Item B: Meeting w/Police Comm. - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Re: Opinion of City Attomey Regarding Civilian Review Model July 8, 2005 Page 3 The rule of thumb is this: If discipline is imposed or there is a possibility that discipline will be imposed, the City is required under its agreement with the police union to keep the information confidential. On the other hand, if the investigation is concluded and either the complaint is not sustained or no discipline is imposed, the information becomes a public record and can be discussed in public session. D. What are the differences between the board's discussion of sustained and unsustained cases? Answer: As explained in C above, a sustained allegation which resulted in discipline would be exempt from disclosure under public records law. An unsustained complaint which did not lead to discipline becomes a public record when the file is closed. However, an unsustained complaint becomes subject to the disclosure exemption as soon as the board reopens the case. E. Is there any substantive difference between enabling the CRB to "request" that the case be reopened for further investigation or empowering the board to "require" that the case be reopened, assuming that in either case the board's decision is based on pre-established criteria? Answer: This is a policy choice. The Commission could decide, for example, to recommend that the CRB be empowered to require that a case be reopened for further investigation, perhaps only by a super-majority vote of the board and for cause. Or, the Commission could recommend that the CRB be empowered to recommend that a closed community impact case be reopened for further investigation, and that the ultimate authority to reopen a case be left with the Chief of Police. F. What legal issues arise with regard to the CRB's review of community impact cases after they are initially adjudicated by the police department ("closed case" review) as compared to "open case" review of community impact cases? Answer: Giving the CRB the authority to affect the outcome of a particular case, whether by open case or closed case review, carries with it impacts on the City's ability to sustain disciplinary decisions or to defend tort claims, and raises issues of confidentiality. As explained more fully in our June 7, 2005 opinion, comments made by individual CRB members during a case review and recommendations resulting fi.om CRB review could be used as evidence in an arbitration or lawsuit, and CRB members could be compelled to testify in an arbitration challenging any discipline imposed or in litigation against the City. This situation could pose a particular problem if, for example, the CRB was divided in its response to the adjudication proposed by the City, with some members agreeing with a recommendation that a complaint not be sustained, and others recommending otherwise.