Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Officer Involved Shootings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Police Commission calls grand jury recommendations 'work in progress,' flags timeliness and DOJ review
Summary
Commissioners reviewed the civil grand jury report on officer‑involved shootings, endorsing transparency measures but saying many recommendations require further analysis and DOJ input because timeliness often hinges on the district attorney's process.
Get email alerts on the Officer Involved Shootings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioner Mizuko led the Police Commission through the civil grand jury’s June 2016 report on officer‑involved shootings on Sept. 14, describing a central community concern: investigations take too long and that delay erodes public confidence.
"The concern with the grand jury is more about timeliness," Mizuko told colleagues, emphasizing that while the police department must meet internal timelines, many delays arise after materials are forwarded to the District Attorney’s Office. Commissioners agreed the public can misinterpret a police report’s completion as the end of the process when charging decisions rest with the DA.
Recommendations in the grand jury report include posting timely OIS updates on the department website, holding press conferences and town halls after incidents, and forming a joint task force to investigate certain OIS cases. The commission supported several ideas in principle — such as posting updates — but said town halls and press‑conference policy require further review in consultation with the Department of Justice’s collaborative reform team because circumstances vary by case.
Public commenters urged stronger and faster disclosure. One speaker said releasing witness video, statements and basic scene information promptly helps build trust; others suggested regular town halls serve as a pressure‑valve for community anger but can be disruptive in some cases.
Commissioners directed staff to incorporate DOJ feedback, finalize recommended language, and return a clean draft for action. Several recommendations in the grand‑jury report were noted as already implemented, such as the release of officer names unless a credible threat justifies withholding them.
