What is a Police Oversight Monitor? with Bonycle Sokunbi

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Disclaimer Welcome to Two Cops One Donut podcast.
The views and opinionsexpressed by guests on the
podcast are their own and do notnecessarily reflect the views
of Two Cops One Donut, its hostor affiliates.
The podcast is intended forentertainment and informational
purposes only.
We do not endorse any guest'sopinions or actions discussed
during the show.
Any content provided by guestsis of their own volition and

(00:20):
listeners are encouraged to formtheir own opinions.
Furthermore, some content isgraphic and has harsh language
language viewer discretionadvised and is intended for
mature audiences.
Two cops one donut and its hostdo not accept any liability for
statements or actions taken byguests.
Thank you for listening.

Speaker 2 (00:35):
Coming up next on two cops one donut I say this
because I believe in small winsbeing big um.
In both jurisdictions I'veworked in, we've had a mediation
program and so recentlylaunched one here, and I've had
an officer who went throughmediation.
So these are like low levelcomplaints went through a

(00:56):
mediation and I can't talk aboutthe details of what the
mediation is because it's forconfidentiality.
But what I'll say is that therethere was not force, but there
was force in the conversation.
There was race in theconversation and both parties
walked away with their mindschanged about that interaction.
That is powerful, and sosometimes people are like that's

(01:16):
one case, yeah, but then thatofficer went and he told his
friends about that interactionand that community member now
has a completely differentperspective of what is happening
with policing in general andunderstands why the officer was
doing what they were doing, andnot just because someone came in
with a badge and said, well,I'm allowed to do it, but rather
for my safety and I actually Iunderstand your pain and what

(01:39):
you're talking about, and sothat's something that I'm very
happy about, because it's notpunitive, it's an open
opportunity for conversation.
It's what we're doing here.
It's discussing the things andallowing people to be free to
have free-flowing conversationin a safe space and provide what
they're experiencing duringthose interactions.
So our mediation program is ahuge success and everyone that

(02:01):
goes off without a hitch we have100 success rate right now is a
powerful impact for the city asa whole all right, welcome back

(02:23):
to two cops.

Speaker 1 (02:24):
One donut.
I'm your host, Eric Levine.
Today I have a special guestwith me.
I got somebody that is not acop.

Speaker 2 (02:30):
I'm not a cop.

Speaker 1 (02:31):
You're not a cop and I am not going to butcher your
name, so I'm going to let yousay your name ma'am.

Speaker 2 (02:37):
Well, how about you practice saying my name, and
then you won't butcher it?

Speaker 1 (02:41):
You say it, and then let me all right, let's go.

Speaker 2 (02:44):
First name, first you ready okay bond seal bond seal
bam didn't butcher.
Now you're ready for the hardpart.
All right, show, show, cooncoon b b show can be show can be
bam, look at there, winners win, love it, love it.

Speaker 1 (02:58):
All right.
So, guys, for those that aregoing to be listening to this
episode, here's what you'regoing to get.
You're going to get our firstpolice monitor, and that is a
hot button word for cops.
When they hear that, theyautomatically cringe and they're
like oh shit.

Speaker 2 (03:12):
I'm such a scary person.

Speaker 1 (03:15):
No, but you're not.
I actually got to.
We just did a training videofor another department and I got
to hear a lot about what isinvolved with police monitors
and all of that stuff.
So I'm actually very excitedabout it and people that listen
and understand.
What we do here on the podcastis we try to hit both sides of
the house and it's not all copsare great, but not all cops are

(03:39):
bad.
So we try to do an even keelwith that and I think police
monitor is just another way ofchecks and balances working
themselves out.
If you're doing what you'resupposed to do, it shouldn't be
a problem.
If you're not doing what you'resupposed to do.
Well, you're going to find out,so, but you guys know the
format of the show.
The first thing, I want youguys to get to know and

(04:10):
understand my guest and figureout if you think that she's full
of shit yourself or if youthink she's a genuine person.
Yeah, that work, sure, why notAll right.
So, first and foremost, how didwe get you to this level?
Where are you from, what's yourbackground and what kind of
drew you to the criminal justiceside of the house?

Speaker 2 (04:17):
On a snow day in December many, many years ago.
No, so my name is BonsalShokumbe and I am the child of
an Air Force veteran and atherapist, and I think that that
helped create a pretty uniqueperspective.
My father served in the UnitedStates Air Force for just under
30 years.
He is still working for themilitary and he's one of those

(04:38):
people who did things that Idon't know what he did, but my
mother was a therapist.
So there is a lot of rules andregulations, but also thoughts
and feelings in my household.
I am from nowhere, because I'm amilitary brat and I've had the
opportunity to live across theworld and have a lot of great
experiences.
But after I went to undergrad Idecided I still wanted to do

(05:00):
some other things with my life.
I got a degree in publicrelations and marketing because
my parents told me I had tograduate.
I was originally pre-med.
They said they're paying forfour years and I was like, hey,
what can I finish in four years?
And so public relations andmarketing was an easy switch for
some reason.
But I love all of that, I lovemarketing, I love the art of
persuasion, things of thatnature, and then I was doing

(05:20):
that work for a nonprofit and Irealized I didn't have enough
impact and I wanted to do moreand I could do more.
I was still fairly young, so Iwent off to law school thinking
I was going to do like publicpolicy work, something of that
nature.
I hated law school.
I hated every second of lawschool Absolutely horrible.
But I was pretty good at tryingcases.
I did mock trial and all thatstuff when I was at law school

(05:43):
and so some people took interestin me and said, hey, that
should be your skill, that youshould hone.
And so after I graduated andtook the bar, a lot of I guess,
firms were interested.
But I'm one of those change theworld people Again.
My dad was in the Air Force andmy mom was a therapist, so I
wanted to do work that I feltlike had an impact in the

(06:05):
community honestly, and so Iwent to the prosecutor's office
and I tried cases.
For the first half of my legalcareer I've tried everything
from low-level misdemeanors tomurders, rapes, things of that
nature.
Doing that work day in, day outcan be taxing on anyone.
And so then I transitioned topolice accountability because I
had so much experience in theworld that I was in crime and

(06:28):
the location that I was in.
I had an opportunity to seepolicing in a different aspect
rather, and so my very firstcase was actually littered with
police misconduct the first caseI ever tried and that was my
introduction to internal affairswhat red tape really was the
impact it would have.
But I also had the opportunityto prosecute people who were

(06:48):
responsible for killing officers, but it was a seamless
transition.
I started doing communityrelations and trying to rebuild
the trust with the community,then went into use of force
because apparently I don't mindseeing a dead body, and we had
to monitor autopsies and seewhere the gunshot wounds went
and for some reason seesomeone's head cut open.
I don't know the point of that,but you know, watch that, um.

(07:09):
And then ultimately I wassecond in command for that
office and then I came to mycurrent city and run the office
for police oversight okay.

Speaker 1 (07:18):
So if you guys are listening like, why isn't she
saying where it's the sameformula for me?
You guys know, I nevermentioned my department on here
she's doing the same thing.

Speaker 2 (07:25):
We're keeping it um of cities and former cities.

Speaker 1 (07:28):
Yeah, we're doing vague and, uh, trying to.
We're both still employed, sowe we have to be very careful of
how we represent ourdepartments and stuff, even if
we're not intending to representthem.
It's what makes doing this sodifficult when you're trying to
have real conversations.
But, um, in that you brought upthat you did prosecution so

(07:48):
common questions that I get allthe time is or more like
accusations, is like the policeare in bed with the prosecutors.

Speaker 2 (07:56):
The prosecutors, they work together to go after all
the bad guys and and and eventhe non-bad guys to make money
for the city, and I'm not goingto say that's not true, but it
was never the case for me guysto make money for the city and
I'm not going to say that's nottrue, but it was never the case
for me, and I mean for thepeople I worked with.
That was not how we operated tothe extent that if a case came
across my desk and it was bull,quite frankly I'm not

(08:19):
prosecuting, enter ano-prosecution and keep going.
Go do your job.

Speaker 1 (08:23):
So what you're telling me is that prosecutors
have discretion, just likeofficers have discretion.

Speaker 2 (08:28):
Absolutely.

Speaker 1 (08:29):
So that's kind of the educational side of things that
I kind of want to hit on atfirst is that people understand
in prosecution they have a levelof discretion.
Officers have a level ofdiscretion.
It is the checks and balancesthat keep the system flowing as
best it could without it gettingmore overburdened than it
already is.

Speaker 2 (08:47):
Right, and also, as an attorney, you have a
responsibility and you have yourlicense and things that are on
the line, and so I can't just dosomething because an officer
said it.

Speaker 1 (08:56):
X.

Speaker 2 (08:56):
Y and Z, so you make sure that you want to be
complying with your own ethicsand standards.

Speaker 1 (09:00):
And that is something that I try to convey.
But when you're not in thatposition, when I try to tell
people, I'm like, listen, I'mnot going to cover for another
officer, they're like oh cops,they always cover up for each
other.
No, you just saw, I have wife,kids, all that stuff I'm not
covering for him because he didsomething criminal.

Speaker 2 (09:18):
Correct.

Speaker 1 (09:18):
Now, if he's on his cell phone and that's against
policy, and he's on his cellphone in his car and I saw him,
I'm not gonna go rat on him forbeing on his cell phone.

