Agenda Packet 6-19-19 Work Session

Home Browse Search

23 since it was an internally-reported complaint that caused no harm to the public property/persons. • Another member noted that there is not a policy that requires an officer to recognize a vehicle pursuit. He said there is not enough evidence to sustain based on how the allegation was written. Mr. Gissiner stated that the officer had provided cryptic information to the watch commander, who made the decision to not name it a pursuit, at that time. • Someone asked if a watch commander can see ICV in real time and Mr. Gissiner replied that they cannot. • A board member said that in listening to the audio for the first allegation, it seemed like a reasonable decision, given the information at the time. He stated the first allegation could have been failure to follow 814 Vehicle Pursuit Policy. The second allegation was a failure to communicate. He explained that both Supervisors A and B left the initial meeting misunderstanding each other completely that it did not seem like either attempted to clarify what was expected. 2) Investigation and Monitoring • Members commended the IA sergeant in putting the information together, despite the amount of people involved and interviewed, especially given the delay in starting the process. • A board member also agreed it was a very good investigation. He added that it seemed like the investigator allowed Supervisor B to become too much of an advocate, which was inappropriate. • Another member said that it was good the Auditor’s Office got this case to the CRB quickly, given the complexities. 3) Relevant Department Policies and Procedures a. 1101.1.B.9 Unsatisfactory Performance b. 1101.1.B.29 Truthfulness c. 407 Watch Commander d. 814 Vehicle Pursuit Policy • A board member said that there is an opportunity to clarify the chain of events on the training of the Vehicle Pursuit Policy. He noted that an officer who has since retired was contacted as part of the investigation and they supported Supervisor A on how the policy was interpreted. He explained that since there was difference in the interpretation of the policy, there is opportunity for clarity. • The IA Lt. said that EPD doesn’t allow pursuit of property crimes for non-violent offenders. She explained that Supervisor A did not get all the information from the officer and made an initial decision based on that limited information. After that, Supervisors A and B had a conversation and they disagreed on the policy. • The IA Lt. shared that the in-car video is available when the car docks. She said it should have been reviewed if Supervisor A had looked at video. • A member asked if there is a policy to review ICV in this situation and the IA Lt. answered that the policy is to review everything in BlueTeam. However, this incident wasn’t entered in BlueTeam at the time. • Another member said that it seemed like a failure to conduct the after-action event. He explained that there is a purpose in a supervisor being able to call on or off a pursuit. He stated that supervisors should recognize when coaching is required. June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2