Laserfiche WebLink
2018 Incident Reviews, Inquiries, Policy Complaints, and Service Complaints <br />Appendix B Page 43 of 48 <br />Received <br />Date <br />Closed <br />Date <br />Time <br />Open <br />(days) <br />Classification Summary Outcome <br />11/24/18 12/24/18 30 Performance RP was upset that he did not receive <br />follow-up after leaving a message for <br />Animal Control. <br />Supervisor found that a miscommunication between the call <br />taker and RP had occurred: although information was <br />documented and forward to Animal Control, it was not noted <br />that RP was expecting a call back. Supervisor spoke with RP <br />about the miscommunication. <br />11/22/18 12/27/18 35 Inquiry RP was unhappy that he was detained by <br />officers in handcuffs when he responded <br />to EPD about a name mix-up on a <br />warrant. <br />Supervisor determined that the error was on the part of a <br />records clerk. RP was provided information on filing a risk claim. <br />11/27/18 12/27/18 30 Service Level RP was upset that he waited over 45 <br />minutes for an officer to show up when <br />he had a suspect in sight after the <br />suspect broke into RP's roommates <br />vehicle. No one even contacted him to <br />take a report. <br />Supervisor found that a miscommunication between the call <br />taker and dispatch lead to the call being closed after 39 minutes <br />due to no officer available. No call back to RP was done. <br />Supervisor spoke to RP about her findings and steps take to <br />prevent this type of incident in the future. <br />11/26/18 12/4/18 8 Performance RP's believes he was reverse <br />discriminated against by officers after a <br />dispute with his partner. <br />Review of body cams found the officers had been trying to <br />provide information about the domestic violence laws to RP and <br />his partner. This led to RP feeling that he was being <br />discriminated against since he was the male. <br />11/28/18 1/2/19 34 Incident Review/ <br />Performance <br />RP's reported a concern about the lack <br />of police response when a disorderly <br />man entered their business, threatened <br />employees and refused to leave. <br />Sgt. reviewed call records and spoke with RP about the incident, <br />acknowledging that they did not receive the type of help that <br />they should have. Sgt. provided strategies for communication <br />with call takers in the future that would ensure a more positive <br />result. <br />11/29/18 12/5/18 6 Inquiry RP felt he was treated poorly by officer <br />who came to his home about a woman <br />screaming. He was the only person in his <br />apartment. <br />No policy violations were found by the Sgt., but officers could <br />have explained the reason they had to search RP's apartment <br />more clearly (letting him know that they had to verify that no <br />one was hurt). <br />11/30/18 1/2/19 32 Performance RP was unhappy that officer have not <br />responded to his messages about a <br />report of a man who assaulted him. <br />Sgt. found that RP had been unable to provide enough <br />information about the man to identify him, so the case was <br />suspended. Sgt. left messages for RP to contact him. <br />June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2