Speaker 2 (09:25):
I don't care but what if I come and ask you was he on
his cell phone?
He's driving.
I'm gonna tell you yeah, allright.

Speaker 1 (09:29):
But I'm not gonna openly just go.
Oh, you know, paul was on hiscell phone today while he was on
duty.
Like I'm not gonna, do.
Shame on paul, I'm just sayingdo better yeah, but when it
comes to something criminal likethat, is my life and stuff
that's on the line.
So the same comes when we go tofile a case.
Right, the prosecutor's licenseand everything else is on the

(09:49):
line.
They're not going to cover forit.
That's the checks and balancesthey come into play, and what I
have been fortunate to have as adetective is my prosecutors
don't just say, no, this is nogood, we're not taking it.
They say, hey, here's why it'snot working.

Speaker 2 (10:04):
This is what's wrong with the case this is where we
need to improve.
This is what's missing.
Yes, that's the whole idea.
Now are there conversationssurrounding investigations and
things of that nature?
Yes, because we want to makesure that it goes all the way
through.
But if it's bad, it's bad.

(10:25):
If it's bad and there's amurder, that's going to get
turned loose.
Guess what?
Do better next time?
Yeah, do better, because I'mnot going to put someone or be
responsible for someone going tojail that procedurally
shouldn't, because you didn'tfollow the rules along the way,
right?
So one of the, the story that Itell most often of what was my
introduction into policemisconduct, as I said earlier,
was my very first case.
So imagine this I'm barely anattorney, like I think the ink
is still wet on my license.
That's still an envelope.
I'm barely an attorney, like Ithink the ink is still wet on my

(10:46):
license.
That's still an envelope,despite paying a lot of money to
earn that degree.
And I try a heroin case drugdealer selling heroin in the
neighborhoods.
You go through all the things.
You choose a jury.
It's hard.
This is a city where people arenot fond of the police.
All the things we somehowanother secure a guilty
conviction, unanimous jury,great, fantastic.
I'm thrilled I've given theclosing argument.

(11:07):
I think of a lifetime.
It was pretty horrible.
I want the truth.
Yeah, I hit the table all thethings.
But fast forward and all of asudden the first assistant comes
to me and says hey, Bonsil, youremember that case?
Yeah, I remember.
You know what?
He tells me that conviction'sin trouble because the officers

(11:29):
that were involved in that casejust got federally indicted.
Well, what do you mean?
Oh, they were stealing moneyfrom controversial informants.
Oh, okay, Well, I didn't haveCIs in my cases.
And he said, yeah, but you wentto law school and you understand
what Brady is and youunderstand when you're not
honest and truthful in one case,how it can impact another.
And so for me, I guess I hadthe benefit of seeing
immediately the power that I hadand the responsibility that I

(11:52):
had to hold officers accountable, even in prosecution, because
it has a big impact on thecommunity.
You took a week out of thepublic's time to say are we
going to take this drug dealerout of our communities?
You had jurors scared that theywere going to be targeted.
You had all of these things andpoor behavior is what the
impact is.
Then it's my responsibility tosay when I see something in the
case no, we can't go there, thisisn't going to work, this isn't

(12:14):
the standard that you've setfor yourselves or the
Constitution has set.

Speaker 1 (12:17):
Yeah, and to improve things for anybody listening on.
Okay, levine, I get what you'resaying, but how do we take that
information to improve thingsIf you're a detective, if you're
out there and you're like myprosecutor's not really giving
me any feedback?
Ask for feedback.

Speaker 2 (12:32):
Absolutely.

Speaker 1 (12:33):
Where are my cases falling apart?
This is the third case I've hadin a row.
What am I doing?
Poorly?
Some most, I would assume wouldbe more than willing.
You may get a few assholes outthere that are like figure it
out, I ain't got time.
That can happen, but that ishow we start to improve, if you
care.

Speaker 2 (12:50):
I hope you care.

Speaker 1 (12:51):
I hope you care.
If you're putting your timeinto these cases, then you
should be asking these questions, and the same can go for
prosecutors and stuff.
I had a couple prosecutors onbefore and part of that
conversation was you know, howdo we improve?
Do you guys take the time tohelp us improve?
And I got good feedback fromthose guys as well, saying yeah,

(13:12):
anytime we can help an officerimprove.
It's not to screw over somebodyon a case, it is to shore up
the shortfalls in beginning acase and for a lot of new
detectives you didn't learn thatin the academy you don't know
what you don't know yeah, so you, you, you get beat up a lot.

(13:32):
When you first started as adetective I got beat up.
I'm sure everybody, theprosecutors, I bet it is
embarrassing to get beat up byyou know, a seasoned defense
attorney on your first time Idon't know that experience you
don't you have that experience?
I didn't have that experience.
She came out the gate, justawesome, huh.
You know, I like it.
Humble brag it's cool, but Ithink that's where we can start

(13:58):
out when we're trying to educatethe public on where we're going
with our cases.
It is not a we're in bed withthe prosecution.

Speaker 2 (14:04):
No.

Speaker 1 (14:06):
But it's not to say that corruption and stuff like
that hasn't existed and hasn'tbeen, you know, shown before.
That's not what I'm getting at.
What I'm getting at is, for meand my experience and what I've
been dealing with prosecution isthey hold you accountable.
They're the checks and balancesto make sure your case isn't
screwed up, just like the fieldofficer is the detectives the
checks and balances for thefield officer.

(14:27):
I should be giving feedback tothe field officers of hey, the
information you gave isincomplete.
Like your story needs to painta picture.
If I don't have body camfootage, I need to be able to
read this and have the samevisual in my head.
Yes, and let me go down a littlerabbit hole with you real quick
.

Speaker 2 (14:46):
All right.

Speaker 1 (14:47):
Some of and this still has nothing to do with
police monitor stuff.
By the way, we're going off ofthe prosecution stuff.
Yay, body cam and putting casestogether.
Do you see a trend where we aregoing to start leaning to the
point where we don't even listento an officer's word anymore?
We're only going to go off ofif we have video evidence or not
.

Speaker 2 (15:07):
I do think that there is an expectation of there to
always be video.
Do I think that we'll neverlisten to the word and only take
in the body on camera video?
I don't think so.
I don't, because perspective isreally important and what is
seen on video can be confusingand confounding, and so I don't

(15:27):
think that we'll completely getaway with it.
But I had the opportunity to beprosecuting when body camera
was introduced and watch thetransition from.
You don't have camera footage.
In the improvement in cases,let's just say, of at least
what's being prosecuted of, wehave footage of what happened.
So this outlandish policereport that you would never
think happened, wait, there's avideo that says it happened.

(15:50):
But when you get a case thatdoesn't make any sense and you
don't have video, do we havereasonable doubt or a question
of credibility?

Speaker 1 (15:57):
Okay.
So and that's the view from aprosecution is like they're
starting to try to think likethe jury would think Correct and
make sure that the case isworth pushing.
Okay, fair enough.
Yeah, because that's my concernas a cop is that the word is
not going to be enough andthey're only going to go after
the cases that we're puttingtogether or starting, you know,
from the ground level to thedetective, Like we didn't have

(16:19):
video.

Speaker 2 (16:24):
I hope we don't get there, but that's just the
reality of the expectations ofthe public.
Now it's been a long time sinceI've been in the courtroom, but
oftentimes, when I would startmy voir dire selection selecting
the jury, I would tell themthis isn't CSI, I'm not going to
have video cameras on everycorner, I'm not going to come in
and tell you that I got abreath sample from the sister's
uncle, etc.
And so it's creating theexpectations of what you see on

(16:45):
TV or social media isn't alwaysreality, but we're going to
bring you the best case that wehave and with the information
that we have.
Does reasonable doubt stillexist?
If not, then you can convictwithout it being on video.
But as cameras become morereadily available, yes, there's
going to be increasedexpectation, but I think that
you can always prosecute withoutit, and I think that people who

(17:06):
are passionate about the workand seeing people held
accountable are still going togo forth and do their job
whether or not the video exists.

Speaker 1 (17:12):
OK, how long did you do prosecution for?

Speaker 2 (17:15):
Probably about five and a half years.
I was a prosecutor, but I gotto do a lot in a really short
time, so it was a great time,though Best years of my life.

Speaker 1 (17:24):
Well, one of the ways that we look at field officers,
you know, police officers,however you want to call it
deputies you're considered arookie until you've hit your
five-year mark in the street.

Speaker 2 (17:35):
Yeah, but you know, when you've been through
something, you're a vet.
Now I am a vet, that's what I'msaying.
You're a vet now through somethings, I've seen some things.
So, uh, yeah, I've made it, I'mofficial.

Speaker 1 (17:43):
And then it also goes into what I like to call how
busy were you staying as aofficer in the field, you know,
are you working the countrywhere you're only taking a
couple calls a week, right, orare you working in the inner
city where you're taking 10calls a night?
You know, the experience levelis huge and where you were, I
know you were taking a lot Itried to murder before.

Speaker 2 (18:04):
I've been an attorney for a year, so yeah, that's,
that's crazy that's crazy.

Speaker 1 (18:08):
So, okay, cool, now let's transition.
Let's get into going from theprosecution side to the police
oversight stuff, right, um, it'skind of a new thing, it's, it's
it's, it's developing like it'sstill in its infancy, in my
opinion, just like body camerasand drones and all this other
stuff that police now haveavailable.
So you're kind of at that.

