Problems and Purpose

Miami-Dade Police Department currently reviews all grievances and complaints on law enforcement personnel internally, without public review or disclosure. The Independent Civilian Panel seeks a public participatory process to conduct independent investigations of community members’ complaints or grievances of MDPD officers.

Background History and Context

Miami-Dade Police Department (MDPD) has one of the top ten largest police departments in the United States. As a county police department, it has partnerships with over 30 municipal police departments and other county agencies surrounding Miami [1]. The county’s first citizen’s oversight committee had been established in 1980 and ran in MDPD for a nearly 30 year period; that committee collapsed due to economic constraints and left a gap in police and citizen collaboration [2]. Since the defunding of its Independent Review Panel in 2009, grievances, complaints, and investigations of MDPD law enforcement personnel were filtered and completed by MDPD’s Internal Affairs Bureau [2]. This solution, however, still presented a gap in community-based police oversight.

In seeking to respond to this gap, MDPD utilized alternative forms of public participation to help build stronger community relations between law enforcement and community members. This occurred primarily through Citizens Advisory Committees (CAC) at each MDPD station across the county. These committees meet on a monthly basis, speaking with the director of the police stations to share and resolve community concerns at the district levels [5][6]. In addition, two of the municipal police departments in Miami-Dade County launched their own citizen review panels to help oversee community members’ complaints about municipal law enforcement personnel [3].

The aftermath of George Floyd’s case, however, sparked a movement across the United States calling for citizen-led review and oversight of law enforcement. Since 2020, many states have sought legislative reform regarding the use of force in policing and officer misconduct, shifts in recruitment and financing of various police departments, and expanding reporting on police behavior [7]. One such effort was a call for a citizen-driven review of MDPD sworn personnel.

Aided by the American Civil Liberties Union and Miami-Dade County commissioners, the Independent Civilian Panel (ICP) was voted on and established in 2020 as the answer to rising calls from citizens for increased police oversight [3]. Its purpose was to “conduct independent investigations and review complaints or grievances made against sworn officers of the Miami-Dade Police Department” [4], essentially revitalizing the lost Independent Review Panel of the early 2000s.

Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities

Many months of petitions, advocacy and negotiations occurred in 2020 that ultimately led to the creation of the ICP. Then-Miami-Dade County Commissioner Barbara Jordan is considered to be the strongest advocate in favor of the ICP [8]. She led the proposal of the panel to then-Miami-Dade County Mayor Carlos Gimenez three times, making amendments to the proposal in response to his rationale for veto. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), in collaboration with Commissioner Jordan and local stakeholders, shared over 7,700 signatures from local residents supporting a petition to create the panel at a Board of County Commissioners meeting. The Miami-Dade Community Relations Board, as advisors to the Mayor, Board of County Commissioners, and administration, indicated their support for the panel [2][3][9]. The proposal was also supported by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) [9].

In August 2020, an 8-5 vote from the Board of County Commissioners approved the establishment of the ICP. For 2020 and 2021, the panel had a combined budget of $750,000 from the county for operating expenses. Included in these expenses were an office space, search and hiring of an executive director, and corresponding staff. Today, there is a budget of $1 million, an executive director, an office space, furniture, and technology and software for conducting reviews[10][11][12]. It was decided that citizens could volunteer to serve on the Independent Civilian Panel therefore a vetting process was put in place as the method of selecting members. [18]

Participant Recruitment and Selection

The panel’s structure was designed to be a body of 13 representatives, one for each of the 13 districts in Miami-Dade County. Because the panel was initially designed to be politically impartial, applicants for the 13 panel positions were intended to be “vetted by a nominating committee assembled by nine county boards” [9]. The vetted panelists would serve on the ICP in a voluntary, non-compensated capacity. Yet the 13 panelists could not be selected, because of logistical frustrations and the inability of the nine county boards to meet quorum requirements. Consequently, the participant-recruitment provisions of the original ICP ordinance were amended. The Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners determined that the best method for recruiting and selecting the representatives from each district was for the district commissioners to appoint one representative each [4][9]. It is now at the discretion of each Commissioner to appoint their representative for one-, two- or three-year term. Consistent with the panel’s original conception, appointed panelists do not receive any form of compensation for their services on the ICP. Many representatives serve as a way to serve their community. [13]

