Santa Clara County Grand Jury
• 2005-2006
2005-2006 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report Racial Profiling by San Jose Police Department – Perception Vs
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 8 findings
F1
It appears there is some level of intentional and/or unintentional intimidation on the part of members of the SJPD. This is exhibited in many ways such as vehicle and pedestrian stops for relatively minor violations. In many cases these result in searches or pat downs without probable cause. Requests for police identification (name/badge number) are sometimes perceived by officers as confrontations which can contribute to escalating tension in a given situation. 8
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The Grand Jury recommends that a pilot program be established so that in all contacts the officer provides, when feasible, a business card to the civilian which includes officer name and badge number. In addition, the card should include contact information for the SJPD, the Internal Affairs Office, and the Independent Police Auditor’s Office. This would reduce the likelihood of confrontation when an officer is asked to provide this information.
F2
Many individuals do not report perceived abuses or incidents of racial profiling due to concerns about retribution from the SJPD.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
In addition to formal channels such as Internal Affairs and the Independent Police Auditor’s Office, the Grand Jury recommends that an additional conduit for communicating in confidence with the SJPD be established. This might take the form of high-level SJPD officers serving as focal points for minority concerns. The Grand Jury recommends identifying officers whose ethnic backgrounds might make individuals more comfortable making complaints. This could encourage bringing to light specific concerns in confidence and without fear of retribution.
F3
The IPA provides an alternate way for citizens to report police harassment or abuse. At present, citizen complaints are shared between the IPA and IA. Regardless of where a complaint is filed, any formal investigation is done by IA. The IPA only audits the results of investigations by IA and either agrees or disagrees with them. The IPA does not conduct independent investigations. In cases of unresolved disagreement between the IPA and IA, the IPA can request further investigation by writing to the City Manager.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The Grand Jury believes that the IPA’s role and responsibilities should be expanded to allow a level of investigatory powers in addition to its current audit responsibilities. The Grand Jury recommends that a review of similar police audit functions in other large cities be initiated. This should identify models which could be used to augment the IPA mission. 9
F4
The City of San Jose does not have a police Civilian Review Board, as exists in some other large cities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
A task force should be convened to explore and determine whether or not a Civilian Review Board would be an appropriate additional mechanism for citizens to report cases of racial profiling or other abuse.
F5
Outreach programs can be effective in promoting understanding between persons of all ethnic backgrounds and sources of authority such as the SJPD.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
SJPD training should continue to include participation in community outreach programs.
F6
The cost to the City of San Jose of policing the EZ is significant. During fiscal year 2005-2006, police overtime costs are stated to be about $840,000. Also, long shifts may contribute to officer stress, fatigue, and performance degradation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
Even given labor agreements, the SJPD should reassess its current shift schedules to minimize holding officers past their assigned shifts.
F7
The EZ club owners and the SJPD have differing priorities in maximizing business profits and in maintaining order.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
The City management and SJPD should continue to work to establish a more synergistic relationship with EZ merchants. For example, club closings might be staggered to ease street congestion. Consideration should be given to having club 10 owners participate in subsidizing patrolling costs. In no case should police officers be employed by club owners.
F8
The San Jose Youth Protection Curfew Ordinance is not widely enforced, in part because of the large numbers of youths present at peak times in the EZ.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8
The City, and especially the SJPD, should work with community organizations to encourage parental responsibility in overseeing youth activities and to promote adherence to curfew ordinances. PASSED and ADOPTED by the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury on this 1st day of May 2006. ________________________________ Thomas C. Rindfleisch Foreperson 11
Conclusions 21
-
CL1 Page 9Many individuals do not report perceived abuses or incidents of racial profiling due to concerns about retribution from the SJPD.
-
CL2 Page 9The IPA provides an alternate way for citizens to report police harassment or abuse. At present, citizen complaints are shared between the IPA and IA. Regardless of where a complaint is filed, any formal investigation is done by IA. The IPA only audits the results of investigations by IA and either agrees or disagrees with them. The IPA does not conduct independent investigations. In cases of unresolved disagreement between the IPA and IA, the IPA can request further investigation by writing to the City Manager.
-
CL3 Page 10The City of San Jose does not have a police Civilian Review Board, as exists in some other large cities.
-
CL4 Page 10Outreach programs can be effective in promoting understanding between persons of all ethnic backgrounds and sources of authority such as the SJPD.
-
CL5 Page 10The cost to the City of San Jose of policing the EZ is significant. During fiscal year 2005-2006, police overtime costs are stated to be about $840,000. Also, long shifts may contribute to officer stress, fatigue, and performance degradation.
-
CL6 Page 10The EZ club owners and the SJPD have differing priorities in maximizing business profits and in maintaining order.
-
CL7 Page 11The San Jose Youth Protection Curfew Ordinance is not widely enforced, in part because of the large numbers of youths present at peak times in the EZ.
-
CL8 Page 8It appears there is some level of intentional and/or unintentional intimidation on the part of members of the SJPD. This is exhibited in many ways such as vehicle and pedestrian stops for relatively minor violations. In many cases these result in searches or pat downs without probable cause. Requests for police identification (name/badge number) are sometimes perceived by officers as confrontations which can contribute to escalating tension in a given situation. 8
-
CL9 Page 12San Jose Independent Police Auditor 2004 Year End Report.
-
CL10 Page 12San Jose Police Department Arrest Records, July 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005.
-
CL11 Page 12San Jose Independent Police Auditor Policies and Procedures (http://www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa/PolicyProcedures.html, last visited April 19, 2006). 4. 2003-2004 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury report, “Inquiry into the City of San Jose Independent Police Auditor” (http://www.sccsuperiorcourt.org/jury/GJreports/2004/SJOfficeIndependentPoliceA uditor.pdf, last visited April 20, 2006).
-
CL12 Page 12December 12, 2005, January 6, 2006, March 6, 2006, and March 24, 2006, Chief, San Jose Police Department and Staff.
-
CL13 Page 12United States Census Bureau 2004 American Community Survey demographic profile for San Jose, CA (http://factfinder.census.gov/, last visited May 1, 2006). Interviews
-
CL14 Page 12January 20, 2006, San Jose Downtown Association.
-
CL15 Page 12February 6, 2006, and April 10, 2006, San Jose Independent Police Auditor.
-
CL16 Page 12February 10, 2006, and March 14, 2006, Santa Clara County Office of the Public Defender.
-
CL17 Page 12February 15, 2006, National Conference for Community and Justice.
-
CL18 Page 12February 17, 2006, Palo Alto Police Chief and Staff. 12 Interviews (continued)
-
CL19 Page 13February 18, 2006, American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, San Jose Office.
-
CL20 Page 13March 17, 2006, Asian Law Alliance.
-
CL21 Page 13April 10, 2006, Office of the Vice Mayor of the City of San Jose. Meetings Attended
No Responses Found 2
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
San Jose
City
Santa Clara County Auditor-Controller
Elected County Office