Civilian Oversight Board Demands Records from Miami Police in Shooting of DeCarlos Moore

From [HERE] and [HERE] A civilian police oversight panel voted Friday to conduct a parallel investigation into one of last summer’s fatal shootings by Miami police, an unprecedented move that could make all records related to the case public — and exactly the kind of action law enforcement feared when it fought a decade ago against the creation of the public authority. The chief has until March 14 to produce documents, which are now under subpoena. Also, in 120 days, the panel will issue a report to Miami's commission.

The unanimous decision by Miami’s Civilian Investigative Panel orders Miami Police Chief Miguel Exposito to turn over all records related to the July 5 shooting death of DeCarlos Moore, the first of seven black men shot and killed by Miami police over a seven-month period. Moore, who had no weapon, was killed during a traffic stop after disobeying an order and returning to his car.

The CIP, a controversial board with subpoena power, was created with overwhelming public support in a November 2001 referendum on the heels of a slew of bad police shootings and attempted cover-ups. Traditionally the panel has waited until prosecutors close out investigations into possible police misconduct before beginning its own investigation. The Moore shooting investigation remains open.

But at the advice of CIP Attorney Charles Mays, the 11-member panel voted to go ahead after being petitioned by the local chapters of the American Civil Liberties Union and the NAACP. Exposito was ordered to turn over all records and photos related to Moore’s shooting by March 14.

The CIP and its investigator have 120 days to complete the review. The board can call witnesses during the process, including Exposito and police officer Joseph Marin, the rookie cop who shot Moore during a traffic stop in Overtown.

“The only thing we know presently is what we read in the paper and have seen on television,” said Mays, who added he would have moved for an earlier investigation had family of the dead men asked the CIP.

Though the board has no power to punish, its recommendations can carry enormous weight: 78 percent of the public voted to give it subpoena power, and the majority of the panel is appointed by Miami commissioners.

Publicly, the state attorney’s office took a diplomatic stance on the CIP decision.

“We have been in contact with the Civilian Investigative Panel and have given them advice on how to avoid potential legal difficulties,” said spokesman Ed Griffith, declining to elaborate.

Exposito, who’s been under intense criticism from Miami Commissioner Richard P. Dunn II and some civil rights activists for not sharing information with the public on the shootings, did not respond to interview requests. None of the shooting investigations by the state attorney — which in some instances can take up to a year or longer — are finished.

Two weeks ago, after a wave of criticism, the chief announced he’d seek to meet family members of the dead men.

Friday’s vote came two weeks after complaints from local civic rights activists compelled U.S. Rep. Frederica Wilson to ask federal law enforcement to investigate possible police misconduct or policy lapses in the seven shooting deaths. All the shootings took place between July 2010 and February 2011 in Miami’s inner city.

It’s uncertain what would happen if Exposito refuses to testify or turn over documents. But a CIP investigation into former Police Chief John Timoney three years ago might offer a clue: When Timoney refused to testify in a case involving his use of a free Lexus, the CIP took him to court. The Third District Court of Appeal eventually forced Timoney to go before the panel.

The fear of competing investigation triggered law enforcement to fight against the creation of the CIP 10 years ago. Prosecutors and police argue that compelling witnesses to testify could poison cases and compromise witnesses.

David Waksman, a retired Miami-Dade senior prosecutor, said the CIP decision could stifle a criminal investigation in a number of ways. Witnesses could give conflicting testimony, leaving them open to criminal charges at trial. Or the premature release of sensitive documents could disclose the identities of witnesses already reluctant to testify.

“Sometimes, they say, ‘Enough, leave me alone,’” Waksman said. “With these subpoenas, they’re liable to wear the people out."

Howard Simon, the state head of the ACLU who was instrumental in the CIP’s creation, said there are plenty of ways to protect a witness.

A witness can be accompanied by a lawyer “who can advise when certain things shouldn’t be answered,” he said.

Retired Miami police officer George Cadavid, a respected former homicide and internal affairs detective, said the current CIP lacks the expertise needed to investigate a shooting.

“It comes down to knowing all the facts of the case, knowing how to interview people, knowing how to get information out of people, protecting witnesses,” he said. “When you get a civilian with no police experience interviewing people, they can make big mistakes.”

Bill Matthewman, the attorney for the officer who shot Moore, is concerned about the CIP’s objectivity.

“I’m afraid in this case that politics would get in the way of justice,” he said.

Mays, the CIP attorney, said the board would have subpoenaed records for all seven of the shootings, but the cost would have been prohibitive. The panel is worried about being able to pay for the Moore investigation out of its tight budget.

Mays said the CIP can ask the city for more money, but he advised the panel to wait until after the March 14 deadline, when Exposito is to turn over the records. Or, Mays said, “There is a likelihood that there are those on the commission that will eviscerate this.’’