Methods and Tools Used

In its initial design, the ICP mimicked a citizen’s jury: A small group of randomly selected citizens who were impartial, representative of the 13 county districts, and not predominantly from law-enforcement backgrounds, would meet on a monthly basis to review grievances and complaints about law enforcement interactions. Collectively, the group would reach a decision directly leading to a recommendation for the police department. These monthly meetings would incorporate a public hearing format where members of the public are encouraged and able to attend meetings, speaking for a specified time about their concerns related to treatment from law enforcement and the process for filing complaints. The current design of ICP follows more of an expert advisory panel approach whereby appointed representatives – the majority of whom have extensive professional experience related to law enforcement – meet to review investigations and give recommendations about the best course of action based on their expert opinion.

What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation

Under the amended participant recruitment and selection process, each district commissioner selected their own appointee to the ICP. Four of the initial 13 representatives were lawyers. As of January 2024, six members are legal practitioners, one is an elected representative and another a retired law enforcement officer, and two work in finance. Of the expected 13 members, three districts have not appointed representatives for the current term, and at least one representative could be facing removal related to excessive absences [4][12]. 

ICP had anticipated holding their first meeting nearly one year after its inception in October 2021 [13]. The first meeting to be recorded for additional review, however, occurred in November 2022, during which time most of the agenda reflected the panelists’ inability to begin overseeing investigative cases without completing rigorous training to do so or while the Executive Director’s appointment was pending[14]. The first meeting with the newly appointed Executive Director, Ursula Price, occurred three months later in February 2023, nearly three years after the ICP’s establishment [15].

During the ICP’s most recent meeting, held in mid October 2023, the agenda targeted three elements: committee logistics, building relationships, and initial outreach to MDPD [12]. In reviewing the first element on the agenda, the panel reviewed logistical information including panelists’ progress in completing required online training and the status of technology and office space procurement. While reviewing the second element on the agenda, the panel discussed some initial steps-- in the form of attending local events -- that its members had taken towards building trusting, working relationships with the police force and other community-based advisory committees. These included the Criminal Justice and Law Enforcement Committee meeting a month prior, Miami-Dade Economic Advocacy Trust meeting, and CAC meetings in the Kendall and Midwest districts. Roughly half of the hour-long meeting was spent on reviewing the third element on the agenda: initial outreach to MDPD to review cases. 

According to the most recent meeting, the panel has sought information from the MDPD’s Professional Compliance Bureau and Internal Affairs Bureau as it relates to investigations and complaints against officers. While review of these cases falls under the purview of the ICP, according to Executive Director Price, these cases are not a majority of the total complaints made against MDPD. Roughly 80% of complaints are classified as “contact reports” which are funneled out of the Internal Affairs unit and to the larger administrative agency. ICP has sought to begin its oversight of police behavior in these categories of cases [12][16]. Since then, Price has pushed the panel to focus their attention on reviewing investigative administrative allegations while deferring criminal allegations for the time being [17]. With their power to recommend changes and additions to policy, the panel was expected to hear its first case in May 2023. Due to multiple challenges related to a lack of a quorum of panel members, multiple ICP meetings have had to be postponed for later months. As of October 2023, the Executive Director is receiving closed case information from MDPD’s Professional Compliance Bureau and Internal Affairs Bureau and, ICP is “waiting for approval” from the MDPD to obtain information about contact cases over the past two years [12]. 

Influence, Outcomes, and Effects

As of November 2023, the ICP has been unsuccessful in completing its initial aim – utilizing public participatory processes to conduct independent investigations of community members’ complaints or grievances of MDPD officers.