(18:30):
I still consider it the groundlevel.
We're still trying to figurethis out and what's going to be
a good formula.
But before we get into that,for anybody that's out there
that may be interested in doingthis, what's the process like?
How did you even find this typeof position in?

Speaker 2 (18:45):
doing this?
What's the process like?
How did you even find this typeof position so honestly?
A defense attorney came up tome and said I think you'll be
great at this work because I waspassionate about rules and
accountability on both sides.
So a lot of major cities dohave an office of police
oversight, or either there are alot of federal consent decrees
that are popping up and it'seither under the IG's office or

(19:06):
they have a standalone officethat operates.
Most offices are small, butthat's kind of how they function
.

Speaker 1 (19:12):
Can you kind of explain the federal consent
decrees for me?

Speaker 2 (19:15):
All right.
So a federal consent decree isbasically when the Department of
Justice comes in and does aninvestigation to see if there's
patterns and practices by thatpolice department that warrant
the federal government coming inand taking over.
And so there are a number ofcities who are under federal
consent decree.
There are very large consentdecrees and smaller consent

(19:36):
decrees where it could be.
There's one specific thing thatthey're looking at.
I mean, there are some whereit's just throw the entire
department away and startcompletely over and there is a
court that oversees that.
They bring in a private policemonitor, who's called the
federal monitor, and they puttogether a team to look at all
the facets of policing that needto be improved on that
department.
The things that could rangefrom like bias-free policing, it

(20:00):
could be use of force, thingsof that nature and how it
impacts that community in orderfor them to get compliance with
just the Constitution, let alonewhat we expect as a community.

Speaker 1 (20:09):
OK, and I want anybody that listens to this.
I want you guys to know we didnot meet, we did not practice,
we did not do anything for thispodcast.
So one of the things I want youto pay attention to with her is
she is firing at the hip,nailing all of this stuff that
we're asking, and it's amazing.
So it just shows morecredibility to your credentials.

(20:34):
Thank you, I appreciate that Ireally like the way that you're
just firing off at the hip onthis stuff.
Okay, I wanted people tounderstand the consent decree.
I always mispronounce it, soI'm trying to be very focused.
I wrote it down, so I saidconsent.
I keep saying dissent decree.

Speaker 2 (20:48):
And I'm like that's not right.
A lot of people hate them, sothat kind of goes with it.

Speaker 1 (20:51):
Right, um, now, uh, going.
So a defense attorney hit youup on this.
That's, that's interesting,because I would have pushed
somebody with that mindset, um,and known reputation like yours
to push for judge.
I mean, that seems like thenext logical yeah, no, no, no,
no judge in you.

Speaker 2 (21:10):
Absolutely not.
No, no, don't tell my dad.

Speaker 1 (21:13):
What's not appealing about that to you?

Speaker 2 (21:15):
I don't like playing God.

Speaker 1 (21:17):
That's just the way that I see it.
Absolute power corruptsabsolute type of thing.

Speaker 2 (21:21):
It's not my thing.
I like being part of the systemand providing impact and
opinion.
However, being the finaldecision maker when I know that
I don't have absolute truth,it's not something that I want
to participate in.
I respect the people that do itand I know that's a heavy crown
, but that's not for me that'sso deep I like that I'm going to
.

Speaker 1 (21:40):
That's going to be a sound clip, for sure.

Speaker 2 (21:42):
That was great and watching for years.
It's going to be a sound clipfor sure.
That was great and watch it foryears.

Speaker 1 (21:45):
It's going to be like Tom's hip now hey the thing is,
you are more than welcome tochange your mind with new
information, new experience, newtime.

Speaker 2 (21:54):
Yeah, I don't see that one.

Speaker 1 (21:55):
I hate when people try to corner somebody for
something they said I would hopewe change.

Speaker 2 (22:00):
Yeah, I would hope so .

Speaker 1 (22:02):
I got new information .
I changed my mind.

Speaker 2 (22:04):
There, you go.

Speaker 1 (22:04):
That's just how it works, you know.

Speaker 2 (22:07):
That's growth.

Speaker 1 (22:08):
Yeah, it's growth.
Calling it flip-flopping, Ithink that's more of a political
move.
I hate that.
It's not how it works.
Okay, hey y'all Eric Levine, TwoCops, Peregrine I've roughly

(22:29):
got about 18 years of lawenforcement under my belt and
I've seen a lot of really cooladvancements in law enforcement.
The biggest advancements in lawenforcement, I think, are like
fingerprints, DNA testing andthen, more recently I would say,
license plate readers.
Those things have all changedthe game in law enforcement and
now I think Peregrine is on thatlevel that's going to change it
up.
But I've had people ask me whatis Peregrine, and I want to
talk about that.
Now there's a caveat to it.
Peregrine is so in-depth I'monly going to talk about one

(22:53):
small feature that it's able todo, because I can't fit
everything that they do in onelittle ad.
All right, I'm going to takeyou on a little mental journey.
So if you're law enforcement,you work for an agency.
This is for you guys, so followalong with me.
Imagine you're an investigatorand you're working on a property
crime.
We'll say a property crimespecifically like air

(23:16):
conditioning thefts.
That's a big one.
In Texas.
You've had two cases this weekalone and, typically speaking,
unless you go talk to the otherdetectives that you work with,
you're not going to know for atleast a week or maybe a month or
two that they also have ACthefts that are related to your
thefts In investigations.
There's like this internal gapof sharing information.

(23:37):
Here's where Peregrine startsto flip things on its head, so
to speak.
Peregrine can sift through yourreports and start to identify
the detectives and the casesthat match the similar MO to
your cases that you're working,and it can bridge that
information and present it toyou in an easy to read package.
Hold on, it gets better, Ipromise.

(23:59):
Peregrine can scan your CADcalls for related incidents and
can even comb through suspecthistory in your report rating
system.
Like RMS, it's able to matchpossible suspects based on the
MO and the geographicallocations.
Oh wait, the rabbit hole goesdeeper.
If you've got a suspect name,Peregrine has the ability to

(24:19):
analyze your stored body camvideos and search for that
suspect's name and find videosof them to give you up to the
most up-to-date contacts withthat suspect.
And what's great about that?
As an investigator you knowyour body cam has the ability to
geolocate so you can see thelatest locations, specifically

(24:40):
where your suspect was last seen.
This is just the tip of theiceberg and all I wanted to do
with it is tease you guys enoughjust to seek out more
information.
So please reach out to mepersonally, DM me, or reach out
to Peregrineio and just tellthem that Eric Levine, from Two
Cops, One Donut, sent you.
I don't endorse things I don'tbelieve in and I would stake my

(25:02):
reputation on their product.
Please check them out, becauseI know it's going to.
I digress.
Let's go down to now gettinginto the monitor position and
seeing.
So they have them all overmajor cities, all that stuff.
We're probably not seeing themtoo much yet for small agencies.

Speaker 2 (25:22):
There are some small agencies that have them, but not
for the most part.

Speaker 1 (25:25):
OK, and for those listening, anything that we're
starting to get under 100officers I'm going to start
calling you a small department.
Midsize is going to be 100,hundred to a thousand, and then
anything over that it's a fairlylarge department.
So, um, you see, they get youinto this.
Did they give you a specificspot that you should do it, or

(25:46):
were they just saying this typeof job in general?

Speaker 2 (25:48):
so there was a position um that I applied for
that I was not qualified for.
Let me say that right now, andit was the second in command.

Speaker 1 (25:55):
Worth a try.

Speaker 2 (25:56):
And I was just like I'll show up and see what
happens.
No, but they created a positionfor me.

Speaker 1 (26:02):
Okay.

Speaker 2 (26:03):
Because I do have the weird background of non excuse
me, of nonprofit work, of publicrelations.
I helped start a trial ad thingfor young kids and then I have
all the homicide, murder, rapeexperience where they made me
the executive director ofcommunity relations.
So I spent a lot of my timegoing out teaching the youth
their rights in a very neutralway of like this is what, this

(26:26):
is how you stay alive, becausethis is important.
But these are the rules andexpectations and this is, if
that encounter doesn't go theway that you would expect, this
is what you can do about it andwhere you should do something
about it.
Right, right.
But I also spent time going tocrime scenes and helping
navigate those investigationsand then the other part that
really tied it in together inthe jurisdiction I was in, we

(26:48):
had a lot of murders, a lot ofmurders, but we had a lot of
cold cases, and so you would seethese police complaints of like
my detective didn't do a goodjob or they didn't solve my
son's murder, quite frankly.
So I'll be the person that sitat the table with the homicide
detective the mother who's losther son and explain and
translate the gap and do liaisonwork okay okay, this isn't a

(27:11):
complaint, but let me tell youwhat exists in this case.
because they don't have anattorney and an attorney, you
don't get a public defender tosay there's no one to be
prosecuted, like there's no oneto stand in the gap for you and
so that was my job and then toalso push back with the
department and be like so I seesome things you miss, like I
don't know, but in a normalinvestigation we would have
expected that.
Did you actually do it in thereports?

(27:31):
Just not generated things ofthat nature?

Speaker 1 (27:32):
so that's.
That's something that I noticedas a detective is um, for the
most part, in general assignment.
There really wasn't anyoversight of my case unless I
asked another detective hey, canyou take a look at this, make
sure I got everything and theygot their own caseload going on
you know how it is, and sothey're gonna.
You know, I'm hoping they investa little bit of time into it,
but how much can you reallyexpect?

