Florida Legislation Would Ban Civilian Police Oversight Boards

Florida Republicans and police unions insist that toothless civilian oversight boards are still more scrutiny than police deserve.

Two bills advancing through the Florida Legislature would ban cities and counties from forming civilian police oversight boards and dissolve already-existing boards.

The legislation, House Bill 601 and its companion Senate Bill 576, would make it unlawful for a county or municipal government to pass ordinances related to civilian oversight of police misconduct investigations or the handling of misconduct complaints against law enforcement officers.

Currently, the bills have passed several committees, and the Tallahassee Democrat reports they have the support of Republican majorities in both chambers, as well as influential Florida law enforcement groups.

The bill's text says its purpose is to create a uniform process for how police departments handle misconduct complaints against officers, but it would also leave police departments to hold themselves accountable and eliminate 21 civilian police oversight boards operating throughout Florida.

Speaking on Tuesday shortly before the Senate Criminal Justice Committee voted to advance the legislation, state Sen. Blaise Ingoglia (R–Spring Hill), the bill's sponsor, called the boards "divisive."

"Officers have a very tough job," Ingoglia said. "It doesn't make sense to me that we have people second-guessing those decisions."

There are over 100 civilian police oversight boards around the country. They vary in their scope and power, but, in general, they're independent boards that investigate, monitor, or audit police department operations. 

In most cases, the boards have limited power. According to a 2016 report by the Justice Department's Community Oriented Policing Services, the majority of oversight boards lacked the ability to subpoena witnesses and documents. Only a few had actual disciplinary power.

New York City's Civilian Complaint Review Board, for instance, substantiated misconduct allegations and recommended discipline for 146 NYPD officers for actions related to the 2020 George Floyd protests, but as of last year, not a single officer had been fired.

The first oversight boards were created in the 1970s, but there was a surge of new ones after the 2020 police killing of Floyd and the massive protests that followed. 

Conservative backlash also followed. Last year Tennessee enacted a law banning community oversight boards from investigating police misconduct complaints.

Speaking at Tuesday's committee hearing, Lisa Henning, a lobbyist for the Florida Fraternal Order of Police, said that police are already subject to several layers of accountability, including body cameras, and that public scrutiny drives away police recruits.

"This becomes very redundant, and it's also very chilling to officers when they are considering what agency they are going to, if they are going to be tried in the court of public opinion in addition to all of the other investigations that they are going through," Henning said.

There are simpler solutions, of course. If you don't want to be tried in the court of public opinion, don't take a public-facing government job.

Comments

[InsaneTrollLogic]

That's nice, but I think we have a bigger crisis on our hands. We are facing perhaps the biggest constitutional crisis in over 160 years, and Reason is still silent on it. I know it's developing quickly.

https://www.thecentersquare.com/texas/article_a84bd824-bbae-11ee-b4ce-e3596e947d1b.html

As the conflict between the federal government and Texas escalates over the state's right to defend its border with Mexico, Gov. Greg Abbott is not backing down as a congressional Democrat called on President Joe Biden to federalize the Texas National Guard.

If the Texas National Guard were federalized solely to usurp Abbott’s constitutional authority to secure the Texas border, Congress should consider whether doing so constitutes a high crime and misdemeanor – an impeachable offense – under the U.S. Constitution, a constitutional law expert told The Center Square.

After Abbott invoked his constitutional authority to defend Texas’ border on Wednesday, saying, “The federal government has broken the compact between the United States and the States,” reports surfaced that Biden could federalize the Texas National Guard. This would result in pulling them from the Texas border and breaking the chain of command under Abbott.

Texas National Guard troops operating under Title 32 fall under the command of the Texas governor as their commander in chief. If federalized under Title 10, the Guard falls under the command of the president.

“If the Texas National Guard are federalized under Title 10 for the sole purpose of pulling them off the Texas border and out of the chain of command of the Commander in Chief of the Texas military, after Gov. Abbott invoked his constitutional authority to defend the Texas border, the founders would have envisioned this as a crime and misdemeanor and impeachable offense,” Jonathan Hullihan told The Center Square. Hullihan is a constitutional law and national security law expert, a former active duty Navy JAG, and general counsel of Citizens Defending Freedom.

