Who Polices the Police?

"It's a kangaroo court," cries one side. "It's a psychological deterrent against police brutality," says the other.

The fuss is about the civilian police review board in Rochester, N.Y. Set up two years ago, after a series of Negro complaints about mistreatment by white policemen, the board has yet to hear a single case, but its supporters--chiefly civil rights leaders, unionists and clergy --feel that it has caused the police to discipline themselves better. Almost to a man, the city's 536 policemen feel that the board is intolerable.

Last week, in a surprising switch, Rochester's police filed a suit to have the board disbanded on the ground that it violates a policeman's constitutional rights. Board hearings require him to testify against himself, says the suit, and the board has failed to define at what point force in restraining lawbreakers becomes "unnecessary and excessive." With three cases of police misconduct now pending before the board, the police also won a court order delaying any hearing until the case is decided. Said one Rochester detective: "It's tough enough just being a cop. We don't need an advisory board to make the job tougher."

Pros & Cons. Hot debate over police review boards is certain to flare up elsewhere. Last week the issue heated up in New York City as Police Commissioner Michael Murphy acidly rejected yet another demand for a review board. Police are braced for similar requests in at least a score of other U.S. cities.

Proponents claim that the only way to re-establish the confidence of minority groups in the police is through the establishment of independent boards that would study civilian complaints against the police and recommend remedies and punishments to police commissioners. They insist that such boards would not interfere with normal police work, but would only deter bullies in uniform from using undue muscle. The end result, they say, would be an improved climate of community trust.

Not so, argue the police. They claim that the boards would undermine police morale, impair efficiency, take authority away from police commanders, and give timid policemen an excuse for failing to deal forcibly enough with law violators. Furthermore, the police point out, a citizen already has many ways of registering gripes against police, including police complaint departments, local and federal courts and the FBI. The International Association of Chiefs of Police, which represents the nation's local law-enforcement officers, is dead set against review boards. So is the nation's top cop, FBI Chief J. Edgar Hoover. Reporting on last summer's violent riots in Rochester and Philadelphia, the only two U.S. cities with review boards, Hoover declared: "The police were so careful to avoid accusations of improper conduct that they were virtually paralyzed. The rioters were thereby emboldened to resist and completely defy the efforts of the police to restore order."

The Philadelphia Story. In fact, all arguments about the pros and cons of police review boards ultimately lead to Philadelphia--the only city that has really tried the system. Set up by a mayoral order in 1958, the Philadelphia board at first served successfully as an informal forum where people could let off steam against the police.

But the police understandably grew tired of being berated, and insisted that the board adopt a more judicial approach. The board found that most of the complaints were so vague that only rarely could it put together a convincing case against a policeman; in the 515 cases that have come before it, the board has recommended only 18 reprimands or suspensions. And generally the punishment recommended by the board was less severe than that which the police department ordinarily metes out under its own disciplinary system.

Philadelphia police claim that the low conviction rate means that the board is unnecessary. Board members argue that it still serves as a useful forum, but admit that it has caused no startling reforms in Philadelphia law enforcement. And now the board's prestige is at a low ebb. Since Jan. 1, when its executive director quit to take another job, it has not held a single hearing. Ironically, civil rights leaders in Philadelphia seem to agree that it now hardly matters whether the ineffectual board survives or dies.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.