(27:54):
So then when you do put a casetogether and let's say, you get
a conviction or whatever, butthen you have somebody like you
that can come in and say, likeyou, there was, you got the
conviction, but there's a lotmore that you could have done
and I don't know any better.
So I do see that as a gap inpolice work in general, like to

(28:14):
this day.

Speaker 2 (28:16):
One of the things that kind of frustrated me in
general when I was practicingwas that gap and where it
existed, because what I found alot of times is officers didn't
necessarily know where theirattorneys were stepping in in
the gap, where their cases were,quite frankly, being cured, or
how we were able to get it infront of a jury, where you

(28:36):
didn't mirandize somebodyproperly, but this was the
exception that you didn't evenknow existed, or what the fight
was to get the case to goforward, what evidence was
missing, and you just think, asan officer, like I did a good
job and I'm gonna go do thisagain.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
Like you, you don't know whatwent into it, and so making sure
that those conversations happenalong the way of this is how we
improve policing and improvethe safety for the community as

(28:58):
well yeah, I love you brought upmiranda.

Speaker 1 (29:00):
That always cracks me up.
When you see them on tv,they're like putting the cuffs
on.
You got the right to remainsilent.
I'm like that is not how maybein new york, because every new
york tv show you see like that'show the detectives are, like I
love it, you know, on BlueBloods, because I watch Blue
Bloods.
Everybody wants a Tom Selleckchief.
You know he's the best chief.
He's well-rounded, right, he'sgreat, but yeah, I see that gap

(29:27):
in, just in detective work andthen in general, and nobody,
what are the?
There's a bug bite by my face.

Speaker 2 (29:33):
It was.
I was trying to ignore it, butI got him, you did not.
I did get him, okay, all right,if I see it again, I'm calling
it out.
I got him Good job.

Speaker 1 (29:41):
There was the DNA dead body crime scene.
Anyway, finding these gaps intraining and police work is kind
of one of the points of doingthese podcasts, by the way is
how do we start to fix that?
So we've got the policeoversight, police monitors,
things like that.
It isn't just hemming up cops.
I hope not, but at the sametime finding gaps and improving

(30:05):
police work down the road.
To me that's the biggestpicture.
That's how I would hope mypolice monitors would be so,
without stealing your thunder Imean, you stole it already.

Speaker 2 (30:16):
I did.

Speaker 1 (30:17):
I'm a thunder stealer .
People are who's he keeplooking at.
We have a guy in the cornerjust watching us hi, friend, how
are you so?

Speaker 2 (30:26):
yeah, that's essentially what police
oversight is.
So my first line is always thatour goal is to make sure that
the department is complying withits own policies and procedures
.
Right, that's what we want toensure, but the next step of
that is also ensuring that youhave the policies and procedures
in place that you should have.
So, if you have a bad policyand you complied with it, when

(30:48):
I'm going through a disciplinaryaction, like sure, that officer
followed it.
But now we see why that'sproblematic and how we can
improve.
Right, high department, here'smy recommendation where we can
do policing better, becauseoftentimes officers have so many
things going on.
You have a lot on yourshoulders leadership.
If you're actually out on thestreets, whatever it is, I have
the opportunity to sit down withvideos and policies for a long

(31:08):
amount of time and review it andlook at it, um, in a more
worldview and also compare it toother policies and go.
This is where there's room forimprovement.
This is where you could dodifferently, yeah, where you
could do something differently,because that makes better sense.
Um, and try to provide thoserecommendations.
And how can we improve policingto improve the relationships

(31:29):
between the police and thecommunity as a whole now my
question to you is when you'redoing that?

Speaker 1 (31:33):
because I agree we need to have somebody that's
outside of our fishbowl lookingat things from a different,
different perspective.

Speaker 2 (31:40):
I'm glad you agree.

Speaker 1 (31:41):
Um, do you take the time to pull somebody in and say
, hey, this is how I see this.
Do you guys have any reason forwhy you're doing this?
Oh, absolutely Okay.
So you've taken taking thefeedback as well.

Speaker 2 (31:52):
I take feedback and there's nothing that I've ever
put out um in my time of doingthis in any jurisdiction that
didn't get communicated with thepolice department ahead of time
.
Now there are times where Imight dig my heel in and go.
I understand your position andgive you an opportunity to
respond to it, but this is stillwhere I stand on the situation.

Speaker 1 (32:10):
I disagree.

Speaker 2 (32:10):
I agree to disagree but I'm still going to take this
stance for these reasons.
But a lot of time, a lot of thework for police monitors
happens behind the scenes.
It's a lot of conversationswith those who are involved,
whether it be leadership orspecialized divisions or
whomever, where we're talkingabout it ahead of time and not

(32:31):
it's not a gotcha moment.
That's not what we're trying todo.
It's let's have a conversationso we can have understanding and
agreement and move forwardtogether if possible, and if not
, then great, we'll both makeour positions and we'll go and
see what happens.

Speaker 1 (32:44):
Yeah, Now what is the authority over you find?
A change like this has tochange Like what authority do
you have now?

Speaker 2 (32:50):
So that's what differs between jurisdictions.
For my jurisdiction, I am amonitor and I'm purely a monitor
, so I can make therecommendation, but the police
chief has the ultimate authorityto make a decision.
So if I say something and I'mlike this policy needs to change
, and he says, no, boncil, Idisagree, that's great.
I just have it in writing thatwhen Judgment Day comes, that
I've already said this is whatyou should have done.

(33:12):
Right, and I have publicsupport.
Now there are some communitieswhere they have authority over
the chief or either theyanswered to counsel, things of
that nature.
That's the confusing thingabout oversight is there's so
many different versions, but wehave very limited authority but
a whole lot of access toinformation in my situation to
provide that input.

Speaker 1 (33:32):
Okay.

Speaker 2 (33:34):
I'm sorry.
That is also the biggestdifference between in my opinion
, between a lot of the monitor'soffice and a federal consent
decree, Because a federalconsent decree, once it's put
forth, the department has to doit.
If the judge says yes, it hasto be done.

Speaker 1 (33:46):
Okay.

Speaker 2 (33:46):
And so that is a substantial difference than
having local oversight.

Speaker 1 (33:49):
So when you have your recommendation, that's getting
pressed directly to the chiefand I having local oversight.

Speaker 2 (33:55):
So when you have your recommendation, that's getting
pressed directly to the chiefand I'm assuming city council
and the mayor probably lookingat that stuff as well.
No, no so.
I don't have politicalinfluence on my office or
political feedback on what we do, which is how we are
independent.
So it doesn't, everythingdoesn't necessarily go directly
to the chief, but he has a finalsay.
So so I work directly withinternal affairs, or use of
force, or whoever it is in thatspecialty.

(34:15):
But ultimately the finaldecision maker is the chief.
There are times where you haveto go to the chief and go hey, I
talked to such and such unitabout this, but I want to bring
it to your attention and he hasto say so.
And that goes on discipline aswell.

Speaker 1 (34:28):
Okay, Now how does a case even start making your way?

Speaker 2 (34:33):
For like a disciplinary For anything?

Speaker 1 (34:35):
How does it come across to you?
Is it a use of force?
Is it a policy issue?

Speaker 2 (34:40):
Any, of it.

Speaker 1 (34:41):
Any of it.
So somebody has to make acomplaint and then say what
about a complaint from anofficer?

Speaker 2 (34:47):
Yep, I look at those too.

Speaker 1 (34:48):
Okay, because one of the things that frustrates cops
is when you have a general orderand then policy or two general
orders that kind of conflictwith each other, things of that.
That frustrates me too.
Yeah, so I was curious.
Is that some of the things thatcome across?

Speaker 2 (35:04):
Yes, absolutely.
Or promotions and people notfeeling like that process was
fair, or things of that nature.
All of that can come through myoffice and other jurisdictions
I've been in.
It's something that we look atas well the way that overtime is
assigned, which shift you get.
Those things come to my office.
Issues with the compliance withpolicy that you've trained me in
one way.
You wrote a policy to doanother thing and then you're

(35:26):
not holding me accountable or mycolleague accountable.
To either one, what is theexpectation of the department?
Or you put me in a dangeroussituation and nobody cares.
I need somebody to saysomething and maybe as an
officer you don't feelcomfortable, but now you have.

Speaker 1 (35:41):
Hey, I don't care, I'll go to the room, I'll say it
, let's do something about it.
Oh, I'm excited about that.
I like that.
I didn't know that.
I just I I guess I assumed itwas the big guns, it was use of
force, um, or some sort of, youknow, internal corruption type
stuff.

Speaker 2 (35:54):
But yeah, that's the stuff that we care about, but
it's all of it.

Speaker 1 (35:57):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (35:57):
Because all of it impacts the ability for the
police department to do a goodjob and all of that impacts the
community's experience.
Okay, so if you have adisgruntled officer who doesn't
know what they're supposed to doand their sergeant keeps
yelling at them and mistreatingthem, I need to know about that,
because that's going to impacthow you're interacting with that
civilian right.

Speaker 1 (36:13):
So, versus going to ia, they would go to you.
They can, so that's an option.

Speaker 2 (36:17):
Yes, but even if they don't go to my office, I review
every single thing that goesthrough internal affairs.
Okay, everything, so it doesn'thave to originate with my
office.
If it exists for that policedepartment, I will see it okay
every use of force, everymisconduct, investigation okay.