Hullihan also said that federalizing Texas National Guard troops to usurp Abbott’s authority is a different matter than other reasons used to impeach, or attempt to impeach, former presidents because it directly relates to constitutional authority.

“This is not a phone call to Ukraine,” Hullihan said, referring to the U.S. House’s now discredited impeachment of former President Donald Trump. “This is not like having an affair with a White House intern,” he said, referring to a key fact in the impeachment trial of former President Bill Clinton. “This is not like sending your guys to go search for intel in a campaign office,” referring to the Watergate scandal, he told The Center Square.

[sarcasmic]

Must. Protect. Republicans.

[DesigNate]

That is a ridiculous take.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

Consider the source.

[sarcasmic]

Article: "Republicans suck cop dick. No big surprise."
ICP: "Biden! Look at Biden! Over here! Biden! Biden!"

[JesseAz]

This is weird from the guy who has posters of the Capitol officer who shot Babbitt up on his walls.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

Hey, dumdum, regardless of your take on the issue, it's remarkable that Reason seems to have little to say about it other than short blurbs from Liz in the Roundup. It's distinctly a constitutional issue, and one that could have far-reaching effects. It's worthy of being looked at by at least some of the writers here, eh?

[sarcasmic]

You mean it's a typical Friday where someone in the comments has some story that they think is really important and they're shitting all over Reason for "ignoring" it. Before long the story will be covered and to cover his ass the person will continue to shit all over Reason for not covering it soon enough, being mean to Trump, not being mean to Biden, or some other nonsense.

*yawn*

[JesseAz]

-Just here to discuss ideas.

/inputs into sarc to English.

-Must protect Joe and democrats.

Makes much more sense now.

[sarcasmic]

Look at Biden! Biden! Never mind those cop-sucking Republicans! Biden! Biiiiiiiii-den! Biden!

[JesseAz]

So my translation was accurate.

[sarcasmic]

Republicans did what? Look at Biden! Over there! No, not at Republicans! OVER THERE! Look away! I said look away! Yeah, that's it, over at Biden! Biden! Biiiiiiiiiii-din!

[Vernon Depner]

This will end badly. There's going to be shootouts between Feds and Texans.

[Longtobefree]

Exactly which feds?
Do you really think the Border Patrol will attack a group that helps them do their sworn duty?
I can't see the secret service going up against 'real' troops.
How many federal marshals are there again?

[Vernon Depner]

About 4,000

[Longtobefree]

"I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

Oath of military officers.

So no obligation to follow unconstitutional orders.

[Vernon Depner]

But they will.

[sarcasmic]

No, they won't. The military encourages integrity and principles. Opposite of law enforcement or these comments.

[TJJ2000]

The principle is ... border security not open borders.
Biden literally ordered the take-down of Texas made border security.

[Vernon Depner]

We need a laughing face emoji.

[markm23]

The military _used to_ encourage integrity and principles. Obama and Biden have changed that, at least in the higher ranks.

[Vernon Depner]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

This is the part of the Second Amendment the left authoritarians love. Will they now disavow it?

[Longtobefree]

Just for the record, the National Guard is US Army, not any kind of a militia at all.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Hullihan, the "expert," has worked mostly as a military lawyer (that's the junior varsity, at best) and is more accurately described as a bigoted slack-jaw than a "constitutional law expert."

[InsaneTrollLogic]

That's more than you've ever done, Arthur Loser Kirkland.

[Nardz]

And Reason falls in line like the obedient footstools they are

https://twitter.com/TheWorthyHouse/status/1750614241264988649?t=y7NAMXYoCALx3kFnMlLtHg&s=19

You can tell that the Texas affair is crushingly bad for the Regime because a search for "Texas" on the NYT's front page returns--nothing.

[XM]

A city doesn’t (or shouldn’t) have the right to give unelected civilians / activists with no legal background to give any influence on police or anyone else. Why is reason ok with this, but oppose the fast food oversight panel in CA?

Why did NYPD ignore most of the recommendations by the civilian board? What does it mean for them to “substantiate misconduct allegations”? They have the power of judge and jury to make determination on allegations? Reason doesn’t say.