An initial concern regarding the open recruitment and selection process for the panel was the possibility of having an excessive number of current or retired police officers as this would not be representative of the public at large [9]. This fear did not see fruition as the highest number of law enforcement officers at any given time has not surpassed one. The composition of the ICP has not remained true to the initial conception of the panel as impartial and representative of the community, however, as a majority of the panel’s members have extensive experience with law or law enforcement. 

ICP ordinance provides that members who have missed three consecutive meetings without satisfactory excuses can be referred to their appointing commissioner by the executive director and considered for removal. The panel itself, however, does not have the authority to remove members with consecutive absences [18]. As a result, the panel has struggled with maintaining quorum. In order to begin reviewing investigative cases, panelists must complete multiple intensive training sessions. Since the arrival of Executive Director Price, five hour long training sessions, related to how to review misconduct investigations, have been held [12]. Yet as volunteers and appointees, panelists have limited incentives to attend meetings and complete training in a timely manner.

ICP was influenced by the City of Miami’s Civilian Investigative Panel and its investigative powers as it collaborates with the Department of Justice on investigations of law enforcement officers. The Miami-Dade County ICP was designed in part to expand the roles of its predecessor in, not only reviewing, but also investigating law enforcement actions [9]. Under the leadership of current Executive Director Price, ICP is working to engage with the Citizens Advocacy Committees, the Criminal Justice and Law Enforcement Committee, and Miami-Dade Economic Advocacy Trust. ICP is also working on introducing themselves to and building relationships with the 47 municipal police departments in Miami-Dade County [12][16].

Analysis and Lessons Learned

While there is scarce literature analyzing the impact of MDPD’s ICP, Ojeda (2023) compared the original intent of the Independent Civilian Panel to its current actions and outcomes [19]. According to Ojeda, the first three years of the Independent Civilian Panel can be described as demonstrating limited success in regards to participant selection and retention, staffing and cooperation with MDPD [19]. This is due to the committee’s divergence from its original design, purpose, and functions, as outlined in the sections above. 

Shortcomings of the ICP, however, can be corrected through changes to policy and practice in future work [19]. Since the committee currently mimics an expert advisory panel, ICP will need to have clear parameters outlining expectations consistent with best practices for expert advisory panels. These include express language regarding the convening government's responsibility in ensuring the panel receives the information needed and follows through on final decisions. For the purposes of the ICP, the convening authority is shared between Miami-Dade’s Board of County Commissioners and County Police Department. By slightly shifting focus onto building relationships with similarly minded organizations like district CACs and building trust with MDPD, ICP is actively working towards expanding accountability and building trust amongst key stakeholders [12].

Overall, ICP’s leadership and membership continue working towards their aim of using citizen involvement and agency to oversee policing efforts. 

See Also

References

[1] Miami-Dade Police Department. (2021). “Annual Report.” Miami-Dade County. https://www.miamidade.gov/police/library/2021-mdpd-review.pdf  

[2] Rivero, D. (2023). “New civilian panel starts investigating reports of Miami-Dade police misconduct once again.” WLRN, Law and Justice. https://www.wlrn.org/law-justice/2023-05-17/independent-civilian-panel-police-abuse-miami-dade 

[3] Shepard, W. (2020). “Miami-Dade Commission Approves Independent Review Panel to Examine Alleged Police Misconduct.” NBC Miami. https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/commission-votes-in-favor-of-independent-review-panel-to-examine-alleged-police-misconduct/2286096/ 

[4] Independent Civilian Panel. (n.d.). https://www.miamidade.gov/global/government/independent-civilian-panel/home.page

[5] Citizen Advisory Committee. (n.d.).  https://www.miamidade.gov/global/police/citizen-advisory-committee.page#:~:text=Each%20unincorporated%20Miami%2DDade%20Police,special%20attention%20can%20be%20presented 