Speaker 1 (36:36):
So I see the checks and balances, because the public
there's, there is a certainportion of the public that, oh,
it's just I, is just the peopleinvestigating their own people
and they and they don't.
There's a a general distrustfor that right off the bat, but
a lot of people don't understandthe processes behind ia at
least a properly ran ia rightand when they run properly.

(36:56):
There are.
I've had a couple ia guys onhere now but the checks and
balances I think are pretty good, at least where I've been at um
.
But now we have a third partyoption to make sure that if you
felt the ia was not doing thingsproperly, you're there to catch
, catch and find those things.

Speaker 2 (37:15):
So what people think all the time is that like I'm
just here to say, like hey,officer, you did horrible.
That's not necessarily true.
Yes, officer, if you didhorrible, I'm going to call it
and say that you did somethinghorrible.
But also of officer A andofficer B, both did something
horrible.
I want to make sure thatthey're treated the same.
Yeah, I want to make sure thathappened.

(37:36):
I want to make sure thatthey're treated the same.
I want to make sure thathappened.
I want to make sure that all ofthe evidence was actually
brought forth in theinvestigation and that we didn't
miss something that couldexonerate or either show that
that person's more responsiblefor their behavior.
These are things that I'mlooking for.
I want to make sure that Idon't know leading questions
weren't asked during aninvestigation.
Leading the outcome of aninvestigation those are things
that I'm concerned with, notjust the behavior of the
underlying officer or what thecivilian's concern is.
I'm looking at all of it, butit's more than that.

(37:58):
I'm looking for patterns,practices, things of that nature
.

Speaker 1 (38:00):
Oh, man, and we like to use leading questions as cops
.
I know, don't y'all, don't youall, oh my gosh Well, we're not
classically trained inpracticing law like y'all are.
You know, yeah, but no, thatmakes sense now that they would
pick somebody with a prosecutionbackground.

Speaker 2 (38:16):
Now to be clear you can do this job and not be a
lawyer.
I just happen to be one.

Speaker 1 (38:20):
Fair.
But now that you've experiencedthat, would you say that you
are doing more of a disserviceby not having somebody with a
law degree?

Speaker 2 (38:29):
I won't say that I think that I bring a unique
skill set that's beneficial tolaw enforcement by having a law
degree.

Speaker 1 (38:36):
Yeah, and again, like I said, we're at the infancy of
this career field in a sense,so maybe that is something that
should be considered, because Idon't want somebody coming in
that has no criminal justiceexperience you need to have some
public policy experience, somecriminal justice Like.

Speaker 2 (38:54):
You need to at least know something in the world,
more than something um, but youdo need experience in that world
.
Whether or not it's a jd umthat got you there, that's a
question, but you definitelyneed to have some experience in
the world okay, fair enough.

Speaker 1 (39:08):
Um, yeah, I'm just, I'm trying to think of people
that you know, that I justwouldn't want to see in there,
but judges, lawyers, that wouldbe a good spot.
Obviously, I don't think you'regoing to want a retired cop, a
retired chief.

Speaker 2 (39:21):
We see it, we see it, but what happens in that
situation?
Is they really have to checktheir biases?

Speaker 1 (39:28):
That would be my concern.

Speaker 2 (39:29):
You really have to look at that and make sure that
there's balance, or either youcreate the balance within the
office.
I have a former officer in myoffice but I'm not, and so
that's something that I'm alwayschecking for.
There is a level ofappreciation that I have for his
training and expertise throughgoing through the academy and
doing the actual activities ofpolicing, but I have to make

(39:50):
sure I don't want to hear whatyou would have done in that
situation.
But let's talk about policy.
Yeah, things of that nature.

Speaker 1 (39:56):
I would love to see, I would love to know that
anytime you're digging intosomething and it may be a little
dirtier than than what youexpected, you know it's not like
a clean cut case or anythinglike that.
I would love to know that youare seeking counsel or advice
from your street-level officers.

(40:17):
Right, because you're going toget the ivory tower.
You're going to get thatmid-level sergeants and
lieutenants that you start to.
When you become a sergeant, youstart to lose touch.
I'm a sergeant now.

Speaker 2 (40:28):
I'm a baby sergeant, so you still have a little bit
of touch left.

Speaker 1 (40:31):
Yeah, I still have a little touch left, so I'm trying
to get these thoughts outbefore I lose them before,
before the dark side takes meover.
Um, but I would love to knowthat that type of reach and
that's just personal advice theydon't.
You don't have to follow it,but I think I think, coming in
and already having a fight toprove your position and and that

(40:52):
you aren't here just to screwover cops If they knew that you
were bringing in street levelcops, even if it was from
adjacent agencies as long as theculture is somewhat similar, I
think that would go a long wayswith cops out there.

Speaker 2 (41:05):
I think that people will be shocked at the number of
conversations that I havesurrounding an incident and how
much intentionality there is inbeing open-minded and remaining
neutral in difficult situations.
I think a lot of people wouldbe shocked in what that really
looks like at the end of the day.

Speaker 1 (41:21):
Yeah well, I mean just from your statement earlier
of not wanting to be a judge.
That's deep.
That's actually very respectful.
I think that that's cool.
So I give you props for havingthat self-awareness that you
just don't want.
That type of power I try toinstill in my young officers
right now.
I'm like just your uniform.
You have to keep in your headhow powerful that uniform is.

(41:44):
And we're dealing with theConstitution, we're dealing with
people's rights.
You have the ability to takesomebody's freedom away, even if
that's for a second.
That is a lot of power.
So keep that in mind whenyou're talking to people and
you're doing what you got to do.
Make sure you have legaljustification to be there.
You're not just randomlystopping people.
Check your biases.

(42:05):
We all start to get those.
You get police biases.
It's just weird how that worksout.

Speaker 2 (42:12):
I mean, it's human nature how that works out.

Speaker 1 (42:13):
Yeah, our brain just happens to follow patterns.
And if all you're looking at iscriminal patterns, it's like
when you're out and hunting Igrew up in Michigan so I like to
hunt deer.
When you're out there lookingfor a deer, a squirrel becomes a
deer really quick, becauseanything that moves you're like
ah, I think it's got antlers.

Speaker 2 (42:36):
That's anything that moves.
You're like oh, I think it'sgot antlers.
That's why my dad took upsquirrel hunting too.

Speaker 1 (42:37):
He's like I just need to shoot something what did
your dad do in the air force?
I?

Speaker 2 (42:39):
really I I don't know .
You don't know what he did.
I know at some point he was aballistics missile specialist,
but my dad's like one of thoseguys.

Speaker 1 (42:43):
Yeah, I already know his top secret clearance yeah,
okay, if he's working inballistics.
Yeah, that's.
Uh, that's I already.
I was just the guy when youcame through the gate welcome to
the military police, yeah waittill the gate.

Speaker 2 (42:56):
Welcome to the gates of lackland I have a cousin that
was a mp.
That's fantastic.

Speaker 1 (43:00):
We need you all yeah, that's where the name came from
.
Two cops, one donut.
I'm a military cop and I'm acivilian.

Speaker 2 (43:06):
I've been trying to figure out where the other
person was.
Don't tell anybody that figuredit, you got it.
Wait, there's no donuts heretoday.
I was kind of hungry.
I know Everybody asks that.
That's kind of disrespectful, Inever come prepared.
Maybe you should rename theshow.

Speaker 1 (43:20):
No, I've already bought products.

Speaker 2 (43:22):
It's already set in stone.
Then buy donuts.

Speaker 1 (43:25):
I know hey, there is when we talk offline.
I'll tell you about a spot youneed to try out Are you buying,
I buy.
Yeah, and especially in March,they make a margarita donut.
Wow, you have to be 21 and ahalf.

Speaker 2 (43:38):
I don't know if I made the cutoff.

Speaker 1 (43:42):
But yeah, okay, let's get back into it.
I had IA question marks, sobeing involved with internal
affairs, from where you're at,what is that?
What is that introduction like?
Because they never had amonitor until you came.

Speaker 2 (44:00):
They did have one monitor before me.

Speaker 1 (44:01):
Oh, there was one before you.
There was one before me, thefirst no.

Speaker 2 (44:04):
I'm not the first.
There was one monitor before me, but we've also changed
leadership multiple times beinginternal affairs, sitting down
with either the captain or thelieutenant and saying this is my
role, where you feelcomfortable, and making sure
that your executive staff alsosupports you and what your goals
are, um, and setting theparameters.

(44:26):
We have unfettered access andour governing statutes provide
for what we're allowed to do andtrying to build trust and
rapport, first and foremost, um,so like we meet monthly just so
our teams can get along,because I have people who are
not officers calling and beinglike hey, I disagree with your
investigation, um, and you haveofficers who have been there for

(44:47):
you know, 20, 30 years going.
What do you mean, kid?
you disagree with myinvestigation yeah well now, if
we can respect each other.
You know where I'm coming from,um, and making sure that we
have that level of understanding, but, from the very beginning,
just creating that rapport ofthey know what my expectations
are, what my goals are and whatfeedback that I'll be providing.

Speaker 1 (45:07):
Now, as you're going through that process of the
cases, are you looking for gapsin training, not just errors in
policies and procedures?
Okay, oh, absolutely, oh,that's awesome.

