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 />2/28/2017 3/3/2017 3 Inquiry RP complained about difficulty in trying to get his <br />property back from ECU. <br />Sgt. found that after RP requested his belongings, the clerk started <br />the process for retrieval. The involved employees took all <br />appropriate steps. RP was informed to make an appointment to <br />retrieve his belongings. <br />3/7/2017 3/9/2017 2 Policy RP, an employee at UDH, was concerned that <br />EPD did not notify the hospital during in incident <br />in which a man was firing a gun in the area. RP <br />felt security should have been told. <br />RP's concern and request was forwarded to the Watch <br />Commanders. <br />3/7/2017 3/10/2017 3 Inquiry <br />Dismissed: <br />Alternate <br />Remedy <br />RP reported an officer who cited him for <br />trespassing while he was protesting in front of <br />the Chase Bank. <br />Dismissed: Alternate Remedy Preliminary review by the <br />Auditor's Office found no policy violation. <br />3/7/2017 3/30/2017 23 Performance RP complained via email to the Chief that an <br />officer who she believed was harassing and <br />behaving inappropriately refused to provide his <br />name and badge number. <br />Sgt. was unable to locate the incident in dispatch records, and RP <br />did not respond to an email requesting further details. <br />3/9/2017 4/3/2017 24 Inquiry RP was unhappy with how a domestic violence <br />call concerning her daughter was handled by <br />officers. <br />Sgt. reviewed ICV and found the officers acted appropriately and <br />professionally, and well within department policy and training <br />expectations. The situation involved mutual harassment and <br />neither wished to pursue charges. No physical injuries were <br />present, so no mandatory arrest was required. Sgt. spoke with RP <br />about the call and how it was handled. <br />3/10/2017 4/4/2017 24 Inquiry RP was upset at what he felt was harassment by <br />an officer who directed him away from a property <br />where he believed he could be; RP was also <br />upset that his dog was impounded. <br />Sgt. found that the officer had in fact been contacted by Animal <br />Control to assist in the seizure of the dog, and that officers typically <br />require proof of permission for a person to be on a property that <br />has a letter of no trespass. Sgt. spoke with RP about his complaint <br />and learned that RP had recently obtained a letter of permission. <br />3/13/2017 4/17/2017 34 Inquiry RP was upset that an officer pulled his daughter <br />out of class to question her about RP's <br />whereabouts. <br />Lt. learned that an out of state agency had provided information <br />that RP might be in the area and seeking to contact with family, <br />causing a safety concern. The officer followed policy regarding <br />speak with the minor. Lt. spoke with RP about his concern. <br />3/13/2017 3/14/2017 1 Performance RP was unhappy that an EPD employee had <br />taken his dog to the pound. <br />Supervisor spoke with RP about his concerns. <br />Appendix B Page 5 of 32 September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2