internal affairs would have set that standard and established it in their report. But these are conversations that are constantly happening of me wanting to know not only what's being currently trained how was that officer trained when they went through it? When was the last time they're actually trained and my recommendations aren't always, for you should have had a sustained allegation for X, y and Z. It might be. I see a gap in training for this that we have not taken consideration this new novel subject and we need to provide an opportunity and in-service for officers to have this training that has nothing against the officer. That's just how can we improve the department.
Speaker 1:Okay, man, this is one of my favorite fucking interviews so far.
Speaker 2:Oh yay.
Speaker 1:I am a nerd. I love learning, so I'm learning so much right now, so that's why I'm into this. And again, kudos to you. You have zero downtime with your speech. You just know this shit off the top of your head. It's. I finally met somebody better than me yet. So sorry to all your other. I know some guests I get on here and I'm like and then and then words yeah, yeah, words, use them, I need help, help me, help you.
Speaker 1:Uh, okay, oversight, you get um. Now let's you get into some sort of serious case. Let me go back real quick, because there was one thing Are you at will of a chief?
Speaker 2:No.
Speaker 1:So you're hiring and firing is based.
Speaker 2:Based off the city. The city, yes, okay. So I'm independent from the police department, independent from the political body, but I am paid by the city department independent from the political body, but I am paid by the city.
Speaker 1:Okay, so how do they decide to like if you're no good anymore?
Speaker 2:like who? How does the same way as everyone else, so I have performance evaluations so who's who's looking at that?
Speaker 1:who's your boss? Well, without naming them, the city manager the city, okay, so the city manager, yeah, so I don't answer to an assistant city manager.
Speaker 2:like a lot of other departments, I answer to the city manager.
Speaker 1:Okay, and there's Okay, I'll ask some questions offline Word and then okay, so into that you get a serious case, police misconduct allegations, whatever IA finds there's police misconduct. You concur, there's police misconduct. You concur there's police misconduct. What are the steps from there with y'all? That's just the computer.
Speaker 2:Sorry, it lit up and I just wasn't ready to die. I'm sorry. Can you rephrase the question? I don't understand the call.
Speaker 1:So you find wrongdoing you pointed out, ia points it out. Now it comes down to the discipline aspect of it. Do you get recommendations? No, nothing.
Speaker 2:I don't weigh in on discipline unless discipline is inconsistent with other discipline that has occurred. So that's what I'll weigh in on. So ideally, the way that the monitoring works is let's just make this a critical police incident or a major use of force, because that's easier. Let's just make this a critical police incident or a major use of force because that's easier. It happens, and this is for all the jurisdictions I've been involved in. It happens and I immediately receive a phone call and I'm updated on what happened on that scene and then I'm provided unfettered access different jurisdictions. That looks different. Sometimes I've had the authority to go to the crime scenes Other places. I don't have that authority but I have immediate access to interview things of that nature.
Speaker 2:My goal is to provide feedback immediately. I don't want to wait to say, hey, did you know we had a problem here, or this is a missed allegation, things of that nature. I like to provide that because it's at the discretion of the department what they do with that information. So I don't get to say, hey, this is an excessive use of force and you have to sustain this allegation. I can say, based off the policy that you have for use of force, based off of Graham and Connor. This is what I observe, and I try to do that in real time, because who wants to come back and have to fix something when they just possibly missed it? Because it can happen right.
Speaker 2:And I provide that feedback. If it's at the conclusion of the investigation, I draft it and I give it to them and then it gets attached and it goes to the chain of command throughout. Whatever way discipline is handled for that specific department. When it comes down to discipline, that's left up to the chief, I don't attend for that. I'm not involved with that. Depending on the severity of it, of course, I kind of know what's going to happen but I don't weigh in on what that is.
Speaker 1:Okay, I have a question and and possible idea at the same time. So when you have a finding and something that you suggest, one do you guys have? Does the police monitor, have their own website for?
Speaker 2:the public. Okay, it's through the city, but we do have a website. Okay, that needs to be updated and we're working on okay, so that goes into my next question.
Speaker 1:When you get your findings and you're like here is something that I have found and I suggested, does that get added or is the idea so there's a list of recommendations and that gets added.
Speaker 2:The goal is to have a public dashboard of all of that being forward-facing. One of the things that we do, um, at least publicly talk about and and provide in our newsletters is the type of recommendation. So if I have 97 use of force policy recommendations, at least that subject matter is captured and the public is aware of what we're providing and recommendations, because the big thing is transparency and accountability.
Speaker 1:Yeah, that's kind of what I was getting to and then, yeah, that would be fun. I'm a nerd, guys.
