At least Mayor Ken Miyagishima is open about his resolute opposition to any sort of police reform, particularly a citizen-proposed Citizen Police Oversight Board. He has tried one dodge after another to prevent any discussion of the proposal. But he has finally surrendered to mounting pressure from citizens demanding a work session on it and from some Councilors who also have finally surrendered to this pressure. The Mayor has agreed to place the proposal on the agenda of a work session on 22 May.
No one should be fooled that the work session on this agenda item is anything but a reluctant sop to earnest citizens concerned about a police force without leadership and thus out of control. (Police Chief Miguel Dominguez gets no respect in the ranks or the citizenry. Difficulties in recruitment likely reflect his and the LCPD’s reputation.)
No one should be fooled that Councilors will participate in the work session in good faith. First, in the year since Officer Jared Cosper killed Amelia Baca on 16 April 2022, Councilors have talked much and done little about police reform. In fact, not one of them, including Johanna Bencomo, the most outspoken of them all, has advocated one policy or practice for police reform. For them, police reform is a matter of both moral indifference and political antipathy; police reform is the “third rail” of local politics.
Second, although the idea of such a board was broached with Councilors shortly after Officer Cosper killed Sra. Baca, no one took up the cause. But earlier, in 2020, in an “Eight-Can’t Wait” council meeting, Councilor Bencomo picked up the idea but dropped it in a few minutes. No sooner had she said that she favored a police review board than she withdrew her support after the Mayor chastised her. She remains unsupportive. Despite having no legal background, she insultingly dismissed the proposal by lawyers and other experts as “superficial.” Councilors rejecting the board and other reforms will tout their participation in the work session as evidence of their good intentions, but she will also justify her opposition because of her commitment to “real police reform.”
The persistent inaction of the Mayor and Councilors has obvious consequences. It shows their dereliction of duty, for public safety is a priority of government. It shows their hypocrisy in the disparity between pretenses of concern and their indifference, with the result that they leave citizens at risk of injury or death. It shows their reckless prodigality because doing nothing to reform the police maintains the high costs of large settlements paid under the city’s self-insurance policy funded entirely by taxpayers.
Not surprisingly, City Council, which fails to address use-of-force cases, gives no attention to the more numerous, minor daily episodes of police malpractices. These reflect and reinforce a police culture without respect for citizens and the law. Given their bad faith about considering a proposal broad in scope like an oversight board, perhaps the Mayor and Councilors might consider proposals narrower in scope, in better faith. I suggest and briefly rationalize the following:
A policy of reasonable response underlies three proposals.
1. Police shall not pursue on foot or by vehicle anyone known to have committed or suspected of having committed non-violent offenses. RATIONALE: Pursuits encourage aggressive conduct by both suspects and officers. Suspects tend to resist arrest. Police tend to use force, often excessive, often causing serious injury or death, to overcome resistance. Physical arrests often lead to unnecessary charges of resisting arrest. Yet, in many cases, the consequences of non-violent offenses are not significant; victims of property damage or loss can be compensated by a city fund for that purpose. When totaled, many compensatory payments would be smaller than only one large settlement.
2. Police shall not use any weapon—taser, pistol, rifle, spray—or any body-damaging or life-endangering technique to stop the flight of or subdue anyone because of non-violent offenses. RATIONALE: Police use of such weapons or techniques is disproportionate to the seriousness of the offenses but often ends in serious injury or death. Firing at fleeing persons, multiple tasings, and chokeholds are “street justice.” Again, a cost-benefit assessment favors non-violence.
3. Police may use a weapon only in response to a real threat of the use of a weapon against others or an actual use of a weapon against themselves. Any use of a weapon by any officer shall be the least necessary for an appropriate response. RATIONALE: Policing entails risks, the avoidance of which does not justify killing perpetrators or suspects. Police justify too many shootings by claiming that they saw a weapon or something which can be used as a weapon but is not used as one. For example, Sra. Baca’s kitchen knives were not weapons and did not endanger Officer Cosper because she did not wield them as weapons against him. (The Army rule—do not fire unless fired upon—would apply. It shows more respect for foreigners than LCPD police show for Las Cruceans. The military doctrine of overwhelming force in combat is inappropriate in civilian settings.)
Policies of transparency and accountability underlie two proposals.
1. Police shall make all charges in writing and sign a statement certifying the truth of each charge under penalty of perjury for making false charges. Altering a charge after making it shall constitute tampering with evidence. RATIONALE: Officers are usually held to the lower standard of a policy violation for false charges, not the higher standard of false swearing. A higher standard with penalties for violations can act as a deterrent.
2. Public transparency and accountability sessions shall be held quarterly, attended by City Council, managed by the City Manager, and staffed in person by the Police Chief, to answer questions or address criticisms posed orally by the members of the public. RATIONALE: Transparency and accountability require that citizens can question or criticize police performance, be heard by elected officials, and expect complete and accurate information from the Police Chief. Such sessions can encourage police leadership to promote appropriate police conduct.
These proposals are meant to exemplify specific policies to change police conduct by de-emphasizing aggressive action which is often excessive, dangerous, and damaging, and by reducing official secrecy which creates public distrust. The goal is police conduct consistent with public safety, respect for citizens, and regard for the law.
