Officers uncooperative with review board

Keith Paul

Wednesday, Feb. 21, 2001 | 11:36 a.m.

Sheriff Jerry Keller has encouraged Metro Police officers to testify at Citizen Review Board hearings, but in the first two allegations reviewed by the board, one officer didn't show up and the other refused to testify.

"I can't force them to testify, as they do have their Fifth Amendment rights, but I have said they should give their side of what happened," Keller said.

There had been so many rumors and concerns about the review board -- established last year -- that Undersheriff Richard Winget put out an administrative notice in October to all officers and employees trying to reassure them that only the findings of the board will be released.

"There was tremendous concern about the Citizen Review Board, and no one knew what to expect or if it would be in their best interest to testify," Winget said. "I felt it was important to let our employees know it was best for them, the organization and the community if they cooperated fully."

But those words were countered by the officers' union attorney, who represented an officer at one of the two hearings held earlier this month.

"I've been telling them not to cooperate," John Dean Harper, a Metro Police Protective Association attorney, said. "It's absolutely farcical. We have zero procedural rights, and I believe the (review board) hearings are unconstitutional."

Harper represented Officer Richard Splinter, who was accused of, while off duty, pulling back some of his clothing and showing an umpire a gun in his waistband after the umpire ejected Splinter from a game.

Splinter didn't testify, and the review board -- relying on testimony from the complainant, other witnesses and Metro's internal investigation -- sustained the complaint.

The board did not sustain a complaint against Lt. Sean Donnelly, but noted the members had questions that went unanswered because he did not show up for the hearing. The decisions, including references to incomplete internal investigations, were released by the board Friday and reported by the Sun the same day.

Andrea Beckman, executive director of the review board, said she was dismayed that officers didn't testify at the hearings.

"If you didn't engage in any misconduct, we need to hear from you," she said. "We're not here to get officers. But if the officers refuse to testify or just blow off the board, obviously the members can only go by those who do choose to testify and the investigation by Internal Affairs."

Beckman noted that while one complaint of an officer was sustained, there have been about 30 complaints that a five-member screening board determined either were not in the board's jurisdiction or were not substantiated and did not require a full hearing.

But the board did find in the two cases for which they held hearings that the internal investigation was lacking, an assessment that Keller and Winget agreed with.

The internal investigations into Splinter and Donnelly were reopened. Both were originally cleared by Metro.

"If new evidence comes to light, we can reopen the investigations, and that is what we have done in these cases," Winget said.

Harper said "he's not ruling out legal actions" if the reopened investigation into Splinter leads to some sort of discipline.

Harper said he's not opposed to a citizen review board, but added the current one is not fair to the officers because the officers are not entitled to cross-examine witnesses or attend the entire hearing. They may only testify.

Gary Peck, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, said officers deciding not to testify or even appear before the board is unfortunate.

"I have always believed that the board gives credibility to the cases where the police officers were exonerated because it is truly an independent review," he said. "I think it would be unwise, from the police officer's point of view, to simply not appear."

Peck, who pushed for the review board, said the first two cases pointed out incomplete investigations by Metro and show the need for the board.

"Those decisions vindicated all of those critics who said it could not simply be left to police to investigate themselves," Peck said. "One would only hope that the police officers themselves would see (the review board) is a benefit to the department. If they really care about good policing, they would welcome this kind of review."