Speaker 2:For who it would be fun for me.
Speaker 1:It would be cool to see, because I'm with you on the checks and balances side of things. So if you found something significant and you suggested it to the chief or whoever's there, it would be very concerning to me to see that you had presented this here's your findings and why and then that gets declined. I would love to know if there's ever a reason given Right, and I would love to know what that reason is. No, we declined it because of this, because it may be a factor that you just disagree with, like you said earlier. Okay, we agree to disagree, but here's what I recommend.
Speaker 2:Or it could be that they just can't do it Like it could be a resources problem.
Speaker 1:They could be that they just can't do it, like it could be a resources problem. They could agree, but they can't implement it right things of that nature. So that would be cool to see. Here's what we recommended. It was approved or it was denied, and here's why. Here was the reason given.
Speaker 2:That would be awesome yeah, is that that's the goal? That's the goal.
Speaker 1:That is the goal okay cool, that's great. Um, that's badass actually.
Speaker 2:That that's unheard of like no it's not completely unheard, I don I haven't heard of any other cities doing it. There are some cities that do it, but that is definitely the goal. I'm really into figuring out unique ways to be transparent. That takes it away from the individual officer. Let's focus on the department as a whole and how the department's doing and improving, and that's the way that I want to convey the story of oversight.
Speaker 1:Because more often you tell me if this has been your experience, but more often than not, when I see a cop that's screwed up, I see a fault in training. I have seen. I mean, I'm not going to say officers, don't screw up intentionally, but you got that face.
Speaker 2:So what have you found? I think it depends on what type of failure to act or behavior you're talking about.
Speaker 1:Okay, without being very specific, I'm just saying in general. I see a screw up on a video and I'm like you know the cops messing with a first amendment auditor on a public sidewalk and I'm watching him say all these things. I'm like you were not trained. You were not trained in this year at a small city. Your department decided to use what little funding it has to put these trainings forward and you did not get First Amendment training at all Right, and that is part of the frustration that I have.
Speaker 1:But if that was something you noticed in the training and that got put forward and then you got five more officers that fall victim to a First Amendment auditor, well, now one. I think you're showing your boss, hey, she's worth her weight in gold over here. But another thing it can start holding chiefs accountable, correct, and holding training accountable and all that stuff. So trying to give officers and citizens this is same. But different.
Speaker 2:One of the things in one of the jurisdictions I've worked in that we noticed was a training issue, but it wasn't directly from the academy or from the police department and so we had an interaction. We don't have to go through the details, but basically they were marking the calls GOA or gone on arrival and they weren't allowed to do those types of stops like it was against their own policy. When investigating the bigger allegation, we noticed that that was a pattern that was within that specific precinct and were able to determine that their field training officer was passing that down to several officers because that's how he did it because that's how he did it, and so we're running into this major issue where we needed to correct of training.
Speaker 2:But we were able to determine the pattern because we were looking at other other, all the other allegations that stemmed from it. And so it's a powerful thing when you take off the name and you just look and try to figure out is there a problem and where does it actually start and how do we fix it. And that's one of the things that I'm committed to doing.
Speaker 1:Okay, and I always go back to the First Amendment orders because it still shocks me it's 2024 and I still see cops falling for that stuff. Having you checking and doing that, that, that helps fix the training correct and I lost my train of thought. I know exactly train the trains gone. Anyway, we'll switch it up.
Speaker 2:I did want to say something really quickly because you asked about, like, how I weigh in on discipline, and I just want to emphasize, for our style of monitoring and how I operate, I am basically a voice in the room, I am truly a monitor and I don't have a vote. On a lot of things I have a voice, but that is different than a vote. So I sit on oral review boards, I sit in the use of force review board, all of these things and I am a perspective in the room, but I'm not a voting party in the room. Um, and I think that should give some officers comfort that you don't have this third party coming in and bullying and saying do it my way, no, I'm just adding perspective to the other voices that are there okay, and are you getting regular feedback from the communities and if?
Speaker 2:so how are?
Speaker 1:how are you getting that we?
Speaker 2:regularly engage so, like forums, things of that nature, also tracking the complaints that we have talking to community leaders. That's one of the things that are extremely important that it's just not reflective of what I think, but trying to engage regularly with those most impacted by the policing behaviors that people believe need to be corrected.
Speaker 1:See, and that's good, because now we're following the cultures of the area, not the cultures of where you just came from.
