Agenda Packet 6-19-19 Work Session

Home Browse Search

21 • 800 Use of Force • Several members mentioned it being a close call. It did not look like Officer B intentionally pushed RP to ground, but he wondered if it was necessary to push her so hard. Another member said he was likely trying to create space for conflict. 4) Policy and/or Training Considerations • It was reiterated that it appeared neither officer knew the statutes. Everyone on the board thought it was a training issue. 5) Adjudication Recommendations • A member concurred there was insufficient evidence, since it was not apparent in the video that there was a safety risk by RP1. She wasn’t surprised the woman had a concussion because she was pushed hard. She did not think the excuse of officers being hurt in the same parking lot before was a valid excuse. • Another member felt RP1 overstepped her bounds and may have given up some protections she would have had if she had been compliant. • The reiteration of Monday morning quarterbacking at several meetings was brought up by another member. She added she had no qualms with Monday morning quarterbacking, as it was part of the responsibility of CRB. She tried to understand the police perspective but did not think CRB members were ultimately trying to put themselves in the officers’ shoes. • A board member said that in the past, the CRB discussed the importance of immigrant communities being comfortable with police. Prior in the meeting, she brought up a couple issues around domestic violence and why someone may not want to approach police, but she also thought it was important to think about other reasons why someone may not want to cooperate, such as immigration status. For individuals with different citizenships, it could have much different consequences. Rather than a criminal record, it could be deportation. She thought those were important things to be mindful of when officers were interacting with people in order for police to be most effective and for community members to vie w them as a resource instead of a threat. SEPTEMBER CASE REVIEW: ALLEGATIONS OF UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE AND UNTRUTHFULNESS Summary of Facts • Supervisor A was acting as watch commander when an incident occurred that was later determined to be an out-of-policy pursuit. Supervisor A, listening to the incident over the radio, believed as it was occurring that it was a failure to yield. As they did not believe it to be outside of policy, they did not terminate the pursuit. • Supervisor A informed Supervisor B (higher on the chain of command) of the incident as soon as it was over. Supervisor B told Supervisor A to run the incident by the Emergency Vehicle Operations Supervisor (EVOC), (Supervisor G). Supervisor B did not ask them to enter the incident in BlueTeam. • Supervisor A met with Supervisor G later that day; they looked at radio traffic and dispatch records. ICV was not yet available. June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2