BURRIS SAYS OLD GUARD CAN MAKE IT HARD FOR CHIEFS TO CHANGE

(John L. Burris has been a civil rights lawyer, specializing in
police misconduct cases, for more than 20 years. He was on the legal
team for Rodney King, the Los Angeles man whose beating by police was
videotaped and became the subject of criminal and civil trials.

Mr. Burris has written "Blue vs. Black: Let's End the Conflict
Between Cops and Minorities." The book is a chronicle of cases
involving "ordinary" citizens who have been subjected to violence by
police officers.

Mr. Burris is a former deputy district attorney for Alameda County,
Calif. He is in private practice in Oakland. He recently spoke by
telephone with Dallas Morning News staff writer Ira
J. Hadnot about police misconduct. Here are excerpts)

Q: Why does police brutality exist?

A: There is a combination of things that lead to brutality. There is a
failure of communication between the officer and the citizen in which
minor events escalate into people getting hurt. There is, in some of
these cases, a lack of respect for poor citizens - a stereotype that
everyone who lives in the ghetto is a criminal. There is the officer's
ego that is put in conflict with communications skills. Seeing every
verbal reaction as a personal affront is likely to accelerate abuse.
The other factors are fear and a cop culture that condones abusive
behavior.

Q: What is cop culture?

A: It is a mentality of us against them. A code of silence. The blue
wall. It is a built-in protectionism among officers. The culture is
cops watch out for each other. The blue wall of silence allows
officers to have some certainty that officers are not going to speak
out against each other. If the culture allows officers to brutalize
citizens and there is tolerance and acceptance of that behavior, the
unspoken agreement is you will be protected if you engage in these
acts.

These factors together transcend ethnic color. In this culture, the
color is blue. Every so often, there are small cracks in the blue
wall. Lately, we have seen more officers talking against other officers.

But it's situational. These are the highly public cases where pressure
is brought to bear and the threat of prison time forces officers to
talk. When a case becomes hugely public and officers turn, it is an
aberration.

I am more concerned about the everyday cases. Those are the ones, away
from the public glare, where misconduct should be monitored. Not all police
officers break the law. But the prevailing culture is to not speak outside
the ranks and to cover for each other.

Q: Does having a minority police chief in urban communities, such as
Dallas, affect the relationship between police and minority groups?

A: It can. But not necessarily so. There is a lot more to it. That
person can set the tone for no tolerance of misconduct and police
criminal behavior. But that person has to command the troops and
invariably deal with a police association that is primarily old guard
and white.

These associations are committed to the old ways and can prevent any
police chief from implementing new policies and procedures. The race
of the chief can be used as a divisive issue among the ranks, a way to
divide loyalties. Some associations are impediments to
positive change.

The police chief needs the support of his command officers. The
current situation in Los Angeles' Rampart division where some officers
have been stealing drug money for a long time --That happened during a
black chief's tenure. Remember even with a black or Hispanic chief,
you are dealing with a career officer who is part of the culture. The
question is how much support will he get when he tries to change it.

Q: Has the patronage system within police departments
changed?

A: Historically, the police and fire departments were the foundation
from which white ethnic minorities could move from the working class
to the middle class. A patronage system, around the turn of the
century, allowed Irish and Italians to hire family members and
essentially keep those jobs closed to anyone else. Police at that time
were very much the servants of the wealthy.

Fair employment lawsuits have broken the patronage system. It is now a
career, civil service position that minorities have access to and have
been making full use of.

Q: Is racism behind the conflict between police and black
people?

A: It is not that simple. There are usually more factors involved. You
can have a minority district that has a pretty good group
representation of minority officers. And abuse happens there. But
racism may not be the reason. Historically, racism has been behind
racial profiling and the stereotypes about who is a criminal. But
'racism" is a loaded word and when you use it you cut off the possibility
of de-
bate.

For the most part, police officers want to do a good job. But there is
a history of distrust between black people and police. By the very
nature of police work, who officers often come in contact with and the
things they experience can have a very negative impact. That negative
impact changes how they perceive and behave toward the very people who
need their protection the most.

Q: Can you elaborate?

A: Take the so-called "War on Drugs,* which has had the greatest
impact on the black community. This was a plan deeply flawed from the
inception. We have not found any blacks running international drug
cartels. There is a higher percentage of rich whites who are
recreational drug users. Black people are neither the major suppliers
or major users of drugs.

Why target and systematically destroy thousands of black
neighborhoods? The drug policy gave police carte blanche to go into
poor black communities and target, arrest and incarcerate
African-American men. Police went after the very small fish in the
drug pyramid. Street dealers' and gang members' rights were
violated; housing was destroyed.

And society bought into it with the news media's fixation on drug
'busts in the black community. Officers on these drug task forces got
to be cowboys. If you are going to be a drug dealer or a gangster,
then the notion is you deserve what you get. Well, there were other
people in those neighborhoods who were harmed. The relatives, wives
and children also got sucked into these drug webs.- They were either
jailed as co-conspirators or left with neighborhoods in ruins.

The thing society was unprepared for was the number of officers who
would have access to huge amounts of money and would not be able to
resist taking it. In some cases, cope developed symbiotic
relationships with the gangsters so each group could get what they
wanted.

Q: What about community policing and other remedies?

A: Community policing, putting officers in neighborhoods to build
personal relationships, is the wave of the future. But there has to be
a real commitment to it. It cannot be the stepchild of the department,
second to homicide, vice or the gang detail. The officers who get
these assignments should be respected and not used as spies for the
drug or burglary detail. Nothing undercuts their credibility with the
community more than to be overridden by a special detail that ignores
the relationships that have been created. Community policing can break
down the them-versus-us schism, teach the public about what police
work involves and provide opportunities for better communication when
unfortunate mistakes are made.

There is also a real movement going on for outside independent review
boards. I am not talking about the citizen review boards from the '60s
and '70s that had no power. I am talking about boards with the funds
to hire investigators, the power to subpoena officers and support and
encourage victims of police brutality to testify. There has to be a
mechanism to hold police accountable. We cannot expect, in the area of
misconduct against citizens, that the police will police themselves.

We need better training in diverse environments and to focus on ways
to de-escalate dangerous situations where the person may be under the
influence of drugs or alcohol.

We also need to be mindful that the majority of police officers get
through their careers without ever being accused of misconduct. We are
only talking about 3 to 5 percent of the officers in any given
department causing problems.

Q: Are there situations in which police violence against citizens is
justified?

A: Of course. Officers have the right to do their job, to protect
themselves and other citizens. The Fourth Amendment to the
Constitution gives them the authority to use reasonable force, to use
that degree of force necessary for protection. My issue is with
excessive force. You don't have the right to go beyond that which is
reasonable or to lack the professional judgment to keep minor events
from escalating into pulling out your gun and shooting someone.

I often see on police reports the words "the person assumed a fighting
stance and came at police with a clenched fist." That statement should
be automatically suspect. What person with a normal mind would do that
knowing police officers are armed with guns and batons? People
functioning in their right minds do not invite that kind of response.

And officers should recognize when people are under the influence of
something that impairs their judgment and determine the right
response. Training is so vital. It saves lives.