Agenda Packet 6-19-19 Work Session

Home Browse Search

27 • A suggested good practice would be for officers to tell CAHOOTS about all injured people when they arrive. • A member wondered how to contextualize the call volume referenced in the investigation given that it was used as a rationale for how Supervisor A handled the situation. She asked if the call volume was considered in the investigation and the IA sergeant replied that it was considered. 4) Policy and/or Training Considerations • A board member wondered if the RP was treated unequally because they were homeless or because they had difficulty communicating and paying attention. He asked if there was a policy about people who have trouble communicating and Mr. Gissiner replied he had not seen a training specific to difficulty communicating, but he believed it was clear in this case that there was a neurological disorder. • A member agreed that it was clear there was a neurological disorder but felt as though the different treatment became clear when Party E admitted to the assault and was then treated differently. • A statement was made about the amount of force available to both sides and how it changed as time went on, which made it difficult to critique Supervisor A. Supervisor A made the decision to clear everyone from the scene, which is why not everything is known about this case. After reviewing the whole sequence in terms of credibility, Mr. Gissiner felt that RP was very credible. • Another member wondered what the minimum requirements of investigations were, including the expectations of someone taking over a scene and filing a report. He questioned whether there was confusion between the supervisor and officer about who would file a report, and who had the authority to determine what constituted mutual combat. They then referred to the fact that Supervisor A had said RP was not in custody even though RP was in handcuffs. • Mr. Gissiner stated that Chief Skinner recognized this as an issue as well, and that this particular case showed a new supervisor put in during a busy time without proper training. 5) Adjudication Recommendations • A board member appreciated the Police Chief adding a fourth allegation since she felt dissatisfied that it was not determined RP was treated differently because of their homeless status. She highlighted they were detained, not allowed to press charges, and the language used by others that characterized unhoused people as dangerous. She would rather the second allegation say there was insufficient evidence than unfounded. • Another member thought saying that Supervisor A refused medical attention was not accurate, and that it should instead say they failed to provide medical attention. He agreed with the Auditor that the second allegation was not based on homeless status but was instead based on RP’s inability to communicate. He noted that Supervisor A should have delegated responsibility to other officers to investigate what happened. • Yet another member sustained the first allegation. He agreed that the second allegation lacked sufficient evidence and stated that Supervisor A was clearly discourteous. June 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2