Agenda Packet 6-19-19 Work Session

Home Browse Search

14 APRIL CASE REVIEWS: INCIDENT REVIEWS AND INQUIRIES (Comment: Service and Policy Complaints, Incident Reviews and Inquiries filed with the Auditor’s Office or EPD are classified by the Auditor and reviewed by direct supervisors and approved by command staff. The Auditor’s Office reviews the final supervisor memos and notifies the complainant of the outcome. Annually, the CRB reviews a selection of Service Complaints.) Complaint #1: Incident Review • Reporting Party contacted the Auditor’s Office after he was denied access to his grandson while the child was at the hospital. The Reporting Party (RP) stated that an EPD officer denied him access despite a valid power of attorney form that the RP has related to the grandson’s medical care. The RP also complained that the child was released to foster care rather than to his care following treatment. • Internal Affairs reviewed the Body-Worn Video, related police reports, and the RP’s paperwork. IA’s investigation showed that the child had been admitted and transported to a different hospital, which was why the RP was unable to visit the child at the hospital. • The involved officer investigated the incident as child neglect, and therefore DHS was contacted. DHS was the decision maker regarding placement of the child following treatment, not EPD. • The investigator attempted to contact the RP, but was unsuccessful, and the complaint was closed. Decision making: Most board members agreed that the officer treated the grandfather in a respectful manner and made a reasonable attempt to explain the situation. Ms. Pitcher noted that in child neglect cases, officers are sometimes unsure of whose care the child should be in, so she could understand them being hesitant to give out information when they could only rely on what people were telling them. Members discussed the protocols for when incidents involve DHS and how the university district hospital staff took the lead in the situation. Complaint #2: Inquiry • A supervisor observed an injury on a CAHOOTS employee; the supervisor learned that the employee had been the victim of an assault (suspected to be a bias crime) and that the employee had concerns about how the incident was handled by responding EPD employees. • The supervisor entered the incident in BlueTeam; it was classified as an Inquiry and forwarded to the EPD employees’ supervisor for follow up. That supervisor reviewed body camera footage of the investigation, reviewed police reports, spoke to the involved employees, and then contacted the RP with his findings. • The supervisor found that the employees had not violated policy with their investigation, and that their determination that the incident was mutual combat, rather than a bias crime, was not inappropriate. However, the supervisor found that some of the employees had misled the RP regarding the outcome of the investigation, which was “unnecessary and … counterproductive.” The involved employees were coached on that point. June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2