This is a Classic Case of Regulatory Capture

After the public outrage over the NYPD choking a man to death for allegedly selling single cigarettes, the Civilian Complaint Review Board wants to have fewer investigations:

With New York in an uproar over the death of Eric Garner after police put him in a chokehold, the new chairman of the group that handles public grievances about the NYPD floated the idea yesterday that his agency should stop listening to people who complain about police stops.

"I'm not sure stop-and-frisk is still appropriate for this agency," Richard Emery, the head of the Civilian Complaint Review Board said at his first board meeting. "So many other people are working on it."
NYCLU Associate Legal Director Chris Dunn—who last month accused the board, then in its sixth month without a chairman, of being "on life support"—strongly disagreed.

"There's no way this agency can walk away from stop-and-frisk," Dunn said. "There are more interactions around stop-and-frisk than any other interaction in the police department....I'm just telling you: When you as the incoming chair of the CCRB say something like 'We should get out of the business of stop-and-frisk,' that is sending the wrong signal.

This isn't the first time the CCRB has appeared to try to back away from stop-and-frisk issues. In May, Dunn confronted board members about a leaked memo that seemed to suggest that frisks conducted when cops issue a summons can't be subject to review by the board.

Any civilian police review board must have not just an adversarial role with the police department, but it must have an adversarial mindset, because no organization can be trusted to police itself.

If the Police do not hate a civilian review board, then that civilian review board is simply not doing its job.

The sentiments expressed by Richard Emery are literally those of a petty bureaucrat in a police state.