The House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee held a hearing this week on the implementation of its eyewitness identification legislation and invited just one witness: Rita Watkins from Sam Houston State University - whose team at the Law Enforcement Management Institute of Texas drafted the model policy mandated under HB 215, a bill authored by the outgoing chairman of the committee, Pete Gallego, who is leaving the Lege after 22 years to run for Congress.
Surprisingly, there was really only one question (with a few variants) posed to Watkins: They wanted her to respond to the letter from McAllen police chief Victor Rodriguez, discussed in this Grits post. Watkins told me later the committee hadn't communicated to her to prepare for that line of questioning, but she answered well, perhaps in part because LEMIT had already prepared a extensive FAQ (pdf) responding to the Chief's unfortunately ill-informed concerns. Plus, she's been through a long process which included convening a "working group" prior to writing the model policy that included both Chief Rodriguez and your correspondent (in my role at my day job working for the Innocence Project of Texas). Then they held a public hearing at the capitol before finalizing it. At this point, Rita and her staff have been all the way around the block on this subject, and from my observation she's handled her critics - myself included, at some points in the process - with admirable aplomb.
Bottom line: The Chief wishes the bill had not passed and does not understand it, falsely believing (or at least portraying) that his department is required by law to adopt the "model policy." They're not. It's just a recommendation. If he doesn't like it, he can adopt something else. LEMIT did what the Legislature told them to do: Write a "detailed written policy" with specific "procedures" for a number of different aspects of eyewitness identifications based on scientific research and established best practices. The committee seemed satisfied with Watkins' answers and didn't appear to give much credence to the McAllen chief's oddball letter once she explained his various misconceptions.
Anyway, it sounds like there's not a major groundswell out there among law enforcement in opposition to the model policy, at least so far. Watkins said she'd been surprised to receive just eight phone calls from police chiefs about the model policy after it was published. Five of them were congratulatory, she said, and the other three were from Chief Rodriguez. Though LEMIT dubbed its response to Rodriguez an "FAQ," apparently as a practical matter those weren't questions being asked all that frequently.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
7 comments:
Having known Mr. Rodriguez since his TDCJ/BPP days I'm reminded of an old story...
Little Johnny's parents were watching his High School band march at half time and remarked, "Look! Everybody but Little Johnny is out of step".
So, contrary to the usual assertions here, the police are either embracing or at least not fighting changes to ID procedures that might work better? I've read enough material on this blog to know the biases against police, the courts, and the state in general (some much more justified than others), just making sure I'm getting it right...
wow
TPB, perhaps the fact that I'm reporting it flies in the face of your assumptions about my biases? Just a thought.
In any event, we won't know until departments create their local policies who has actually embraced the model policy and who's just ignoring it, which is the power those TRULY opposing change reserved for themselves when the bill was passed. I can't help it if Chief Rodriguez wasn't in on the conference call and/or didn't understand the bill. The police chiefs association throughout this process has been the primary critic of the LEMIT model policy, particularly during the working group process.
The question is not whether one is for or against the police, courts, etc. The question always is "are these institutions acting within the Law and the Bill of Rights?" Regarding any new law, including the one being discussed here, the question should be, "does it conform to the Bill of Rights and to broader standards of Justice and Equity, which underlie the Bill of Rights?"
The police and the courts are our agents, not our rulers. When they act within the boundaries of their official duties, we support them. When they become a law unto themselves, we must expose them, then oppose them.
Phantom Bureaucrat,
I appreciate your chiming in with your observation, but it puzzles me. I've followed this blog for years and have not noticed the biases of which you speak. What I have noticed are solid research and conclusions based on fact.
If you are ever aware of facts being misrepresented or left out here, please let us know at the time so we may all benefit from your knowledge. Thank you.
TPB, while it may often seem like Scott takes on the anti-cop role of late, it pales in comparison to a great many out there. His work tends to flavor his comments and choice of story substantially but that is normal for anyone, he just happens to be more open about it.
Having re-read your comment a few times, I think you meant the others commenting on the stories though, particularly on matters involving law enforcement topics. Feel free to elaborate should you check back in.
Post a Comment