Laserfiche WebLink
2017 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints <br />Received <br />Date <br />Closed Date Time Open <br />(days) <br />Classification Summary Outcome <br />2/3/2017 3/10/2017 37 Inquiry RP was unhappy that officers did not listen to his <br />side of an incident, just to the Red Caps' version. <br />Sgt. reviewed ICV and BWV of the incident. RP appeared to be in <br />a mental health crisis during the incident and resisted any help <br />officers tried to provide. Officers acted professionally and within <br />policy as they assessed the situation. Sgt. spoke with RP about <br />the incident. <br />2/3/2017 3/17/2017 44 Courtesy RP reported an incident in which officers <br />approached him at Putters demanding to know <br />what he was doing, instead of a more caring <br />approach. <br />Supervisor was unable to identify the involved officer, but he did <br />speak with RP about his concerns. <br />2/3/2017 2/24/2017 21 Performance RP was unhappy that the owner of a <br />continuously barking dog was not being cited. <br />Lt. researched the issue and spoke with the involved employees <br />and various neighbors; she found that the owner was working to <br />stop the disturbance. Because of the owner working with Animal <br />Control and the neighbors, it was within the employees' discretion <br />not to issue citations. Lt. spoke with RP about her findings. <br />2/3/2017 2/21/2017 18 Inquiry RP was unhappy that an officer cited him for not <br />having a rear bike light when he later found out <br />he only needs a reflector. <br />Sgt. found that the statute requires a reflector that is visible from <br />six hundred feet. The citation was issued because the reflector <br />was not visible to the officer, and he was concerned about the <br />man's safety in the dark as the officer had not seen him when <br />approaching from the rear. Sgt. spoke with RP about his findings. <br />2/7/2017 2/17/2017 10 Performance RP was concerned about how a domestic <br />violence call was handled; specifically, that <br />officers did not separate the victim from the <br />suspect during questioning. <br />Sgt. contacted the victim and was able talk with her without the <br />alleged suspect being present. The same information provided to <br />the officers was provided to the Sgt. The Sgt. was also able to <br />determine that the victim had been able to speak with officers <br />away from the suspect during the initial contact. <br />2/9/2017 3/16/2017 37 Inquiry RP was unhappy when she learned that an item <br />she thought was being tested for DNA was <br />ordered destroyed by a supervisor. <br />Supervisor spoke with RP and informed her that the State crime <br />lab does not do DNA testing on misdemeanor charges due to <br />resource issues. <br />2/10/2017 3/10/2017 30 Performance RP was unhappy with the response by call takers <br />when he reported a mentally disturbed man on <br />his property. <br />Supervisor reviewed the calls and found that the call takers <br />followed policy in dispatching the calls but could have done a <br />better job clarifying what RP wanted EPD to do. Supervisor spoke <br />with RP and the call takers about the call. <br />2/13/2017 3/23/2017 40 Inquiry RP felt that an officer was extremely <br />disrespectful while speaking with him about an <br />assault and that the officer did not follow up with <br />the investigation. <br />Sgt. reviewed the incident and found that the officer performed all <br />expected follow up, finding video footage and attempting to contact <br />witnesses. RP did not return calls from the Sgt. to discuss the <br />incident. <br />Appendix B Page 3 of 32 September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2