[6] (n.d.).“Citizens Advisory Committee Operational Guidelines.” Miami-Dade County. https://www.miamidade.gov/global/police/cac-operational-guidelines.page

[7] Subramanian, R. & Arzy, L. (2021). “State Policing Reforms Since George Floyd’s Murder.” Brennan Center for Justice. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/state-policing-reforms-george-floyds-murder 

[8] Chamber Gazette. (n.d.). “Commissioner Barbara Jordan, District 1.” Miami-Dade County Board of County Commissioners. https://www.miamidade.gov/chambergazette/fall2020/district-1-barbara-jordan.page 

[9] Bojnansky, E. (2021). “Miami-Dade’s Police Oversight Panel Inches Forward.” Biscayne Times. https://www.biscaynetimes.com/news/miami-dade%E2%80%99s-police-oversight-panel-inches-forward/ 

[10] Independent Civilian Panel. (n.d.). “FY 2022-23 Adopted Budget and Multi-Year Capital Plan.” Miami-Dade County. https://www8.miamidade.gov/resources/budget/adopted/fy2022-23/independent-civilian-panel.pdf 

[11] Independent Civilian Panel. (n.d.). “FY 2023-24 Proposed Budget and Multi-Year Capital Plan.” Miami-Dade County. https://www.miamidade.gov/resources/budget/proposed/fy2023-24/independent-civilian-panel.pdf 

[12] Office of Community Advocacy. (2023). “ICP Meeting, Watch Miami Dade ICP’s meeting live on Facebook.” [Live Video] Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/AdvocacyMDC/videos/173691322400334/ 

[13] Marino, G. (2021). “Independent Civilian Panel slates first public meeting.” Miami’s Community News. https://communitynewspapers.com/biscayne-bay/independent-civilian-panel-slates-first-public-meeting/ 

[14] Office of Community Advocacy. (2022). “Independent Civilian Panel, Watch the Nov. 29 Independent Civil Panel meeting by clicking the link below.” [Live Video] Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/AdvocacyMDC/videos/554983893111100/?extid=CL-UNK-UNK-UNK-IOS_GK0T-GK1C&mibextid=2Rb1fB&ref=sharing 

[15] Morell, S. (2023). “Insults and Chaos Mar ICP Director’s First Meeting.” Biscayne Times. https://www.biscaynetimes.com/news/insults-and-chaos-mar-icp-director%E2%80%99s-first-meeting/ 

[16] Office of Community Advocacy. (2023). “ICP Meeting, Join us for the monthly Independent Civilian Panel.” [Live Video] Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/AdvocacyMDC/videos/icp-meeting/985633572656644 

[17] Morell, S. (2023). “ICP Going Full Steam Ahead.” The Miami Times. https://www.miamitimesonline.com/news/local/icp-going-full-steam-ahead/article_abf0c6a0-e437-11ed-8fcc-9b26938d1e1f.html 

[18] Miami-Dade County, FL. Article IC. Independent Civilian Panel. (2023). https://library.municode.com/fl/miami_-_dade_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIIICOOR_CH2AD_ARTICINCIPA_S2-11.41LEINPULICO 

[19] Ojeda, E. (2023). “Intent vs. Impact: An Evaluation of Miami-Dade Police Department’s Independent Civilian Panel.” (unpublished manuscript).

External Links

Participedia. “George Floyd Protests.” https://participedia.net/case/6590 

Participedia. “Citizens’ Jury.” https://participedia.net/method/155 

Participedia. “Public Hearing.” https://participedia.net/method/162 

Participedia. “Expert Advisory Panel.” https://participedia.net/method/5311

Notes

The first version of this case entry was written by Evanna Ojeda, a Master of Public Service candidate at the University of Arkansas Clinton School of Public Service, and then edited. The views expressed in the entry are those of the authors, editors, or cited sources, and are not necessarily those of the University of Arkansas Clinton School of Public Service.