Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
Police Complaint System and Civilian Oversight Recommendations <br /> <br /> o Board members would have access to case information that, if purposely or inadvertently <br /> released to others, can breach the integrity of the investigation; <br /> o For the board to have a meaningful discussion on an open case while protecting <br /> confidential information, it would need to meet in executive session, which compromises <br /> the transparency of the board's deliberations and actions; <br /> o Even if conducted in executive session, board members' actions and statements directly <br /> and indirectly related to the case can be called into question in an arbitration setting. It <br /> will be more difficult for the city to sustain discipline because it will have to prove that <br /> the board's involvement (or individual member's actions) did not influence the Chief's <br /> adjudication decision. <br /> <br />The commission reconsidered this model in light of these issues and approved a substitute <br />process whereby the review board would have access to closed investigations, but have the <br />authority to re-open the investigation with cause. It was agreed that the alternative proposal <br />mitigated some of the most serious issues without compromising the impact of the board in these <br />high profile cases. The review board's function in community impact cases is described below. <br /> <br />Investigations that meet the pre-determined criteria for a community impact case will be <br />provided to the board upon adjudication of the complaint, but prior to a discipline decision if the <br />case is sustained. The board would receive both sustained and un-sustained community impact <br />case investigations. As a starting point, community impact cases will include allegations of <br />excessive force, bias/disparate treatment and allegations that involve violation of constitutional <br />rights. A formalized definition will need to be developed as a matter of policy. <br /> <br />The board would have full access to all investigative materials related to these cases, in a non- <br />public setting, in preparation for discussion of the case in a public meeting3. The board will then <br />convene to discuss the quality of the investigation and the outcome of the case with the <br />auditor/lead investigator, and based on its discussions, could: Concur with the adjudication; and/or <br /> Develop findings regarding possible improvements about the investigative <br /> process, complaint handling practices, and/or other police procedures relevant to <br /> that case; and/or <br /> Find that there were deficiencies in the investigation that impacted the outcome of <br /> the case, or that the adjudication was not supported by the facts in the case, and <br /> vote to re-open the case to examine those areas. <br /> <br />Unless the board votes to re-open the investigation, if the complaint was sustained, the case <br />would proceed to the discipline phase. If the board requires further investigation, the auditor <br />would report back to the board on the outcome of any additional investigation and whether the <br />adjudication was modified. The board would have access to that portion of the investigation <br />after it was completed and can develop a final set of findings on the entire case at that point. <br /> <br />The complainant would not be able to request any further review of "community impact" cases. <br />However, complainants will still be able to request the board to conduct a prospective review of <br /> <br />3 Cases where the complaint is sustained could not be reviewed in a public meeting under the current EPEA <br />contractual agreement. <br /> <br /> 21 <br /> <br /> <br />