One cop at the protest was accused of pointing a gun at a civilian. NYPD says he was reacting to a person throwing bricks at him. But if the civilian board has video footage of the officer raising his gun, that’s apparently “proof” enough for them to recommend discharge?

Can I sue the civilian oversight committee if I wrongly lose my job over their recommendation? Are they required to hear both sides before making recommendations? What is the standard and protocol? They get to make up their own rules?

In the name of oversight, Reason argues for allowing cities to give a minimum recommendation power to a civilian board of their choosing. Why don’t we do this to the economy in the name of corporate oversight and see how that turns out?

[DesigNate]

There’s a big difference between the state mandating a civilian oversight board for private businesses and mandating one for public sector workers who is their influence and power to undermine their fellow citizens.

Having said that, have any of these review boards been the least bit effective or actually get rid of bad cops?

[Restoring the Dream]

It is important to understand that police officers are CIVILIANS. Any person can be put into an oversight position by law. This is Republican copsucking.

[SRG2]

a uniform process for how police departments handle misconduct complaints against officers,

Complaints are to be filed in the circular filing cabinet.

[Longtobefree]

So getting rid of 21 useless boards is a bad idea for libertarians?

[Longtobefree]

Interesting that Florida has over 20% of the boards - - - - - - - - - - -
(assuming Reason got the numbers right)

[JesseAz]

They are only allowed to applaud it in Argentina.

[AT]

If you don't want to be tried in the court of public opinion, don't take a public-facing government job.

How about we just stop listening to the court of public opinion?

The problem with that court is that it's not actually interested in determinations of fact, and it has no safeguards in place to keep it honest. I mean, let's be real - the ones trying the cases are the ones who decided what they wanted to believe before even getting past the headline.

And don't for a second think that court is only trying cases involving government workers.

I don't have a problem with some kind of police oversight that involves public scrutiny - but it better be made up of something other than ignorant Monday Morning Quarterbacks who come to the table with an axe to grind.

New York City's Civilian Complaint Review Board, for instance, substantiated misconduct allegations and recommended discipline for 146 NYPD officers for actions related to the 2020 George Floyd protests

A) They weren't protests. They were riots. It's an important distinction because there's acceptable differences in the level of force required to handle one vs the other. Equating the two is like saying the cops should treat a maniac threatening people with a weapon the same as a jaywalker. Rioters, by their nature are dangerous and violent criminals actively engaged in crime. And, importantly, riots are almost completely avoidable. Meaning if you're AT one, and you're behaving in any way other than to suggest that you're trying to get away from there (in which case you'd presumably follow the orders of cops trying to disperse the riot) - it's entirely reasonable to assume you're there to riot. Which increases the acceptable level of force that can be used to subdue you.

B) There's an interesting little footnote to that bit there. Did you read it? "If a MOS has substantiated misconduct in more than one complaint, they will be counted more than once in the total
number of MOS with substantiated misconduct." Golly, I wonder how many times cops were double, triple, or greater counted.

Of course, this is what I'm talking about above. If the oversight board can't be impartial, objective, and honest - then screw their "findings."

(Also interesting how "The Board did not recommend Instructions or Training for any substantiated protest allegations." Just flogging the cop.)

[flag58]

There were peaceful George Floyd protests.
But some devolved into riots.
Some were "George Floyd" riots start to finish.
The riots got 99% of the news coverage.

[sarcasmic]

Dude, you're contradicting the narrative in these comments.

There were no peaceful George Floyd protests. There were no protests at all. They were all riots, and everyone involved deserves the death penalty. They were the polar opposite of J6 which was completely peaceful, lawful and orderly, and everyone involved deserves a medal.

Get it right or a dozen asshats are going to call you a leftist.

[AT]

Yea, that's the same percentage of coverage the so-called "abusive" cops get. Y'know, once that same media is done stretching the definition of "abuse" to cover perfectly acceptable and necessary police behavior in the face of criminality, when then instigates said rioting.

[TJJ2000]

I don't think it's a State issue how municipalities operate their law enforcement at this level of detail.

