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 />9/6/2017 9/18/2017 12 Performance RP has been unable to get a return call from the <br />officer investigating his car theft. <br />Sgt. learned the RP had left calls on the officer's days off and that <br />the officer had returned calls when he returned to duty. The officer <br />had also looked into a possible security video that showed no <br />usable video of the incident. Sgt. also left messages with RP. <br />9/6/2017 9/7/2017 1 Courtesy RP alleged two officers made derogatory <br />remarks to him as they were booking him into jail <br />8 months ago. <br />Review of reports, ICV and interviews with officers found no <br />evidence that officers made rude remarks to RP. <br />9/6/2017 9/11/2017 5 Policy RP inquired into whether a police report should <br />have also been submitted to the DA and not just <br />to the court. <br />Sgt. learned that because the report was pertaining to an official <br />court issue, the officer did need to route it only to the court. Sgt. <br />spoke with RP about his inquiry. <br />9/6/2017 9/14/2017 8 Policy RP was concerned that she now has a police <br />contact on her record after an officer spoke with <br />her about smoking in a non-smoking area. <br />Sgt. learned that RP was given a warning and the officer <br />completed an FI card to document his contact with RP. The <br />warning is not eligible to be removed from records. RP did not <br />answer calls to speak about the incident. <br />9/6/2017 9/18/2017 12 Performance RP was unhappy with a call taker who took a <br />long time to ask questions about his bike being <br />taken. <br />Supervisor found that the call taker entered the call for dispatch <br />within a minute and a half of RP's call, then continued to ask <br />questions about the bike. As the call taker was in training, a failure <br />to communicate that to RP was noted. The Supervisor spoke with <br />the call taker and with RP about the findings. <br />9/6/2017 9/14/2017 8 Discrimination RP was upset that an EPD officer called the <br />Springfield PD to report a man in his yard, a <br />possible burglary in progress. RP was concerned <br />that the call was due to his race. <br />Sgt. found that the call for service was made by an EPD officer <br />who reported a suspicious white male (not a suspicious black <br />male) at the address. The Sgt. noted to RP that many times <br />someone casing the home may go to the front door knock and <br />then go around back once they believe no one is home. RP <br />understood the circumstances of the call after speaking with the <br />Sgt. <br />9/8/2017 10/27/2017 49 Inquiry RP was unhappy that an officer questioned her <br />son about the cars, and things in their garage, <br />after her son had allowed the officer access to <br />their property while looking for a suspect. RP's <br />son is Latino and RP felt that was what prompted <br />the questions. <br />Sgt. spoke with the officer involved who thought that he had built a <br />rapport with RP's son, and felt bad when he realized it had not <br />been taken that way. The officer requested to apologize to the son. <br />9/11/2017 11/14/2017 63 Performance RP was unhappy that an officer had not returned <br />his calls about a stolen wallet. <br />Sgt. learned that the officer had taken the report on desk duty and <br />did not know follow-up had been requested. Officer checked in <br />with RP. <br />Appendix B Page 23 of 32 September 24, 2018, Work Session – Item 2