Agenda Packet 6-19-19 Work Session

Home Browse Search

13 • A member asked why the internal investigation was put on hold pending the homicide investigation. Ms. Pitcher explained that doing both investigations simultaneously and repeatedly talking to witnesses could disrupt the criminal investigation. • A few members questioned why the case was being reviewed by the CRB si nce it appeared there was no threat to the public. Ms. Pitcher stated that this continued level of performance would potentially affect the community and that the main question was what the purpose of corrective action was, since the department could not impose any action without an investigation and due process. • A board member clarified that the supervising sergeant said the adjudication was not based on the pool and the body. The sergeant took issue that Officer A did not follow procedures they were taught with how to do a welfare check, including a walkthrough of the house. • Overall, the discussion had a lot to do with hind sight. Looking back, there were a lot of red flags; but when looking at the picture the officer took of the pool from where he saw it, the pool did not look like a body. 2) Investigation and Monitoring a. Investigation suspended during criminal investigation and prosecution. • A member stated that in order to illustrate what Officer A did and did not know, an interview with the person who made the telephone call would have been helpful to clarify those facts. • The thoroughness, speed, and strong interview questions of the investigation despite having a significant amount of time pass were commended by several members. 3) Relevant Department Policies and Practices a. 1101.1.B.9 Unsatisfactory Performance • A board member said thoroughness coaching was needed, but he was glad to hear there was some debrief closer to the incident than the final adjudication. • Another board member wondered if there was a welfare check policy or a command directive. He was told there was not. He then wondered if it was included in a training. A Sgt. added that welfare checks were just investigations, and officers were trained to investigate. 4) Policy and/or Training Considerations • Lack of thoroughness (i.e. not checking upstairs and two other rooms on first floor) was a primary concern due to poor judgement. • A member asked whether Officer A would have been trained on welfare checks and investigations at the Department of Public Safety Standards and Trainings (DPSST). The IA Lt. confirmed it would take place at the regional academy and that they would also be assigned a training officer who would be with the officer in training for four months at EPD. 5) Adjudication Recommendations • CRB members were satisfied with the adjudication. 6) Additional Comments/Concerns • A board member mentioned how in hind sight situations were always 20/20. He stated that looking at the photos himself, he would not have known there was a body. He was glad there was concern aside from just finding the body, since he understood how it could have happened. June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2