|
Edward Johnston
1540 N. Nye St .
Toledo , OR 97391
541-336-1233
February 19, 2007
Dear Leader and Board of the Oregon District Attorney’s Association:
I am writing you regarding SB 111, which would shift the burden of investigating allegations of improper use of deadly force by local Oregon law enforcement from the Attorney General’s office to the District Attorney. Besides the extra financial costs involved, this bill would grievously harm the District Attorneys and their ability to properly and effectively enforce the law. It would put every DA into a potentially impossible bind This bill sets every D.A. up for serious trouble. . Here is why:
With all due respect to AG Hardy Myers and to Senator Avrel Gordly, SB 111 would put any D.A. who falls under its rule into a very difficult bind. He or she would, when making such an investigation, have to do one of two things. He or she would have to find against the officer who used the deadly force, or not.
If he or she finds the deadly force to have been improper, he or she will impair his or her ability to work with not only that officer, but everyone else in that precinct and perhaps everyone in law enforcement in that city or county. It would totally break apart the trust between law enforcement and the District Attorney that is essential to law and order. If, on the other hand, the D.A. exonerates the officer who used deadly force, he or she might well be tossed out of office by the voters, especially if the district is of a racial minority or is very politically liberal or conservative and the deadly force was used at a political rally or protest. The bill would surly worsen racial antagonism in the state. But it would put any D.A., in any kind of community, in the same type of bind, with or without racial, class or ideological overtones. Most importantly, it would make it impossible for the DA involved to ever be able to really do his or her job in the community again. He or she would always be looking over his or her shoulder at the damage done to his or her office by the investigation he or she was foolishly compelled to do by the bill. Making decisions based on the law and equities involved, but on the politics. Every D.A.
should want to be insulated, as much as possible, from just the kind of situation SB 111 will place at least some D.A.s into.
In addition, the bill would not be good for police.
Yes, it might compel a few DAs to wrongly protect an officer who improperly used deadly force in order to maintain the DA’s good relations with the local police department. One can argue this is good or bad for the police - but it would not help the best police officers. More certainly, just the potential for this kind of situation will further weaken community support for our police departments, and weaken community-based policing. And it would leave under a permanent cloud every officer who ever is charged with and exonerated from a claim of improper use of deadly force that occurred under circumstances deadly force was clearly needed and appropriate. Good officers will be hurt by this bill. How could it be otherwise, when his exoneration would be much less credible and much more susceptible to political manipulation than it is under the current system. Good police officers who use deadly force properly will come under permanent and unwarranted, but with this bill unavoidable, criticism and disbelief.
If you want to change the current arrangement, and make the change effective, it should e through conversion to a community-based community police review board with only citizens holding the positions upon it - no elective officers, and no public employment job holders, at all.
In my opinion this bill would also change the Constitution, as well. Since it does not mention the use of a grand jury in the process it establishes, the grand jury, it appears, would be eliminated from the process of deadly force investigations. Besides being possibly unconstitutional, and certainly against the spirit of the constitution, this would also lead to additional law suits brought under the federal Section
1983 statute.
You know, our system has worked since 1776, or, in this regard, at least since Oregon became a state.
This bill would hurt DAs; it would hurt law enforcement; it would hurt good police caught in desperate situations; it would hurt the constitution.
Can someone explain to me how the changes this bill proposes would benefit Oregonians at large?
Thank You for Your Time
Sincerely
Edward Johnston
| |