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 />2/13/2017 3/23/2017 40 Inquiry RP internally reported an incident in which an <br />employee approached another city employee <br />over a personnel issue, which the RP felt was <br />inappropriate. <br />Sgt. spoke with both employees involved about the situation and <br />resolved it. <br />2/13/2017 3/23/2017 40 Service Level RP was unhappy that while trying to report an <br />issue about things that have been happening to <br />him he was left waiting at headquarters for over <br />an hour while another person was seen in 10 <br />minutes. <br />Supervisor researched the issue and found that EPD had 90 calls <br />for service during the 3 hour period when RP was at headquarters. <br />The goal is to have an officer take a report within 30 minutes, but <br />call volume prevented it that day. Supervisor spoke with RP about <br />his concern. <br />2/14/2017 3/17/2017 33 Service Level RP was unhappy with the level of service he <br />received from call takers when reporting an issue <br />with his vehicle. <br />Review of the non-emergency calls by the supervisor found no <br />policy violations. Messages have been left with RP to discuss the <br />issue. <br />2/15/2017 4/14/2017 59 Conduct RP alleged that an officer in the downtown area <br />continues to harass him, walking up behind him <br />and watching him when he is in the area. <br />Sgt. reviewed BWV of the officer's contacts with RP and court <br />records pertaining to the complaint. No policy violations were <br />found. Sgt. spoke with RP about his complaint. <br />2/15/2017 2/17/2017 2 Inquiry <br />Dismissed: <br />Outside <br />Jurisdiction <br />RP said a man who was refusing to pay him for <br />services rendered was an officer. <br />Dismissed: Outside Jurisdiction <br />2/15/2017 3/28/2017 43 Inquiry RP felt EPD was ignoring his report of a child <br />molester who lived in his apartment complex. <br />Supervisor discussed the matter with the employee and found no <br />indication of a policy violation. The supervisor made several <br />attempts to contact the RP but was unsuccessful. <br />2/16/2017 2/24/2017 8 Inquiry RP was unhappy that an officers searched her <br />private property, seized a key ring, and were <br />requiring proof of ownership for every vehicle to <br />match the keys. <br />Sgt. reviewed the stop and found that the search was incident to <br />arrest. The Sgt. also spoke with the DA's office to clarify and found <br />that the inventory of the vehicle was justified and lawful. RP did <br />not return calls to discuss the incident. <br />2/17/2017 4/3/2017 46 Inquiry RP was concerned that his daughter was told <br />that nothing could be done about her ex- <br />husband's verbal threats to harm her. <br />Supervisors review of the call found that the call taker should have <br />asked some further clarifying questions to determine if any <br />telephonic or electronic harassment had taken place. Supervisor <br />coached the employee and spoke with RP about the findings. <br />2/23/2017 3/27/2017 34 Performance RP alleged that an officer pushed her when <br />helping out during a traffic accident. <br />Sgt. reviewed BWV and found that RP had pushed herself past the <br />officer to take a picture of the other driver after being asked to <br />move back, and that the officer actually had probable cause to <br />arrest RP for interfering but did not do so. RP did not return calls <br />and messages left by the Sgt. <br />2/28/2017 3/1/2017 1 Inquiry RP complained about a traffic stop and arrest; he <br />disputed the cause for the arrest. <br />Dismissed - alternate remedy. <br />Appendix B Page 4 of 32 September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2