Speaker 2:Correct and that's extremely important. That is, it's essential to know where you are for policing in general, like as an officer. You can't police here the way you would there, right, in the same way that I can't provide oversight here the way that I'd have other places. The way that the community appreciates the police here might be different, the distrust might be different, the history of distress or brutality or whatever shapes the way that people interact, and you have to respect that and make sure that you're addressing it properly and not just trying to give a blanket answer of well, you know, we'll just do it this way because that's what they did in San Francisco. I know they have a lot of oversight.
Speaker 1:I feel like they're game. How long did it take you to acclimate to the culture? Cause you weren't from the area, but I'm from nowhere, so you are from nowhere.
Speaker 2:Yes, no, it has taken a while because they are quite opposite jurisdictions. Um, and what I did initially when coming was I didn't make any decisions in the beginning. You know a lot of people like your director starts and like what's your hundred day plan and mine's? To sit down and talk to everyone. I want to sit down with every person in leadership, every community member who wanted to have this here, everyone that has distrust or love, and figure out what is the culture here and what I'm walking into. Because coming in for lack of a better term guns blazingzing, trying to adjust things, isn't beneficial if I'm trying to adjust something that doesn't actually need to be fixed just checking my camera oh, I get paranoid that they stop recording so the red lights on.
Speaker 1:The red lights on that's good to go now in this process. God, this is such good stuff. This is going to be a great episode, guys guys, I cannot wait to get this out there, as you've been going through the process, learning the culture of where you're at, has there been anything crazy, revealing compared to where you were coming from?
Speaker 2:that you're like I didn't expect this, I don't think it's anything crazy revealing, but it is just the complete opposite. I'm in a jurisdiction now where I walked into the grocery store and I heard someone tell an officer thank you for your service. I was not in a place where that would happen. A lot of the common consensus where I am now is that even the communities who have suffered harm still want to see the police in their neighborhoods. They just want to see proper policing. I'm coming from a jurisdiction where burn it all down to the ground and trying to explain to the community well, we have to have something, we have to have something, and so that was shocking to see such polar opposite views.
Speaker 1:But I think that's just the appreciation for differences that exist in community um, and recognizing how we have to approach change but that's awesome because now, knowing that, ahead of time of you coming into a position, if officers hear you talking like that, like, and know that this is the impression you're getting from the public, that either is for or against their police, obviously there's some support there. It is for me as a cop.
Speaker 1:I'm thinking of it like it's comforting like to know that you see that and you recognize it, and that's going to help you in determining your job and how extreme your recommendations and things need to be Like there are some things that are clearly working Right, so we don't have to burn it down to the ground.
Speaker 1:Yeah, defund is not. It doesn't work. Guys, don't do that. Ok, now, in doing this, where do you see the future of this position going? Like, I see you got your hundred day plan going where you sit. I love that idea. By the way, I think anytime you move into a new position, you just need to sit down, shut up and listen, yeah, like, and don't just start trying to change shit right off the bat.
Speaker 1:That's that's my way of doing things as well. So in doing that, where do you see the direction going now? From where you are?
Speaker 2:my goal is to stop focusing on individuals so much. It's important, right, but I don't think that you completely change behavior through discipline. Now, discipline isn't just corrective. Sometimes it's punitive and it needs to happen. But for a lot of low-level things, we need to know where our standard is. Do we have compliance with the rules and things that we're putting forth? And so, looking at auditing, look at those types of things, and then policy recommendations based off of what's happening in a department as a whole versus this major incident happened and the news cycle picked it up, and are we focusing on it? Actually looking at policing as a whole and how to improve it, based off of what is happening overall versus what one bad actor is or is not doing.
Speaker 1:Have you and we can edit this part out later, if we need to but I just have. Have you faced any political pressures, Like have you noticed it? And you're like I'm not. No, that's not me, but have people tried to press you? No, Not at all.
Speaker 2:Not that I'm aware of.
Speaker 1:Cool. Well, I'm just curious. I don't know if that I mean I?
Speaker 2:I think the emphasis really is not that I'm aware of or to a point where it's impacted my desire to do the job. Okay, and I want to be clear, and it's on my desire to do the job and not what I'm going to do, because I'm going to do what's right, or at least what I believe is right at the end of the day, but I'm not going to operate in a space where I'm not free to do what I am asked to do.
Speaker 1:Okay, yeah, I again, I'm not trying to put you on the spot with anything like that. We can always edit to things later. I just I want to know in that it's such a unique position, it's so you're you're on an Island. I am You're on an Island, so.