Speaker 2 (45:16):
Policy training in practice.
Absolutely OK, oh, absolutely,oh, that's awesome Policy
training in practice.
So this, this is a differentjurisdiction.
But no, I'm not going to tell astory.

Speaker 1 (45:25):
All right, that's OK, yeah that's all right, but yeah
, so that's one of the thingsthat I would be concerned of is
like, ok, we see a problem, buthow much do you know about the
training to even be able to callthat out?
Like now, you got to be OK, isthis because of training, and
now somebody is going to have toresearch that for you, right,
and so we research it.

Speaker 2 (45:43):
So, that's also one of the reasons why it's
important to have a goodrelationship with the police
department is so that I can pickup the phone and call the
person who's over teaching therecruits how to drive and figure
out.
Hey, like I'm reading and I seewhat was supposed to or have
the PowerPoint from 2019.
What are you all actuallytraining on?
But my other expectation is,during the course of the

(46:05):
investigation, that internalaffairs would have set that
standard and established it intheir report.
But these are conversationsthat are constantly happening of
me wanting to know not onlywhat's being currently trained
how was that officer trainedwhen they went through it?
When was the last time they'reactually trained and my
recommendations aren't always,for you should have had a
sustained allegation for X, yand Z.
It might be.

(46:25):
I see a gap in training forthis that we have not taken
consideration this new novelsubject and we need to provide
an opportunity and in-servicefor officers to have this
training that has nothingagainst the officer.
That's just how can we improvethe department.

Speaker 1 (46:40):
Okay, man, this is one of my favorite fucking
interviews so far.

Speaker 2 (46:44):
Oh yay.

Speaker 1 (46:45):
I am a nerd.
I love learning, so I'mlearning so much right now, so
that's why I'm into this.
And again, kudos to you.
You have zero downtime withyour speech.
You just know this shit off thetop of your head.
It's.
I finally met somebody betterthan me yet.
So sorry to all your other.
I know some guests I get onhere and I'm like and then and

(47:08):
then words yeah, yeah, words,use them, I need help, help me,
help you.
Uh, okay, oversight, you get um.
Now let's you get into somesort of serious case.
Let me go back real quick,because there was one thing Are
you at will of a chief?

Speaker 2 (47:26):
No.

Speaker 1 (47:27):
So you're hiring and firing is based.

Speaker 2 (47:30):
Based off the city.
The city, yes, okay.
So I'm independent from thepolice department, independent
from the political body, but Iam paid by the city department
independent from the politicalbody, but I am paid by the city.

Speaker 1 (47:43):
Okay, so how do they decide to like if you're no good
anymore?

Speaker 2 (47:44):
like who?
How does the same way aseveryone else, so I have
performance evaluations so who'swho's looking at that?

Speaker 1 (47:49):
who's your boss?
Well, without naming them, thecity manager the city, okay, so
the city manager, yeah, so Idon't answer to an assistant
city manager.

Speaker 2 (47:56):
like a lot of other departments, I answer to the
city manager.

Speaker 1 (47:59):
Okay, and there's Okay, I'll ask some questions
offline Word and then okay, sointo that you get a serious case
, police misconduct allegations,whatever IA finds there's
police misconduct.
You concur, there's policemisconduct.

(48:19):
You concur there's policemisconduct.
What are the steps from therewith y'all?
That's just the computer.

Speaker 2 (48:25):
Sorry, it lit up and I just wasn't ready to die.
I'm sorry.
Can you rephrase the question?
I don't understand the call.

Speaker 1 (48:32):
So you find wrongdoing you pointed out, ia
points it out.
Now it comes down to thediscipline aspect of it.
Do you get recommendations?
No, nothing.

Speaker 2 (48:42):
I don't weigh in on discipline unless discipline is
inconsistent with otherdiscipline that has occurred.
So that's what I'll weigh in on.
So ideally, the way that themonitoring works is let's just
make this a critical policeincident or a major use of force
, because that's easier.
Let's just make this a criticalpolice incident or a major use
of force because that's easier.

(49:02):
It happens, and this is for allthe jurisdictions I've been
involved in.
It happens and I immediatelyreceive a phone call and I'm
updated on what happened on thatscene and then I'm provided
unfettered access differentjurisdictions.
That looks different.
Sometimes I've had theauthority to go to the crime
scenes Other places.
I don't have that authority butI have immediate access to
interview things of that nature.
My goal is to provide feedbackimmediately.
I don't want to wait to say,hey, did you know we had a

(49:25):
problem here, or this is amissed allegation, things of
that nature.
I like to provide that becauseit's at the discretion of the
department what they do withthat information.
So I don't get to say, hey,this is an excessive use of
force and you have to sustainthis allegation.
I can say, based off the policythat you have for use of force,
based off of Graham and Connor.
This is what I observe, and Itry to do that in real time,

(49:48):
because who wants to come backand have to fix something when
they just possibly missed it?
Because it can happen right.
And I provide that feedback.
If it's at the conclusion ofthe investigation, I draft it
and I give it to them and thenit gets attached and it goes to
the chain of command throughout.
Whatever way discipline ishandled for that specific
department.
When it comes down todiscipline, that's left up to
the chief, I don't attend forthat.

(50:09):
I'm not involved with that.
Depending on the severity of it, of course, I kind of know
what's going to happen but Idon't weigh in on what that is.

Speaker 1 (50:22):
Okay, I have a question and and possible idea
at the same time.
So when you have a finding andsomething that you suggest, one
do you guys have?
Does the police monitor, havetheir own website for?

Speaker 2 (50:31):
the public.
Okay, it's through the city,but we do have a website.
Okay, that needs to be updatedand we're working on okay, so
that goes into my next question.

Speaker 1 (50:40):
When you get your findings and you're like here is
something that I have found andI suggested, does that get
added or is the idea so there'sa list of recommendations and
that gets added.

Speaker 2 (50:49):
The goal is to have a public dashboard of all of that
being forward-facing.
One of the things that we do,um, at least publicly talk about
and and provide in ournewsletters is the type of
recommendation.
So if I have 97 use of forcepolicy recommendations, at least
that subject matter is capturedand the public is aware of what
we're providing andrecommendations, because the big

(51:10):
thing is transparency andaccountability.

Speaker 1 (51:12):
Yeah, that's kind of what I was getting to and then,
yeah, that would be fun.
I'm a nerd, guys.

Speaker 2 (51:18):
For who it would be fun for me.

Speaker 1 (51:20):
It would be cool to see, because I'm with you on the
checks and balances side ofthings.
So if you found somethingsignificant and you suggested it
to the chief or whoever's there, it would be very concerning to
me to see that you hadpresented this here's your
findings and why and then thatgets declined.
I would love to know if there'sever a reason given Right, and

(51:43):
I would love to know what thatreason is.
No, we declined it because ofthis, because it may be a factor
that you just disagree with,like you said earlier.
Okay, we agree to disagree, buthere's what I recommend.

Speaker 2 (51:53):
Or it could be that they just can't do it Like it
could be a resources problem.

Speaker 1 (52:01):
They could be that they just can't do it, like it
could be a resources problem.
They could agree, but theycan't implement it right things
of that nature.
So that would be cool to see.
Here's what we recommended.
It was approved or it wasdenied, and here's why.
Here was the reason given.

Speaker 2 (52:06):
That would be awesome yeah, is that that's the goal?
That's the goal.

Speaker 1 (52:09):
That is the goal okay cool, that's great.
Um, that's badass actually.

Speaker 2 (52:13):
That that's unheard of like no it's not completely
unheard, I don I haven't heardof any other cities doing it.
There are some cities that doit, but that is definitely the
goal.
I'm really into figuring outunique ways to be transparent.
That takes it away from theindividual officer.
Let's focus on the departmentas a whole and how the
department's doing and improving, and that's the way that I want

(52:34):
to convey the story ofoversight.

Speaker 1 (52:36):
Because more often you tell me if this has been
your experience, but more oftenthan not, when I see a cop
that's screwed up, I see a faultin training.
I have seen.
I mean, I'm not going to sayofficers, don't screw up
intentionally, but you got thatface.

Speaker 2 (52:51):
So what have you found?
I think it depends on what typeof failure to act or behavior
you're talking about.

Speaker 1 (52:57):
Okay, without being very specific, I'm just saying
in general.
I see a screw up on a video andI'm like you know the cops
messing with a first amendmentauditor on a public sidewalk and
I'm watching him say all thesethings.
I'm like you were not trained.
You were not trained in thisyear at a small city.
Your department decided to usewhat little funding it has to
put these trainings forward andyou did not get First Amendment
training at all Right, and thatis part of the frustration that

(53:22):
I have.
But if that was something younoticed in the training and that
got put forward and then yougot five more officers that fall
victim to a First Amendmentauditor, well, now one.
I think you're showing yourboss, hey, she's worth her
weight in gold over here.
But another thing it can startholding chiefs accountable,
correct, and holding trainingaccountable and all that stuff.

(53:43):
So trying to give officers andcitizens this is same.
But different.

Speaker 2 (53:47):
One of the things in one of the jurisdictions I've
worked in that we noticed was atraining issue, but it wasn't
directly from the academy orfrom the police department and
so we had an interaction.
We don't have to go through thedetails, but basically they
were marking the calls GOA orgone on arrival and they weren't
allowed to do those types ofstops like it was against their

(54:08):
own policy.
When investigating the biggerallegation, we noticed that that
was a pattern that was withinthat specific precinct and were
able to determine that theirfield training officer was
passing that down to severalofficers because that's how he
did it because that's how he didit, and so we're running into
this major issue where we neededto correct of training.

