>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But in the ’90s, when the numbers went down, there was a perception that a lot of reports weren’t being filed.
G
There’s thousands of reports a year that get done right. And that’s what we can’t lose sight of. What about the thousands of times a day they got it right? Are all those numbers to be dismissed?
RS
G
No, but if there were a lot of incidents where cops, being
human, or lazy, or tired at the end of the day — or trying to keep the numbers down — didn’t write them up, then the numbers that you are getting are not right. And that’s on top of the 40 or 50 percent that didn’t call in, which skews the numbers even more. Right. But … this is a human enterprise. There’s a margin of error. It’s going to happen every day. I mean, Toyota can’t even get cars’ brakes to work right now. There’s a margin of error. The question is, is the margin of error being monitored? Is it being trained to? Is it being educated to? Is it being disciplined against? There is a 4 percent expected error. When the FBI comes down and does their quality assurance reports of police departments all across America, they know they’re not going to get 100 percent accuracy. They’re looking for accuracy that’s statistically significant to say we can have some confidence in this. I have come to learn — 15, 16 years later — the more important tool is independent surveying data that says how people feel, because there you’re going to get better information. I’m more interested in what’s the [district attorney’s] acceptance rates of these cases. I’m interested in whether we are making the best effort to get officers to investigate crimes.
RS
What do we tell a reader who calls and says, “I called the police and I asked for a report, and I didn’t get a report done” — what are they supposed to do?
G
RS G
Call us.
Call whom?
Call the New Orleans Police Department, nopdchief@cityofno.com. Call 658 5757. [When Gambit called this number, we were referred to the old Public Integrity Bureau number: 658-6800.] That’s what we’re here for. We have people who do that. We’re doing callbacks on people scientifically in a randomly stratified way so we can try to get the best information. Certainly if we have direct information, we want to act on it.
RS
Let’s shift gears. The ACLU on June 8 called for First Amendment training at NOPD, citing what it says were at least 15 incidents in which people were stopped or arrested simply for observing or documenting police misconduct. What response, if any, have you given to the ACLU, and what specifically will you do to cops who stop or arrest people for documenting police misconduct?
G
RS
I had a great relationship with the ACLU in Washington State
and in Nashville. But the ACLU made that report and never sent it to me. They sent it to you first, the media. So I’m going to respond to it. The response I found out already is that the police officers receive First Amendment training while they’re in the academy to tell them, “Look, you’re public creatures. You’re a public official. The work that you do is a public event.” So we’ll continue to exercise those trainings and exercise those issues. I want to have a positive relationship with the ACLU, just like I did everywhere.
But there is a definite perception that cops in New Orleans don’t like people taking pictures if they’re beating somebody up. There’s a feeling that if the Rodney King beating had happened in Orleans, that tape would not have survived. What will your policy be if you see evidence that cops took away somebody’s cell phone or somebody’s camera or somebody’s video camcorder at a scene where police might have been abusing somebody?
G
They don’t have a right to do that. They don’t have a right to seize anybody’s property, especially as a police officer, unless there’s a criminal consequence. So if the person hasn’t violated a criminal law and we took their property, that’s against the law.
RS
Gambit > bestofneworleans.com > JUNE 22 > 2010
So I need the media to help get the message out to the community. Our (crime) maps are never going to be accurate because people aren’t reporting everything. Our strategies of enforcement can’t be as accurate as they could be if we had 100 percent of the crime reports. I would rather be on television tomorrow reporting a 100 percent increase in crime if I knew every single crime committed had [been reported]. I would welcome that opportunity. So the idea that somehow or another this chief or this administration would want to reduce crime artificially stands in the face of the fact that we ain’t getting it all anyway. What is the logical reason to reduce crime artificially when we know that we’re about 50 percent accurate to begin with? What would be the logical reason to do that?
page 22
21