In 2014, San Diego jumped from police crisis to police crisis.
At the year’s start, allegations of racial profiling and officer misconduct snowballed into a scandal that pushed out former Chief William Lansdowne and led to a U.S. Department of Justice review of SDPD policies.
A new chief was hired, reforms were promised and a major lawsuit against an ex-officer was settled. The discussion, for the most part, moved on. By year’s end, the big topic became officer salaries and the threat of losing more cops to other agencies.
In 2015, the city appears poised to start paying its cops more – the only question is how much. But the city still hasn’t closed the book on the problems that plagued the department at the beginning of the year. We’re going to talk about them again early in 2015.
Here’s a look at the status of reforms the department already has undertaken and what’s coming next:
What’s On Deck?
Last March, city and Justice Department officials announced a federal review of SDPD policies on misconduct. This was not designed as an independent audit of the department or a prelude to outside oversight from the feds. But it was supposed to show whether the department could have better policies for handling officer misconduct. The review also was supposed to be done by the end of the year. It’s not.
We Stand Up for You. Will You Stand Up for Us?
I suppose that the criminologist, who is examining the SDPD stop data, believes there can never be too much evidence of Racial Profiling.
What is remarkable in all this is that -as established in 2000 and 2001- Blacks and Hispanics provide the most fallow-fields for the desired or legal result; the "Hit."
Robin Williams said "Cocaine is God's way of telling you you are making too much money."
According to established facts, Blacks and Hispanics, in general, tend not to have as much money as other groups, so "Hits" from stopping them will be lower. The SDPD does not seem to accept what its own data is telling it. Prejudice is more persuasive.