Cops Involved in Repeat Shootings and Excessive Force Still on Duty

Editor's Note: In a joint investigation, ColorLines and the Investigative Fund of the Nation Institute have discovered dozens of officers in the Fresno Police Department who have been involved in repeated inappropriate shootings of civilians. This is Part I of a series.

A thwarted attempt by the San Diego Tribune seven years ago to obtain disciplinary records for a deputy sheriff has rewritten police accountability across California. That case wound up at the California Supreme Court, which issued a sweeping ruling, Copley Press v. Superior Court, in August 2006. Though the ruling attracted some attention at the time it was issued, in August 2006, and a short-lived effort at repeal, there has been no comprehensive attempt to assess its impact. An investigation by ColorLines and the Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute has found that the decision, combined with state laws that protect police privacy, has blocked the public from knowing whether local police officers have engaged in misconduct, or a pattern of misconduct, even when such misconduct involves officers inappropriately shooting civilians.

A California Public Records Act Request uncovered a previously withheld list of 27 Fresno police officers involved in repeat shootings of civilians from 2002 through 2009, 25 of whom, according to an official with the Fresno Police Department, are still on active duty today. Of these 27 officers, four were involved in at least three separate shooting incidents over the same period. One officer, Michael Palomino, was involved in four shooting incidents. In the context of a statewide investigation focusing in on four major police departments, the Fresno Police Department stands out in scale. During the same period, the similarly sized Oakland Police Department had only five officers involved in repeat shootings, although Fresno enjoys a much lower crime rate.

Dep. Chief Robert Nevarez, head of the Fresno Police Department’s Professional Standards Division, which oversees the department’s Internal Affairs Bureau, said he had been unaware of the number of officers involved in repeat shootings. However, Nevarez stood by the quality of the department’s Internal Affairs investigations and stressed the need to review each shooting individually: “It’s very important for us to review them [shootings by officers] on their own merits,” Nevarez said. “We’re policing a very dangerous population.”

Citing California government code 6254, which exempts many law enforcement files, including personnel records, investigatory documents, and incident reports, from public records disclosure, Fresno Police Department officials denied a request for the incident reports filed by these officers at the time of each shooting. Likewise, Nevarez said the department would not turn over information on whether any disciplinary action was taken against any of the 27 officers related to the shootings, nor would he supply files on the department’s internal use-of-force investigations into each shooting. Neither family members of the shooting victims nor the public at large are able to access Internal Affairs investigation records or find out why 25 of these officers remain on active duty. Even a victim’s family member who files a formal complaint with the FPD is only entitled to be informed about whether Internal Affairs sustained that complaint, but not whether the department undertook any related disciplinary action.

Nevarez would only speak in general terms, explaining that after shooting incidents, officers undergo range training to make sure they do not repeat any mistakes they may have committed during the incident. He said the department also has instituted a computerized early warning system for potential officer misconduct and a program for supervisors to identify problem behavior early on.