When a cop shoots who investigates?
by Richard Barbuto
When I started my career in New York as an attorney who worked in the criminal justice system I was an assistant district attorney in Queens County (one of the boroughs of New York City). I spent a bit of time as a special assistant attorney general prosecuting corruption in New York City and then went back to the office of the Queens district attorney. I finally worked as an assistant district attorney in Nassau County which is contiguous with Queens County. When in the Queens District Attorney's Office I served in both the homicide investigations unit and the homicide trials unit. In Nassau County, I was assigned to the special investigations unit which investigated police misconduct. I mention this so that the reader will understand that I have had some experience in cop shootings.
From time to time a police officer in New York City will shoot someone. When that happens officers and detectives from the shooter's precinct will generally investigate the shooting. There may also be an investigation done by investigators from the District Attorney's Office, and the case will be reviewed by assistant district attorneys. At this point there will have been an investigation by the New York City Police Department which will have been reviewed by the office of the district attorney in whatever county and the shooting took place. The case will then be presented to a grand jury who will hear the facts presented by the prosecutor and then either indict the shooting officer or not.
But procedures are far different in Nassau County, and in the majority if not all of the counties outside of New York City. The role played by the grand jury is limited to non-existent. In Nassau County, the police department simply does its own investigation and then announces whether or not the shooting was justified. Due to an old order of the Commissioner of Police the determination of whether or not the shooting was justified is to be made within 24 hours. At that point I suppose the office of the district attorney could review the findings of the Nassau County police department and present the case to a grand jury but to my knowledge that has not been done in the last 20 years.
So what we have is a police officer shooting somebody and being cleared within 24 hours. Does that sound like a rush to judgment? Is it just me, or does anybody else believe that someone besides officers in the same Police Department should be taking an independent look at these types of shootings? And what's the rush? In any other type of homicide--and make no mistake these cases are homicides--the case would be worked until there was a clear resolution.
In today's climate more and more people lose faith in the criminal justice system as well as in police officers. Wouldn't it make more sense to actually investigate police officer shootings in a thorough and meaningful way rather than just declaring them to be justified?
I do not wish to leave the reader with the notion that I believe all police shootings result in cover-ups. I mentioned some of my background above because I have been involved in the investigation and presentation to a grand jury of a number of police shootings. None of the cases that I presented to the grand jury resulted in an indictment. That was not always the case with some of my colleagues. My point here is to suggest that the friends and colleagues of a police officer who shoots somebody should not be the last word as to whether the shooting was justified. An independent examination of police shootings might, more often than not, reach the same result as an "in house" investigation. However, cover-ups would be more difficult, and the public could have more faith in investigations of this type.
That would be good for everyone.
From time to time a police officer in New York City will shoot someone. When that happens officers and detectives from the shooter's precinct will generally investigate the shooting. There may also be an investigation done by investigators from the District Attorney's Office, and the case will be reviewed by assistant district attorneys. At this point there will have been an investigation by the New York City Police Department which will have been reviewed by the office of the district attorney in whatever county and the shooting took place. The case will then be presented to a grand jury who will hear the facts presented by the prosecutor and then either indict the shooting officer or not.
But procedures are far different in Nassau County, and in the majority if not all of the counties outside of New York City. The role played by the grand jury is limited to non-existent. In Nassau County, the police department simply does its own investigation and then announces whether or not the shooting was justified. Due to an old order of the Commissioner of Police the determination of whether or not the shooting was justified is to be made within 24 hours. At that point I suppose the office of the district attorney could review the findings of the Nassau County police department and present the case to a grand jury but to my knowledge that has not been done in the last 20 years.
So what we have is a police officer shooting somebody and being cleared within 24 hours. Does that sound like a rush to judgment? Is it just me, or does anybody else believe that someone besides officers in the same Police Department should be taking an independent look at these types of shootings? And what's the rush? In any other type of homicide--and make no mistake these cases are homicides--the case would be worked until there was a clear resolution.
In today's climate more and more people lose faith in the criminal justice system as well as in police officers. Wouldn't it make more sense to actually investigate police officer shootings in a thorough and meaningful way rather than just declaring them to be justified?
I do not wish to leave the reader with the notion that I believe all police shootings result in cover-ups. I mentioned some of my background above because I have been involved in the investigation and presentation to a grand jury of a number of police shootings. None of the cases that I presented to the grand jury resulted in an indictment. That was not always the case with some of my colleagues. My point here is to suggest that the friends and colleagues of a police officer who shoots somebody should not be the last word as to whether the shooting was justified. An independent examination of police shootings might, more often than not, reach the same result as an "in house" investigation. However, cover-ups would be more difficult, and the public could have more faith in investigations of this type.
That would be good for everyone.
2 Comments:
This is something that needs to be brought to awareness as well. Whenever anyone is shot, no matter who does it, all investigations should be done fairly.
This reminds me of the case of the off-duty officer who killed a woman while he was allegedly driving drunk. He wasn't tested at the scene for intoxication and he was given two bottles of water and gum after the accident. His blood wasn't tested until seven hours after the incident, and it tested clean. If it had been anyone else, they would have been arrested at the scene. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kczUwO1t3aE
That officer was indicted by a Brooklyn Grand Jury.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home