Speaker 2:I don't have a lot of friends.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:I could just imagine the boats are just circling trying to figure out ways to get on your island and make their own impression, I mean. But I think, when you're clear in what your role is and that people can have realistic expectations, I think, for where I am, the political figures know that I'm about neutrality. They know that I'm about transparency and accountability, and where it exists, I'm going to call it either way. Yeah, and that's just how I'm going to operate.
Speaker 1:Have you run into any policies, general order issues for your own position where you're like ah, this needs to be adjusted, Like I'm not, I'm not able to do my job or I shouldn't be allowed to do this. Has that been? A thing that hasn't come up. Okay, I'm just curious if that again newer type of position, right in figuring it out, what your responsibilities are going to be and all that stuff. You don't have to reinvent the wheel if there's other places that have done it. But I'm just curious.
Speaker 2:If you've run across stuff you're like this could be improved for my position well, I think there are things that can be improved, but in general, in oversight, most of the governing ordinances are so broad stroke where it's just like it's up to you to create the nuance in there and what you're going to do.
Speaker 1:Okay, what has been your impression on police general orders that are very broad and you're like geez, this could kind of be anything, yeah.
Speaker 2:I think they're highly problematic for the community and I think they're highly problematic for a police officer. If your general orders are vague or too vague, rather like there has to be a little bit of gray area, right, because no police interaction looks the same, right, yeah.
Speaker 2:But if it's too vague, that means that you don't know how you're supposed to operate and, as the community member, I don't know how you're supposed to operate. That creates a problem which also leads to maybe nobody's held accountable because we weren't clear on what you're supposed to do. I think in general policing we have too many general orders that are um, thank you, thank you need to be reduced, need to be specific to the things that matter. Other things need to go in, slps, etc. Like I could go on a whole thing about that. But yeah, that's generally how I feel.
Speaker 1:I I can tell you that I think it's dps, texas DPS, I think. Their general orders is like 13.
Speaker 2:13 general orders or something like that I don't know how I feel about that one.
Speaker 1:But that's the point of it being a general order, because you can't and same in the military. When I was guarding nukes, I had three general orders. That was it Three general orders for nuclear missiles.
Speaker 2:Did you have more training?
Speaker 1:I had a lot of training, yeah, a ton of training.
Speaker 2:We got to do it somewhere.
Speaker 1:Yeah, right, fair, I'm with you on that. But that's why I say, when I see general orders and I see that there is just a Bible worth of general, I'm like that's not general.
Speaker 2:I'll give you a secret. A lot of times it comes from the people like me, lawyers who are like, so we had this interaction eh, let me put it in writing so you know not to do it again, because we paid out a lot of money for that dumb mistake.
Speaker 1:Yeah, maybe you can help me, as an officer, or other officers, understand how come we settle so much with lawsuits and with police departments. What is the deal with that? Do you have any insight on that?
Speaker 2:Liability is a real thing. What do?
Speaker 1:you mean? It seems like they would rather settle than fight a case sometimes, and I think that that generally hurts the morale of police officers when, when they feel like the department would rather settle because it's cheaper than it would been to fight a case so I'm going to take it out of policing for a second.
Speaker 2:Pretend that you're a really rich celebrity and people keep putting forth allegations towards you. Would you rather have your name in the paper for six months, accusing you of this slanderous behavior and then ultimately being found not to do the behavior? But what are people are going to remember?
Speaker 1:What are the headlines?
Speaker 2:The allegations.
Speaker 2:So for the police department, even if they know that the behavior might not have been egregious, maybe it's beneficial to settle it, because it's not just the officer morale, it's also the community's perception, and that is very much reality.
Speaker 2:But for the officer, what I say is there's a difference between settling a case and disciplining you Right, a difference between settling a case and disciplining you right. And so if you didn't face discipline, if you still get to go to work and nobody asks you to write a check, there are some decisions that are bigger than your role in the department that people have to take under consideration. Because, being from a place, or at least working in a place, where there is ultimate distrust of the police, I can promise you it was a whole lot harder for them to do their job, because every day you would go home and you would see a headline of some egregious behavior from the police department. It's a whole lot harder for you to conduct a traffic stop when no one believes that you're a decent person than to pay out that settlement for an amount because I'm worried about your morale, for something. I'm not disciplining you over, I'm not saying it's right, but it's just a perspective.
Speaker 1:Gotcha, that's what I needed. I needed to hear a different perspective on it, but you changed my mind right there. I've never heard it put that way, so I love it All right Going down the line here.
Speaker 2:There's no line on that paper.
Speaker 1:There's a line, there's a definite line Not a down one. It's imaginary, it's in my brain. You ever see the Hangover when he's at the blackjack table and you see all the equations going on.