(54:29):
But we were able to determinethe pattern because we were
looking at other other, all theother allegations that stemmed
from it.
And so it's a powerful thingwhen you take off the name and
you just look and try to figureout is there a problem and where
does it actually start and howdo we fix it.
And that's one of the thingsthat I'm committed to doing.

Speaker 1 (54:45):
Okay, and I always go back to the First Amendment
orders because it still shocksme it's 2024 and I still see
cops falling for that stuff.
Having you checking and doingthat, that, that helps fix the
training correct and I lost mytrain of thought.

(55:05):
I know exactly train the trainsgone.
Anyway, we'll switch it up.

Speaker 2 (55:16):
I did want to say something really quickly because
you asked about, like, how Iweigh in on discipline, and I
just want to emphasize, for ourstyle of monitoring and how I
operate, I am basically a voicein the room, I am truly a
monitor and I don't have a vote.
On a lot of things I have avoice, but that is different
than a vote.
So I sit on oral review boards,I sit in the use of force

(55:36):
review board, all of thesethings and I am a perspective in
the room, but I'm not a votingparty in the room.
Um, and I think that shouldgive some officers comfort that
you don't have this third partycoming in and bullying and
saying do it my way, no, I'mjust adding perspective to the
other voices that are there okay, and are you getting regular
feedback from the communitiesand if?

(55:57):
so how are?

Speaker 1 (55:57):
how are you getting that we?

Speaker 2 (55:58):
regularly engage so, like forums, things of that
nature, also tracking thecomplaints that we have talking
to community leaders.
That's one of the things thatare extremely important that
it's just not reflective of whatI think, but trying to engage
regularly with those mostimpacted by the policing
behaviors that people believeneed to be corrected.

Speaker 1 (56:14):
See, and that's good, because now we're following the
cultures of the area, not thecultures of where you just came
from.

Speaker 2 (56:20):
Correct and that's extremely important.
That is, it's essential to knowwhere you are for policing in
general, like as an officer.
You can't police here the wayyou would there, right, in the
same way that I can't provideoversight here the way that I'd
have other places.
The way that the communityappreciates the police here
might be different, the distrustmight be different, the history

(56:41):
of distress or brutality orwhatever shapes the way that
people interact, and you have torespect that and make sure that
you're addressing it properlyand not just trying to give a
blanket answer of well, you know, we'll just do it this way
because that's what they did inSan Francisco.
I know they have a lot ofoversight.

Speaker 1 (57:00):
I feel like they're game.
How long did it take you toacclimate to the culture?
Cause you weren't from the area, but I'm from nowhere, so you
are from nowhere.

Speaker 2 (57:04):
Yes, no, it has taken a while because they are quite
opposite jurisdictions.
Um, and what I did initiallywhen coming was I didn't make
any decisions in the beginning.
You know a lot of people likeyour director starts and like
what's your hundred day plan andmine's?
To sit down and talk toeveryone.
I want to sit down with everyperson in leadership, every

(57:25):
community member who wanted tohave this here, everyone that
has distrust or love, and figureout what is the culture here
and what I'm walking into.
Because coming in for lack of abetter term guns blazingzing,
trying to adjust things, isn'tbeneficial if I'm trying to
adjust something that doesn'tactually need to be fixed just

(57:45):
checking my camera oh, I getparanoid that they stop
recording so the red lights on.

Speaker 1 (57:50):
The red lights on that's good to go now in this
process.
God, this is such good stuff.
This is going to be a greatepisode, guys guys, I cannot
wait to get this out there, asyou've been going through the
process, learning the culture ofwhere you're at, has there been
anything crazy, revealingcompared to where you were
coming from?

Speaker 2 (58:08):
that you're like I didn't expect this, I don't
think it's anything crazyrevealing, but it is just the
complete opposite.
I'm in a jurisdiction now whereI walked into the grocery store
and I heard someone tell anofficer thank you for your
service.
I was not in a place where thatwould happen.
A lot of the common consensuswhere I am now is that even the

(58:31):
communities who have sufferedharm still want to see the
police in their neighborhoods.
They just want to see properpolicing.
I'm coming from a jurisdictionwhere burn it all down to the
ground and trying to explain tothe community well, we have to
have something, we have to havesomething, and so that was
shocking to see such polaropposite views.

Speaker 1 (58:48):
But I think that's just the appreciation for
differences that exist incommunity um, and recognizing
how we have to approach changebut that's awesome because now,
knowing that, ahead of time ofyou coming into a position, if
officers hear you talking likethat, like, and know that this
is the impression you're gettingfrom the public, that either is
for or against their police,obviously there's some support

(59:09):
there.
It is for me as a cop.
I'm thinking of it like it'scomforting like to know that you
see that and you recognize it,and that's going to help you in
determining your job and howextreme your recommendations and
things need to be Like thereare some things that are clearly
working Right, so we don't haveto burn it down to the ground.
Yeah, defund is not.
It doesn't work.
Guys, don't do that.

(59:29):
Ok, now, in doing this, wheredo you see the future of this
position going?
Like, I see you got yourhundred day plan going where you
sit.
I love that idea.
By the way, I think anytime youmove into a new position, you
just need to sit down, shut upand listen, yeah, like, and
don't just start trying tochange shit right off the bat.
That's that's my way of doingthings as well.

(59:50):
So in doing that, where do yousee the direction going now?
From where you are?

Speaker 2 (59:55):
my goal is to stop focusing on individuals so much.
It's important, right, but Idon't think that you completely
change behavior throughdiscipline.
Now, discipline isn't justcorrective.
Sometimes it's punitive and itneeds to happen.
But for a lot of low-levelthings, we need to know where
our standard is.
Do we have compliance with therules and things that we're

(01:00:15):
putting forth?
And so, looking at auditing,look at those types of things,
and then policy recommendationsbased off of what's happening in
a department as a whole versusthis major incident happened and
the news cycle picked it up,and are we focusing on it?
Actually looking at policing asa whole and how to improve it,
based off of what is happeningoverall versus what one bad

(01:00:36):
actor is or is not doing.

Speaker 1 (01:00:38):
Have you and we can edit this part out later, if we
need to but I just have.
Have you faced any politicalpressures, Like have you noticed
it?
And you're like I'm not.
No, that's not me, but havepeople tried to press you?
No, Not at all.

Speaker 2 (01:00:55):
Not that I'm aware of .

Speaker 1 (01:00:56):
Cool.
Well, I'm just curious.
I don't know if that I mean I?

Speaker 2 (01:00:59):
I think the emphasis really is not that I'm aware of
or to a point where it'simpacted my desire to do the job
.
Okay, and I want to be clear,and it's on my desire to do the
job and not what I'm going to do, because I'm going to do what's
right, or at least what Ibelieve is right at the end of
the day, but I'm not going tooperate in a space where I'm not
free to do what I am asked todo.

Speaker 1 (01:01:17):
Okay, yeah, I again, I'm not trying to put you on the
spot with anything like that.
We can always edit to thingslater.
I just I want to know in thatit's such a unique position,
it's so you're you're on anIsland.
I am You're on an Island, so.

Speaker 2 (01:01:32):
I don't have a lot of friends.

Speaker 1 (01:01:33):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:01:40):
I could just imagine the boats are just circling
trying to figure out ways to geton your island and make their
own impression, I mean.
But I think, when you're clearin what your role is and that
people can have realisticexpectations, I think, for where
I am, the political figuresknow that I'm about neutrality.
They know that I'm abouttransparency and accountability,
and where it exists, I'm goingto call it either way.
Yeah, and that's just how I'mgoing to operate.

Speaker 1 (01:02:01):
Have you run into any policies, general order issues
for your own position whereyou're like ah, this needs to be
adjusted, Like I'm not, I'm notable to do my job or I
shouldn't be allowed to do this.
Has that been?
A thing that hasn't come up.
Okay, I'm just curious if thatagain newer type of position,
right in figuring it out, whatyour responsibilities are going

(01:02:23):
to be and all that stuff.
You don't have to reinvent thewheel if there's other places
that have done it.
But I'm just curious.

Speaker 2 (01:02:28):
If you've run across stuff you're like this could be
improved for my position well, Ithink there are things that can
be improved, but in general, inoversight, most of the
governing ordinances are sobroad stroke where it's just
like it's up to you to createthe nuance in there and what
you're going to do.

Speaker 1 (01:02:42):
Okay, what has been your impression on police
general orders that are verybroad and you're like geez, this
could kind of be anything, yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:02:53):
I think they're highly problematic for the
community and I think they'rehighly problematic for a police
officer.
If your general orders arevague or too vague, rather like
there has to be a little bit ofgray area, right, because no
police interaction looks thesame, right, yeah.
But if it's too vague, thatmeans that you don't know how
you're supposed to operate and,as the community member, I don't
know how you're supposed tooperate.

(01:03:13):
That creates a problem whichalso leads to maybe nobody's
held accountable because weweren't clear on what you're
supposed to do.
I think in general policing wehave too many general orders
that are um, thank you, thankyou need to be reduced, need to
be specific to the things thatmatter.
Other things need to go in,slps, etc.
Like I could go on a wholething about that.
But yeah, that's generally howI feel.

