First
of all lets put accountability where it deserves to be, because if
Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard cannot institute policies to manage
and control his Police Department then maybe its time that the
citizens of Indianapolis took back control and replaced Mayor Greg
Ballard with someone who is more responsive to the needs of the
community. With
that said let's get into my dealings with and observations concerning the Indianapolis
Metropolitan Police Department.
It seems Police Departments across
the country are always complaining that they don't understand why the
citizens no longer have respect for the law or law enforcement
officers. In the case of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police
Department it is blatantly obvious. I've included the article below
from Indianapolis television WRTV (http://www.theindychannel.com/news/30762800/detail.html) to show that this is not something
that should come to any great surprise to those of us unlucky enough
to have to call upon Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department for
assistance or have other encounters with their officers. As a person with 26
years of law enforcement service it pains me to say I have never dealt with officers and
their supervisors, from a modern era department, who feel that they are more above and exempt from the law than the IMPD and who feel that the
citizens they are charged with “Protecting and Serving” have no
Constitutional or Civil Rights.
The Indianapolis police
of today are no better that prohibition era police in Chicago. They
are obviously groomed within the department to develop an attitude
that they are above the law, after all who investigates the police
but their fellow officers.
For
you see in
Indianapolis officers are allowed to travel at excessive speeds, both
on and off duty, in their marked units even with their families,
they are apparently allowed to run over and kill motorcyclists while
driving DUI in their patrol vehicle (apparently someone in IMPD
thinks storing a blood sample of an officer who is the suspect in a
unrefrigerated location is okay),
they are allowed to use the taxpayers purchased vehicles for personal
use and in the course of their second jobs, they are allowed to use
their emergency equipment to go through intersections so they don't
have to wait for the light to change and then pull into eating
establishments, they are allowed to park where they please regardless
of signage, and the best one of all they are allowed to double park
downtown with their rear deck lights on while using the ATM machine at
the bank. The list of violations is far too long to cover here but
is indicative of the problem in Indianapolis.
Based on their comments when they
arrive on scene it is apparent that they have already predetermined
what action they will take and it usually revolves around what
requires them to do the least amount of work. They are interested in
neither the truth or the facts only their opinion matters and I have
also found them to have a limited understanding of the laws they are
responsible for enforcing. Today was my latest encounter with the
the less than sterling or efficient officers of the IMPD but
definitely not my first encounter, always as a complainant, witness or bystander, with them or their supervisors. Also today was not the first time I realized, and it was made abundantly clear by by the IMPD officer, that the residents of Indiana
apparently do not enjoy the First
Amendment protections that citizens in the rest of the United States
enjoy. Apparently in Indiana a citizen is not allowed to voice their
opinion when it offends the officer, which I have found to normally
follow the old adage “the truth hurts”. I was also ordered,
under the threat of arrest, to leave the public sidewalk I was
standing on, on private property in front of a local business with
the on duty business manager because the officer who was sitting in
his car writing his “report” could hear what I was saying to my
wife and the manager and apparently it displeased him. As you can see
from the article below, in which an auditor stated that IMPD has a
“system that can only be seen as inhibiting the filing of
complaints against officers,” filing a complaint against an
officer or officer(s) is a practical impossibility for as the audit noted that "Indianapolis’ system is flawed from onset
because the department does not allow citizen complaints against
officers". Today was the first incident where I had
an IMPD officer get within a foot of me, place his finger in my face
and began shouting at me as if I was a small child. When I asked him
to remove his finger and lower his voice because he was being rude he
became visibly irate and stated he was shouting because I was not
listening, the entire occurrence of this situation was denied when
the Sergeant arrived. If you are willing to lie over something this
trivial where does it end. After succumbing to the intimidation and
threat of arrest for whatever reason he could come up with I complied
with the “nice” officer's instruction and went and stood by my
vehicle in the parking lot to await the arrival of a supervisor that
I had requested. From past experience with IMPD supervision I knew
this would be an exercise in futility but thought I would give it a
shot anyway.