Speaker 2:Yes, that's what's happening. That's what's happening. I'm scared. You just can't see that. Oh, no, oh no. Fourth Amendment go yeah.
Speaker 1:What is the future like now for your position? Where are we heading in the next five years? Nope, nope, can't touch that one. Nope, okay, fine.
Speaker 2:All right.
Speaker 1:Is there any awesome success stories that you can share that have been impactful and you think is a positive community thing?
Speaker 2:Yes, and I say this because I believe in small wins being big. In both jurisdictions I've worked in, we've had a mediation program and so recently launched one here, and I've had an officer who went through mediation. So these are like low level complaints went through a mediation and I can't talk about the details of what the mediation is because it's for confidentiality. But what I'll say is that there there was not force, but there was force in the conversation. There was race in the conversation and both parties walked away with their minds changed about that interaction.
Speaker 2:That's awesome, that is powerful.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:And so sometimes people like that's one case, yeah, but then that officer went and he told his friends about that interaction and that community member now has a completely different um perspective of what is happening, um with policing in general, and understands why the officer was doing what they were doing, and not just because someone came in with a badge and said, well, I'm allowed to allowed to do it, but rather for my safety, and I actually I understand your pain and what you're talking about, and so that's something that I'm very happy about, because it's not punitive, it's an open opportunity for conversation. It's what we're doing here. It's discussing the things I'm in, allowing people to be free to have free, flowing conversation in a safe space and provide what they're experiencing during those interactions.
Speaker 2:So, our mediation program is a huge success and everyone that goes off without a hitch surprisingly, we have 100% success rate right now is a powerful impact for the city as a whole.
Speaker 1:So how does that mediation start?
Speaker 2:Starts through internal affairs. So if you file with the oversight office or you file with internal affairs, we do a screening process. Internal affairs is a screening process of is this one of the cases that meets the level, like if you shoot somebody, you're not?
Speaker 1:going to mediation? Yeah, my bad.
Speaker 2:You know, discourtesy like things like that professionalism, things that look small on paper but actually unravel the trust within community. Those are things that we can have conversation about, and so then I have a mediation director on my side. We contact the officer and the community member to make sure both of them want to do it. It's voluntary, you don't want to do it, you don't have to do it. If the officer goes forward, they don't go to an investigation. If the person goes forward, they have the rare opportunity to sit face in face with their officer and tell them what they experienced. And we have community trained mediators that hold space and help guide that conversation. So it's really, really impactful and something I'm very happy that I would hope every officer that is asked partakes I would hope so I would hope that you do you don't lose anything
Speaker 2:yeah like, even if you believe what you did was absolutely right yeah it's not gonna hurt you and, to be clear, it's not something where we allow the community member to come in and belittle you and disrespect you. That's not it. Now are they allowed to speak freely? Yeah, the same way you are, unless, like something egregious happens. No other investigations happening out of it, anything of that nature. Yeah, but it's really to foster communication. Um, like I said, I prosecuted for a while, I've done this work and I've just been human for a while. Most of the time people just want to be heard. Yeah, like me giving you a letter of reprimand, what does that do? But if you can actually talk to me and I can tell you how I felt, yeah.
Speaker 2:Which one's more powerful?
Speaker 1:Now, was this something that you implemented or was that it exists?
Speaker 2:I implemented it here.
Speaker 1:See, that's something to hang your head on, that's my big win with this jurisdiction.
Speaker 2:I'm very, very happy. That's super smart.
Speaker 1:I mean, it's a triage program. It's really what you're doing. You start you know the whole broken windows theory. You're preventing a window from even getting chipped.
Speaker 2:That's the goal.
Speaker 1:Yeah, oh man, that's really smart. Thank you, that's why you do that and I do what I do.
Speaker 2:Awesome podcast with no donuts.
Speaker 1:Yeah, with no donuts, my bad, um. All right, I've hit every point that I've wanted and that I can think of off the top of my head is there anything that you're like we should have covered this I I want this to get out.
Speaker 2:There's anything extra that you have that you want people no, because nobody prepped me or told me what I was walking into that's fine I'm open-minded and just here to chat it's more general, it it makes it more authentic.
Speaker 1:I think our conversation went a lot better than the last conversation I watched you have.
Speaker 2:Oh man, that's really offensive, and I don't know why you would say that.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I don't know.
Speaker 2:Why.
Speaker 1:Well, I appreciate you. Thank you very much for taking the time to be on the podcast and answering all these questions about police monitor work, and I think what you're doing is really awesome.
Speaker 2:Thank you for having me Appreciate it.
Speaker 1:All right guys.
.png)