On October 7th , during a march down Main St. commemorating the 8th year of the American military occupation of Afghanistan, several units of Rochester, NY police maneuvered non-violent anti-war protesters into a trap on a bridge over the Genesee River. RPD then beat up local members of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and other participants who had nowhere to disperse (video link blip.tv/file/2695340). In the aftermath of the police riot, a cry from the Rochester public rose for an independent civilian review board for the police—a real civilian review board—not the current one run by BY the police at Rochester's Center for Dispute Settlement (RCDS).

Rochester Indymedia investigation of the history and current status of civilian review boards has uncovered a disturbing trend nation wide, in which the original social justice movement for oversight of police by citizens in civilian review boards has been hollowed out and co-opted by police departments around the country. Such is the case in Rochester. The complaint process here, according to review board representative Frank Liberti at RCDS, involves the Center taking sworn statements about police misconduct and brutality, and then shipping the paperwork directly to police internal affairs. The Center for Dispute Settlement does have nice offices outside the police department in the Reynolds Arcarde, but attractive amenities aside-- in Rochester, the police are in charge of policing the police.

Scholarly review of the type of complaint apparatus described above and staffed by Mr. Liberti (see Liederbach, Boyd, Taylor, and Kawucha. 2007) shows they have a dismal track record at sustaining complaints against police with investigations—averaging less than a quarter of all complaints being investigated in some municipalities, with some, such as in sections of New York City, investigating NONE. Worse, studies have also concluded “overwhelmingly” that complaint mechanisms like Rochester's Police Review Board at the the Center for Dispute Settlement, “...[Erect] significant barriers to filing complaints, and officers have reacted to citizens who attempt to complain with hostility and other forms of harassment. (ACLU, 1966, 1992).

In other words, at present, if brutalized protesters and students take their complaints about out-of-control and rioting police to Rochester's police department co-oped police review board at the Center for Dispute Settlement (as suggested by Deputy Police Chief Markert at a special session of Rochester City Council about police behavior at the October 7th anti-war march), at best they can count on the investigations being delayed or buried. At worst, anti-war protesters and students may have police, a number of whom have very publicly proven themselves quite capable of excessive use of force, come after them and retaliate.

The possibility of police intimidation and retaliation against anti-war protesters in Rochester has not remained academic. The day after the march, Students for a Democratic Society members and people from other anti-war groups were surrounded by at least a half dozen police cars in a Corn Hill parking lot while they met outdoors (the weather was nice that day) to discuss and plan an upcoming press conference about the police brutality they experienced (video link blip.tv/file/2706912). Members of independent media and students have also reported being followed and stopped by marked and unmarked police cars later that same week. Locust Club president and city police union chief Mike Mazzeo has also issued veiled threats of “investigating” the anti-war protesters and students during a broadcast news conference the week after the police riot, although it was his union's members who beat Rochester citizens, sending some to the hospital, and racially profiled protest participants by arresting the march's only African American student before taking anyone else into custody.

Rochester citizens from a number of anti-war organizations, churches, and community activists are currently pursuing the formation of a new and truly independent civil review board to investigate police misconduct in light of events at the anti-war demonstration on October 7th, but also as a means of bringing accountability to the police department for years of inaction regarding brutal police targeting of people of color in Rochester. Metro Justice is among the community organizations currently discussing support and involvement in the new independent police civil review board initiative.

---

American Civil Liberties Union. (1966). Police power and citizen rights: the case for an independent police review board. New York.

Liederbach, John. Bowling Green State University, Ohio; Lorenzo M. Boyd, Fayetteville State University, NC; Robert W. Taylor, University of North Texas, Denton; Soraya K. Kawucha, University of North Texas, Denton. “Is It an Inside Job? An Examination of Internal Affairs Complaint Investigation Files and the Production of Nonsustained Findings.” Criminal Justice Policy Review 2007; 18; 353