[Psycho27]

I think we should have civilian oversight committees in every town in America. Officers do have a hard job, but as long as they are doing that job correctly, they would have nothing to worry about. The police ride around, many of them harass a lot of different folks, they use violence and weapons to handle crimes that do not involve violence or weapons. Why would they not want the community to keep an eye out for the dirt ones? I don't think that a good cop would have any problem with an oversight committee on civilians. My bottom line will always be this: police should be required to conduct themselves in the same exact manner as anyone else, unless they have NO OTHER CHOICE. They should not be allowed to walk to your window and speak to you in whatever way they feel like, which is normally rude, and counterproductive. If you come at a person with such a horrible attitude, you shouldn't expect them to be nice back to you. A police officer should not be allowed to assault someone unless that person has assaulted the police officer first, or (actually) is resisting. They should not be allowed to cuss you just because they have a badge, but then arrest you if you cuss them back. How does that make any sense to any of you? I think the government has most of you so brainwashed that you seriously cannot see that those things are not ok, no matter who is doing them. Last week, I was driving down the interstate. All of the sudden, a car comes FLYING up on me, and then passes me. I was doing 5mph over the speed limit myself, and this cop passed me like I was sitting still. No blue lights. No siren. I was doing 75, so he had to have been going over 100. The license plate identified the car as #7. 2 exits down, I get off at Wendy's for lunch, and I was pretty shocked to see that ol' #7 was parked outside, and there were 2 officers eating their lunch inside. I just shook my head and we ordered our food. The officers left about 10 minutes before we did. Another 2 or 3 exits down, a car goes passed me. I was at 70, and he barely passed me, so probably about 75 or 80 was his speed. Out of nowhere, #7 comes flying and pulls this car over for speeding. How the hell can you justify that you're going to enforce laws, but you're not going to live by them? I think that an officer should my the very definition of a law abiding citizen because it's not right to send someone to jail or give them a fine for something that the police officers do as well. I believe a public oversight committee would cut down on a whole lot of inappropriate activities, and I also believe that the only reason a cop would have a problem with it is if that officer is a part of the real problem. It's very well known that police do not police themselves, and especially not to the extent that they police everyone else, but shouldn't the police officers be without any crime themselves before they break up other people's families, and ruin people's lives? If ANY job in the world needs to be watched under a microscope, it's that of a police officer. They have guns, and a license to kill people, and while most of them are good people and good cops, many also are not. Is it so far fetched that many of you do not realize that the perfect career for a sociopath is law enforcement. They can literally play God! They can beat people, taze people, and they can murder anybody they want and get away with it. Why in the WORLD would we ever give any human being that type of power? That is ignorant in my opinion! So, yes, I so believe that the actions of a few police officers absolutely justifies the creation of civilian oversight committee's that will help to keep everybody on the same level, and keep EVERYBODY honest! I'm sorry if you don't agree, but you need to always remember this: "A police officer literally gets paid to tell lies. "Hey, your buddy is next door and he already told me that you did it.", But, he hasn't even seen your buddy. He's lying to get you to either admit something or make you mad at your friend, and either way, he MUST be a great liar in order to convince people that all their friends are telling on them. So, people REALLY expect us to trust a bunch of young men (basically boys) with raging testosterone to carry loaded guns, drive like idiots (even though they have only been driving for 5 years), and get paid to tell lies? Remove the badge from the young men in this equation and then tell me that you still think it's a good idea to allow that. Personally, I don't trust it, and I don't like the fact that we are just supposed to blindly trust them just because of a badge. There are VERY bad people in EVERY job in the world, and the police force is no different. They need to be policed and held accountable for each and every infraction because when the shoe is on the other foot, you best bet that those same cops would charge you with each and every infraction that they could possibly charge you with. Sorry, but I'm sick of being brainwashed! Right is right, wrong is wrong, and the laws apply to EVERYONE, but for many decades now, the police in America have been allowed to live ABOVE the law, and THAT is completely unacceptable.

[Brandybuck]

Surely it the Democrat legislators who want to get rid of civilian oversight! Surely the Republicans understand that government is supposed to be the servant and not the master! Surely the GOP in Florida, the party of small and restrained government, doesn't mindlessly worship the police!

Oh who the fuck am I kidding.