Speaker 1 (01:03:35):
I I can tell you that I think it's dps, texas DPS, I
think.
Their general orders is like 13.

Speaker 2 (01:03:42):
13 general orders or something like that I don't know
how I feel about that one.

Speaker 1 (01:03:44):
But that's the point of it being a general order,
because you can't and same inthe military.
When I was guarding nukes, Ihad three general orders.
That was it Three generalorders for nuclear missiles.

Speaker 2 (01:03:56):
Did you have more training?

Speaker 1 (01:03:56):
I had a lot of training, yeah, a ton of
training.

Speaker 2 (01:03:59):
We got to do it somewhere.

Speaker 1 (01:04:00):
Yeah, right, fair, I'm with you on that.
But that's why I say, when Isee general orders and I see
that there is just a Bible worthof general, I'm like that's not
general.

Speaker 2 (01:04:12):
I'll give you a secret.
A lot of times it comes fromthe people like me, lawyers who
are like, so we had thisinteraction eh, let me put it in
writing so you know not to doit again, because we paid out a
lot of money for that dumbmistake.

Speaker 1 (01:04:21):
Yeah, maybe you can help me, as an officer, or other
officers, understand how comewe settle so much with lawsuits
and with police departments.
What is the deal with that?
Do you have any insight on that?

Speaker 2 (01:04:34):
Liability is a real thing.
What do?

Speaker 1 (01:04:37):
you mean?
It seems like they would rathersettle than fight a case
sometimes, and I think that thatgenerally hurts the morale of
police officers when, when theyfeel like the department would
rather settle because it'scheaper than it would been to
fight a case so I'm going totake it out of policing for a
second.

Speaker 2 (01:04:56):
Pretend that you're a really rich celebrity and
people keep putting forthallegations towards you.
Would you rather have your namein the paper for six months,
accusing you of this slanderousbehavior and then ultimately
being found not to do thebehavior?
But what are people are goingto remember?

Speaker 1 (01:05:14):
What are the headlines?

Speaker 2 (01:05:15):
The allegations.
So for the police department,even if they know that the
behavior might not have beenegregious, maybe it's beneficial
to settle it, because it's notjust the officer morale, it's
also the community's perception,and that is very much reality.
But for the officer, what I sayis there's a difference between
settling a case and discipliningyou Right, a difference between

(01:05:38):
settling a case anddisciplining you right.
And so if you didn't facediscipline, if you still get to
go to work and nobody asks youto write a check, there are some
decisions that are bigger thanyour role in the department that
people have to take underconsideration.
Because, being from a place, orat least working in a place,
where there is ultimate distrustof the police, I can promise
you it was a whole lot harderfor them to do their job,

(01:06:00):
because every day you would gohome and you would see a
headline of some egregiousbehavior from the police
department.
It's a whole lot harder for youto conduct a traffic stop when
no one believes that you're adecent person than to pay out
that settlement for an amountbecause I'm worried about your
morale, for something.
I'm not disciplining you over,I'm not saying it's right, but
it's just a perspective.

Speaker 1 (01:06:17):
Gotcha, that's what I needed.
I needed to hear a differentperspective on it, but you
changed my mind right there.
I've never heard it put thatway, so I love it All right
Going down the line here.

Speaker 2 (01:06:34):
There's no line on that paper.

Speaker 1 (01:06:35):
There's a line, there's a definite line Not a
down one.
It's imaginary, it's in mybrain.
You ever see the Hangover whenhe's at the blackjack table and
you see all the equations goingon.

Speaker 2 (01:06:47):
Yes, that's what's happening.
That's what's happening.
I'm scared.
You just can't see that.
Oh, no, oh no.
Fourth Amendment go yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:06:57):
What is the future like now for your position?
Where are we heading in thenext five years?
Nope, nope, can't touch thatone.
Nope, okay, fine.

Speaker 2 (01:07:07):
All right.

Speaker 1 (01:07:08):
Is there any awesome success stories that you can
share that have been impactfuland you think is a positive
community thing?

Speaker 2 (01:07:21):
Yes, and I say this because I believe in small wins
being big.
In both jurisdictions I'veworked in, we've had a mediation
program and so recentlylaunched one here, and I've had
an officer who went throughmediation.
So these are like low levelcomplaints went through a
mediation and I can't talk aboutthe details of what the
mediation is because it's forconfidentiality.

(01:07:42):
But what I'll say is that therethere was not force, but there
was force in the conversation.
There was race in theconversation and both parties
walked away with their mindschanged about that interaction.
That's awesome, that is powerful.

Speaker 1 (01:07:56):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:07:57):
And so sometimes people like that's one case,
yeah, but then that officer wentand he told his friends about
that interaction and thatcommunity member now has a
completely different umperspective of what is happening
, um with policing in general,and understands why the officer
was doing what they were doing,and not just because someone
came in with a badge and said,well, I'm allowed to allowed to
do it, but rather for my safety,and I actually I understand

(01:08:20):
your pain and what you'retalking about, and so that's
something that I'm very happyabout, because it's not punitive
, it's an open opportunity forconversation.
It's what we're doing here.
It's discussing the things I'min, allowing people to be free
to have free, flowingconversation in a safe space and
provide what they'reexperiencing during those
interactions.
So, our mediation program is ahuge success and everyone that

(01:08:43):
goes off without a hitchsurprisingly, we have 100%
success rate right now is apowerful impact for the city as
a whole.

Speaker 1 (01:08:51):
So how does that mediation start?

Speaker 2 (01:08:54):
Starts through internal affairs.
So if you file with theoversight office or you file
with internal affairs, we do ascreening process.
Internal affairs is a screeningprocess of is this one of the
cases that meets the level, likeif you shoot somebody, you're
not?

Speaker 1 (01:09:07):
going to mediation?
Yeah, my bad.

Speaker 2 (01:09:10):
You know, discourtesy like things like that
professionalism, things thatlook small on paper but actually
unravel the trust withincommunity.
Those are things that we canhave conversation about, and so
then I have a mediation directoron my side.
We contact the officer and thecommunity member to make sure
both of them want to do it.
It's voluntary, you don't wantto do it, you don't have to do
it.

(01:09:30):
If the officer goes forward,they don't go to an
investigation.
If the person goes forward,they have the rare opportunity
to sit face in face with theirofficer and tell them what they
experienced.
And we have community trainedmediators that hold space and
help guide that conversation.
So it's really, reallyimpactful and something I'm very
happy that I would hope everyofficer that is asked partakes I
would hope so I would hope thatyou do you don't lose anything

(01:09:51):
yeah like, even if you believewhat you did was absolutely
right yeah it's not gonna hurtyou and, to be clear, it's not
something where we allow thecommunity member to come in and
belittle you and disrespect you.
That's not it.
Now are they allowed to speakfreely?
Yeah, the same way you are,unless, like something egregious
happens.
No other investigationshappening out of it, anything of
that nature.
Yeah, but it's really to fostercommunication.

(01:10:13):
Um, like I said, I prosecutedfor a while, I've done this work
and I've just been human for awhile.
Most of the time people justwant to be heard.
Yeah, like me giving you aletter of reprimand, what does
that do?
But if you can actually talk tome and I can tell you how I
felt, yeah.
Which one's more powerful?

Speaker 1 (01:10:27):
Now, was this something that you implemented
or was that it exists?

Speaker 2 (01:10:31):
I implemented it here .

Speaker 1 (01:10:32):
See, that's something to hang your head on, that's my
big win with this jurisdiction.

Speaker 2 (01:10:38):
I'm very, very happy.
That's super smart.

Speaker 1 (01:10:40):
I mean, it's a triage program.
It's really what you're doing.
You start you know the wholebroken windows theory.
You're preventing a window fromeven getting chipped.

Speaker 2 (01:10:47):
That's the goal.

Speaker 1 (01:10:48):
Yeah, oh man, that's really smart.
Thank you, that's why you dothat and I do what I do.

Speaker 2 (01:10:55):
Awesome podcast with no donuts.

Speaker 1 (01:10:56):
Yeah, with no donuts, my bad, um.
All right, I've hit every pointthat I've wanted and that I can
think of off the top of my headis there anything that you're
like we should have covered thisI I want this to get out.

Speaker 2 (01:11:09):
There's anything extra that you have that you
want people no, because nobodyprepped me or told me what I was
walking into that's fine I'mopen-minded and just here to
chat it's more general, it itmakes it more authentic.

Speaker 1 (01:11:19):
I think our conversation went a lot better
than the last conversation Iwatched you have.

Speaker 2 (01:11:23):
Oh man, that's really offensive, and I don't know why
you would say that.

Speaker 1 (01:11:26):
Yeah, I don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:11:28):
Why.

Speaker 1 (01:11:30):
Well, I appreciate you.
Thank you very much for takingthe time to be on the podcast
and answering all thesequestions about police monitor
work, and I think what you'redoing is really awesome.

Speaker 2 (01:11:38):
Thank you for having me Appreciate it.

Speaker 1 (01:11:41):
All right guys.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Dateline NBC

Stuff You Should Know

Intentionally Disturbing

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}What is a Police Oversight Monitor? with Bonycle Sokunbi

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Dateline NBC

Stuff You Should Know

Intentionally Disturbing

All Episodes

What is a Police Oversight Monitor? with Bonycle Sokunbi

Dateline NBC