Laserfiche WebLink
18 <br /> <br />Officer A: <br />1) Intake and Classification <br />a. Classification: Allegation of Misconduct <br />• A board member did not have concerns about intake and classification; however, she was <br />curious about search and seizure policy and if it was adequate. Ms. Pitcher recalled search <br />and seizure policy discussed seizure of persons as well as things, but the policy focused a lot <br />on whether there was a search warrant and seizure of items. To her, the constitutional rights <br />policy seemed more applicable for seizure of people. Additionally, she thought wording <br />could be improved within the section around constitutional rights. <br />• A member had an issue with intake, and said the situation started as an event that should have <br />been entered into BlueTeam because there was report of an injury. The report was not taken <br />or not submitted by the supervisor; however, he believed the issue was dealt with. Then, the <br />summary dismissed allegations against both officers as unfounded and was approved by a <br />lieutenant and captain. Another said he didn’t know enough about internal processes, but he <br />agreed and was struck that the case made it all the way t o the acting chief before anyone <br />caught it. <br />• Clarification was asked on when to enter something into BlueTeam and Mr. Gissiner said use <br />of force and claimed racial profiling were automatically entered. The board member clarified <br />the reporting party complained about hitting her head. <br />• A board member said intake and classification did not occur at the supervisor level where he <br />believed it should have. Ms. Pitcher said there was discussion around whether the sergeant’s <br />actions should be addressed as a performance issue or misconduct. <br />• A member said the case was classified as a search and seizure, but it was an arrest case. He <br />thought the analysis concerning the search and seizure was unhelpful. Another member said <br />stops and arrests were technically search and seizure cases for seizure of a person and <br />clarified the constitution protected people from unreasonable arrest. The first board member <br />said to him search and seizure meant the ability to go look for and take something as evidence. <br />The other member agreed but clarified there were two different types of seizure. Mr. Gissiner <br />said the two areas were blended in the policy manual when they should have been bifurcated. <br />• Ms. Pitcher said there were multiple policies that could have been relevant. To her, a search <br />and seizure policy should include arrests. Current EPD search and seizure policy focused on <br />items and did not really address arrest. There was a separate arrest policy, but again, Ms. <br />Pitcher found wording problematic. Ms. Pitcher thought the blanket constitutional rights <br />provision seemed more applicable. A board member said for purposes related to the court, <br />search and seizure protected individuals from evidence wrongly seized. <br />• Several members agreed that it did not matter as much what the classification was, because <br />it was clear something was handled inappropriately and there was a gray area (possible <br />unlawful arrest). <br />2) Investigation and Monitoring <br />• Members mentioned how there were lots of reports from various people, and how the IA <br />Sergeant did a good job of organizing facts. <br />• The sergeant’s report was initially rejected from the Chief; within a week, Ms. Pitcher’s <br />memo was delivered and gave legal framework to the case. A board member did not have a <br />problem with what IA did, but thought it was enhanced with Ms. Pitcher’s analysis. <br />June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2