Transcript of April 26, 2007 Hearing [Pdf 1274Kb]
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
4/26/2007 Hearing - 04/26/07 1 NEW JERSEY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2 ON POLICE STANDARDS 3 PUBLIC HEARING 4 5 6 7 8 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 9 10 11 12 13 Thursday, April 26, 2007 14 Rutgers University 15 Newark, New Jersey 16 Commencing at: 9:46 a.m. 17 18 19 20 ROSENBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC. 21 Certified Shorthand Reporters & Videographers 22 425 Eagle Rock Avenue - Suite 201 23 Roseland, New Jersey 07068 24 (973) 228 - 9100 25 www.rosenbergandassociates.com 1 4/26/2007 Hearing - 04/26/07 1 B E F O R E: 2 3 JAMES JOHNSON, ESQ., Chair 4 LARRY BEMBRY, ESQ. 5 ELLEN BROWN 6 MICHELLE CARROLL 7 REV. REGINALD STYLE FLOYD, ESQ. 8 JAMES HARRIS 9 JEROME HARRIS 10 CARMELO V. HUERTAS 11 REV. J. STANLEY JUSTICE 12 SAMER E. KHALAF 13 MICHAEL RAMBERT, ESQ. 14 MITCHELL C. SKLAR, ESQ. 15 SCOTT WEBER, ESQ. 16 THERESA YANG, ESQ. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 4/26/2007 Hearing - 04/26/07 1 MR. JOHNSON: This is a large 2 table. Why don't we have members of the 3 Committee that are now here take their cards and 4 move towards the center and other members as 5 they arrive fill in. 6 Good morning and welcome to the 7 fifth public hearing of the Advisory Committee 8 on Police Standards. My name is Jim Johnson and 9 it has been my privilege to chair this 10 committee. For those of you joining us for the 11 first time, Governor Corzine established the 12 Advisory Committee in August of 2006 and asked 13 the committee to take on three main tasks. 14 First, the committee was asked to 15 recommend to the Governor whether and under what 16 circumstances the State of New Jersey should 17 join with the United States Department of 18 Justice in filing a motion to the United States 19 District Court to terminate the Consent Decree 20 that was entered in 1999 by the State of New 21 Jersey and the United States Department of 22 Justice. That Consent Decree was entered into 23 to address the problem of racial profiling by 24 some State Police officers. Under the terms of 25 the Consent Decree, the State Police have had to 3 4/26/2007 Hearing - 04/26/07 1 implement a variety of reforms under the watch 2 of an independent monitoring team. These 3 reforms have included the installation of mobile 4 video recorders to document stops, the 5 institution of supervisory review of the tapes 6 of those stops, the development of a data 7 management system that, among other things, 8 flags troopers who are stopping more drivers of 9 a particular race and/or gender than their 10 peers, implementing procedures for the 11 investigation of misconduct claims and expanding 12 training to include areas such as cultural 13 diversity and nondiscrimination. 14 The second task that the Governor 15 asked us to make recommendations on how to 16 ensure that the practice of racial profiling is 17 not engaged in or tolerated in the future in the 18 event that the Consent Decree is terminated by 19 the United States District Court. That 20 particular task is often discussed as 21 sustainable, what can we do to make the forms 22 sustainable. 23 Third, and not least, the committee 24 was asked to make recommendations to the 25 Attorney General and the Governor on how the 4 4/26/2007 Hearing - 04/26/07 1 programs developed by the New Jersey State 2 Police can assist other law enforcement agencies 3 throughout the state in preventing all forms of 4 racial profiling. 5 In our previous hearings we have 6 heard from the Superintendent of the State 7 Police, the independent monitors who have been 8 reviewing the procedures and actions of the 9 State Police for the last seven years. We've 10 heard from the Office of State Police Affairs, 11 State Police Unions and the National 12 Organization of Black Law Enforcement 13 Executives. We also heard from several experts 14 on police practice and monitorships. In 15 addition, we heard from community and social 16 activists and representatives of county and 17 local law enforcement. A full list of witnesses 18 is available on charts found throughout the room 19 in the back and also at the entrance. 20 These witnesses provided background 21 regarding the 1999 Consent Decree and brought us 22 up to date on the progress made by the State 23 Police towards fulfilling the Consent Decree 24 mandates. Those witnesses also suggested areas 25 for further development and identifying 5 4/26/2007 Hearing - 04/26/07 1 continuing issues in law enforcement. Finally 2 they informed us about local law enforcement 3 practices. 