Upon arrival the Sergeant spoke with the primary
officer before walking towards my location. I later was told by a
witness to this conversation that the sergeant stated “He's not
gonna like what I have to tell him”, so I guess that shows his
mindset before speaking with me. To my amazement my wife was then
instructed not to come over there but to remain on the sidewalk. I'm
starting to get confused at this point about the whole get off the
sidewalk stay on the sidewalk thing that's going on. I explained the
situation to the Sergeant including the reprehensible conduct of his
officers with which he appeared to have no problem with anything
other than accusing me of “stirring the pot”. I guess berating
people, talking to people in a condescending manner, putting your
finger in someone's face and shouting at them out of frustration is
just another day in the sterling level of community service we have
come to expect from the IMPD.
I know for me I am through standing by
and watching people intimidated, threatened and verbally abused by
power hungry little men because they wear a badge. We as citizens
have a right to expect nothing less than professional and courteous
service from our public employees. I have stood by silently for long
enough, to include an incident where an IMPD officer berated and
yelled at an 80 year old female loud enough for me to clearly hear
his side of the conversation from across the street on my front
porch. This type of conduct cannot be allowed to continue unchecked.
I think it is time that we the people start exercising and demanding
the freedoms that we are guaranteed under the Constitution. It is
time that we start holding elected officials responsible on a
national, state and local level. As for me I am prepared to request,
through the U.S. Attorney's Office, a FBI investigation of the
systematic and wholesale violation of the Constitutional rights and
Civil Rights of citizens within the jurisdiction of the IMPD. Rest
assured that from this day forward any dealings I have with IMPD or
observe will be supported by video along with any other abhorrent
conduct on their part. Enough is enough.
MPD Audit: System of accountability is extremely flawed
Posted on March 27, 2012.From WRTV
INDIANAPOLIS – A scathing audit of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department’s internal investigation process found a flawed system that’s created frustration throughout the ranks.
The Indianapolis Department of Public Safety contracted with Altegrity, an outside consulting firm, to review IMPD’s Professional Standards Division following a May 2011 incident in which a lieutenant made inappropriate remarks against a deputy chief.
Read: IMPD Internal Review
According to the audit, a number of missteps while handling the complaint caused the matter to become “exacerbated to the point that it caused disruption within the department and brought public discredit to the IMPD as a whole,” which then sparked the internal review.
The auditors said that while they found people of good faith working hard to do the right thing within IMPD, they are operating in a system that is “fundamentally defective and well outside the realm of national best practices for these critical police systems.”
“What we found is significant and problematic. In many ways, the current system of managing and ensuring police accountability in the IMPD is significantly flawed, if not broken,” the audit reads.
The auditors noted that frustration with the system affects employees at all levels, from rank-and-file officers who are upset with the time it takes for internal investigations to be done, to members of the Citizen Police Complaint Board, who feel they have little effect on the outcome of a case when they disagree with the department.
“While not everyone agrees on the solutions, there is a united view that the current system is broken, and we agree,” the audit reads.
The audit noted that Indianapolis’ system is flawed from onset because the department does not allow citizen complaints against officers.
Citizen complaints are referred to the Citizen’s Police Complaint Office, which has significant restrictions on who can file a complaint and when they can file, and is a “system that can only be seen as inhibiting the filing of complaints against officers,” auditors found.
The audit also noted that the Internal Affairs investigators, who are tasked with most serious complaint cases, must both investigate and judge whether the accused officer’s conduct was improper, while command officers are generally left out of the process altogether.
The auditors recommended that the relationship between the merit board, the Disciplinary Board of Captains and the Citizen’s Police Complaint Office and board needs to be adjusted, with the Captain Board eliminated and replaced by internal departmental processes and the CPCO’s focus and processes revised.
“The recommendations will strengthen meaningful civilian review and oversight while eliminating wasteful and non-productive processes that, while purporting to provide both citizen involvement and officer due process, in fact accomplish neither,” the audit reads.
Department of Public Safety Director Frank Straub said in a news release that the review provides a road map for IMPD to improve its practices.
“The report creates an opportunity to recognize environmental, policy and procedural issues, that, if properly addressed, will improve morale, enhance public trust and continue to move the IMPD toward becoming the leading police department in the Midwest,” he said. “We don’t move cases in a timely manner. We have investigations that go on for 12,18, 24 months.”
Auditors agreed that IMPD has the personnel in place to make major changes.
“We find it most promising that everyone we spoke with was committed to putting a better system in place,” the audit reads. “This is the opportune time for Indianapolis to take the necessary steps to positively impact the way its community is policed for the foreseeable future.”
