Greetings So. Lake Tahoe City Council:
I am requesting an “agenda item” to be placed on the next city council meeting to address citizen complaints against the police. The city needs to implement a Citizen review board for So. Tahoe police internal affairs complaints. Complaints against SLTPD officers known as “internal affairs” complaints appear to be covered-up by the corrupt SLTPD.
Many cities in California have implemented citizen review boards and South Lake Tahoe is a major tourist destination. The locals also deserve accountability. My experience is that the SLTPD covers-up citizen complaints against their personnel.
This cover-up and white-washing must stop and there must be accountability and transparency in the SLTPD especially with the false arrests, police shootings, excessive force and neglect of SLTPD officers to follow State laws and withholding police reports from crime victims.
“In many communities in the United States, residents participate to some degree in overseeing their local law enforcement agencies. The degree varies. The most active citizen oversight boards investigate allegations of police misconduct and recommend actions to the chief or sheriff. Other citizen boards review the findings of internal police investigations and recommend that the chief or sheriff approve or reject the findings. In still others, an auditor investigates the process by which the police or sheriff’s department accept or investigate complaints and reports to the department and the public on the thoroughness and fairness of the process. Citizen oversight systems, originally designed to temper police discretion in the 1950s, have steadily grown in number through the 1990s. But determining the proper role has a troubled history. This publication is intended to help citizens, law enforcement officers and executives, union leaders, and public interest groups understand the advantages and disadvantages of various oversight systems and components. In describing the operation of nine very different approaches to citizen oversight, the authors do not extol or disparage citizen oversight but rather try to help jurisdictions interested in creating a new or enhancing an existing oversight system by: • Describing the types of citizen oversight. • Presenting programmatic information from various jurisdictions with existing citizen oversight systems. • Examining the social and monetary benefits and costs of different systems. The report also addresses staffing; examines ways to resolve potential conflicts between oversight bodies and police; and explores monitoring, evaluation, and funding concerns. No one system works best for everyone. Communities must take responsibility for fashioning a system that fits their local situation and unique needs. Ultimately, the author notes, the talent, fairness, dedication, and flexibility of the key participants are more important to the procedure’s success than is the system’s structure.”