4 We've heard from a wide variety of 5 perspectives on this from individuals who are 6 not necessarily within the State Police but have 7 information and views to share with the 8 committee -- had information and views to share 9 with the committee and help us in our work as we 10 respond to these three critical issues. 11 Now, our committee's work was 12 initially intended to last just four months. 13 Initially we were extended just a month to take 14 into account that the original deadline fell 15 within the winter holidays. Our work was 16 extended again following the most recent report 17 of the independent monitoring team. In that 18 report issued in late January the monitors 19 issued a warning to the State Police for failing 20 to complete two tasks under the decree - for those 21 of you very familiar with the tasks, that would 22 be tasks 50 and 51. According to the monitors' 23 report, the State Police missed its deadline for 24 providing data from Troop D, which is one of the 25 troops within the State Police, and they also 6 4/26/2007 Hearing - 04/26/07 1 did not analyze data from Troop C and Troop D 2 through the Risk Assessment Group Process. The 3 Risk Assessment Group Process is a tool, 4 basically a group of individuals within the 5 State Police but a tool under the decree to 6 review data about incidents and to identify the 7 emergent issues before those issues become 8 problems. The monitors said in their 14th 9 report that these tasks were intended to insure 10 the sustainability of the progress under the 11 Consent Decree. 12 The monitors asked the State Police 13 to address these shortfalls before April 30, 14 2007. We anticipate that the monitors will 15 conduct further monitoring activities in May and 16 then issue a report in June. We will have eight 17 weeks after that report is issued to finish our 18 work. We asked that the deadlines for our work 19 be extended so that we can see the results of 20 the monitors' additional visits before we offer 21 our recommendations. We anticipate that we will 22 also have a hearing in which the monitors will 23 appear after they issued a report. 24 This has been a longer task than 25 anticipated and as chair, I'd like to thank all 7 4/26/2007 Hearing - 04/26/07 1 committee members for their continued service in 2 this very important effort. The Governor and 3 his staff have said many times that they 4 appreciate the hard and diligent work that the 5 committee members have dedicated to this cause. 6 I'd also like to say that, like all of you, 7 members of this committee have been closely 8 following the Governor's health since his 9 accident and on the committee's behalf I can say 10 that all our hearts are with the Governor, his 11 family and his team and we wish him a speedy 12 recovery. 13 Now, our task is to make 14 recommendations. Among our task is to make 15 recommendations to help ensure that law 16 enforcement in New Jersey is conducted in a 17 nondiscriminatory fashion. The state police is 18 one focus. The second concern is local law 19 enforcement. As I mentioned earlier, one of the 20 things we must do is see whether any of the 21 lessons learned by the State Police can be 22 applied to local law enforcement throughout the 23 state. Step one is to find out what the current 24 local practices are which will enable us to 25 answer the question: what next. To that end, 8 4/26/2007 Hearing - 04/26/07 1 we have met with and interviewed local law 2 enforcement officers and prosecutors. On 3 November 13th, 2006, this committee took public 4 testimony from the Union County prosecutor's 5 office and chiefs from Dover Township and Egg 6 Harbor, New Jersey. We have also conducted a 7 survey of selected police departments around the 8 state and we have sent a survey on local 9 practices to all county prosecutors. These 10 surveys should give us a rough baseline, and I 11 repeat, a rough baseline of local law 12 enforcement practices around the state and give 13 us a very good insight into what's achievable, 14 what's doable, what progress can be made. 15 While all the survey results are 16 not yet in, there seems to be support, in some 17 counties very strong support, for the use of a 18 number of Consent Decree reforms to increase law 19 enforcement and to minimize the risk of racial 20 profiling.