OPINION: Police shooting plan reasonable while awaiting law review

This editorial was published in The Columbian of Vancouver, Wash.

———

Justice delayed, it has been said, is justice denied.

As Washington lawmakers, residents and prosecutors seek a balance between public safety and scrutiny of police actions, it can be difficult to find the spot where justice is adequately served. In trying to find that balance, Clark County Prosecuting Attorney Tony Golik has reached a reasonable decision regarding investigations into police shootings.

Unless a conflict of interest is identified, Golik’s office is no longer seeking an outside prosecutor to review evidence when an officer is involved in a shooting. Evidence in such incidents is still compiled by an independent team operating outside the prosecutor’s office — as required by state law. But the determination of whether a shooting was justified, in most cases, will remain in Clark County.

In the review of a shooting last year, Golik wrote: “Significant changes have been implemented in the investigative requirements of officer-involved shooting incidents that have led to change in process by the Clark County Prosecutor’s Office. Body worn cameras can, in some cases, make the factual determinations of incidents much less subject to question.”

Indeed, body cameras now answer many questions surrounding the actions of officers. They do not provide complete information, but they can smooth the oft-blurry lines between facts and conjecture. And they can speed the process of providing answers to the public.

That is the primary benefit of Golik’s decision. He notes that his office sent information from a 2021 shooting by the Clark County Sheriff’s Office to an outside panel, but the review has not been completed.

Dave Makin, a criminal justice professor at Washington State University in Pullman, told The Columbian that in-house reviews are becoming more common. “When you have body-worn camera video, and there’s not a claim of misconduct or excessive force, that’s where we’re seeing more prosecutorial offices make that determination to say, ‘ ... We are comfortable we can be impartial. We can review this internally and reach a fair conclusion,’ ” he said.

That can be a slippery slope. There are countless examples throughout American history of police officers and prosecutors obfuscating facts surrounding the use of force.

In 2020, after George Floyd was murdered by Minneapolis police, the initial police report included, “Officers were able to get the suspect into handcuffs and noted he appeared to be suffering medical distress.” There was no mention that an officer knelt on Floyd’s neck for nine minutes; that officer was later convicted of murder, largely because of facts revealed in a video taken by a 17-year-old bystander.

That incident provides one example of the need for continued scrutiny. State Rep. Monica Stonier, D-Vancouver, said: “Transparency is important, and independence is important. Body cameras certainly helped with the transparency, and I don’t discredit that at all. I just think that the use of body cameras does not dampen the need for an independent prosecutor process.”

But for an independent process to serve the public interest, it must be timely as well as transparent. Allowing a review of a police shooting to languish for years does not bolster confidence in the process.

Indeed, there are concerns with the prosecuting attorney’s office deciding whether there is a conflict of interest. And ideally, lawmakers will come up with an effective statewide review system. But for now, Golik has settled on the best possible solution.

TNS