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 />5/2/2017 5/11/2017 9 Performance RP was upset that he was told he could not have <br />his service dog downtown. <br />Lt. reviewed BWV and spoke with officers involved and found that <br />they were not up to date on the new dog ban. Training was <br />provided, and Lt. spoke with RP. <br />5/3/2017 6/17/2017 44 Performance RP was frustrated that officers did not allow him <br />to retrieve his own bicycle from a friend's porch. <br />Lt. found that officers were called by a neighbor who believed that <br />bicycle was being stolen. At the time of contact RP did not have <br />proof of ownership. The Lt. found during his investigation that the <br />bicycle did in fact belong to RP. No policy violation by officers at <br />the time of the incident. RP did not provide contact information for <br />the Lt. to speak with him. <br />5/4/2017 5/8/2017 4 Inquiry RP alleged officers took 20 dollars from him.ICV noted the officer counting RP's money on the hood of the <br />patrol car, no 20 was included. Supervisor spoke with RP who <br />admitted he was drunk and high at the time and he may have <br />spent the money. <br />5/5/2017 6/5/2017 30 Courtesy RP alleged an officer was rude and responded <br />with curse words when he flagged him down to <br />report a man playing matador in traffic. <br />Sgt. reviewed ICV which showed the officer was working on <br />another call and traffic was heavy. The officer and RP seemed to <br />have trouble hearing each other, but no curse words were spoken. <br />The Sgt. spoke with RP explaining that the officer was dealing with <br />a person in custody and could not respond to the other issue. <br />5/5/2017 5/23/2017 18 Performance RP reported an officer who was arrogant with <br />him and a delivery person, and didn't seem to <br />know the parking laws downtown. <br />Sgt. reviewed the situation and found that RP had been correct. <br />Sgt. spoke with RP and then brought the officer up to speed about <br />how the law applied in the situation. <br />5/5/2017 5/10/2017 5 Inquiry RP inquired about evidence that she believed <br />had not been properly forwarded to Marion <br />County. <br />Supervisor was able to determine that all requested evidence had <br />been sent to Marion County. Supervisor spoke with RP about her <br />findings. <br />5/7/2017 6/15/2017 38 Inquiry RP was unhappy that officers did not cite a <br />neighbor who assaulted her dog and her <br />husband. <br />Lt. found that the officers had investigated the neighbor dispute <br />and found no crime other than a dog at large issue. When officer <br />tried to explain the issue at the time, one of the complainants <br />walked away and the other refused to discuss the situation. Lt. <br />spoke with RP about the findings and explained the reasons <br />officers came to the conclusions they did. <br />5/8/2017 6/23/2017 45 Performance RP was unhappy that follow through was not <br />done when she reported her preschool child <br />being bullied and assaulted by other children in <br />his class. <br />Supervisor spoke with RP and assigned an officer to contact RP to <br />take a full report. <br />Appendix B Page 10 of 32 September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2