Item B: Update on Implementation of Measure 20-106

Home Browse Search

_.__~~.!!.~e Complaint System an~._~!y'!.~ian Oversight Recommen~ations Preliminary Investigation and Complaint Classification Internal affairs statistics over the past several years show that the office responds to over 300 citizen contacts a year. These contacts range from simple requests for intbrnlation to allegations of criminal misconduct against police officers. As such, the department has used two broad categories of complaints to distinguish cases that require a full investigation from other contacts: allegations and inquiries, Complaint categorization has both procedural and public perception implications. Procedurally, how a complaint is classified atTects the level and ty-pe of investigation conducted, disposition outcomes, timeline for completion, and record retention requirements, In tem1S of public perception, the department's internal categorization process has been criticized as being biased, inconsistent and dismissive of valid concerns. Alternately, some police employees have voiced frustration that the department's intake system creates a.n open door policy for frivolous complaints that redirects sergeants' attention from supervising employees to conducting pointless investigations. Clearly, this was an area ripe for change. The Police Commission believes that all complaints should be treated with due diligence, but has fbund that to make the most efficient use of resources, facilitate a timely response to complainants, and otTer multiple options for complaint resolution, a categorization system is necessary. To ensure that the basis for classification decisions is independent, consistent and transparent, tIle commission recommends that the authority for categorizing complaints rest with the auditor's office. A hasic process description follows, but more formalized procedures should be established to provide clear, standardized practices. The auditor's office '""ill be responsible for conducting a preliminary investigation of all complaints to deternline how the issue is best handled. Vesting the authority to classify complaints with the auditor's office is intended to reassure the community tha.t these decisions will be intl.)rmed, professional judgments that consider how to achieve the best resolution to an issue, and are not fonned on the perceived credibility of the complainant. For consistency, the auditor should classify hoth internally generated and community-hased complaints. To enable the auditor to conduct a preliminary investigation into the involved incident requires that the auditor have access to law enforcement databases, The auditor will classify complaints into two categories: service complaints and allegations of misconduct. A service complilint will include concerns about police officer perfomlance or demeanor, customer service and/or level of police service complaints, or complaints where the person is dissatisfied Vv'ith current procedures or in disagreement with established police policies. 'rhe complainant does not allege behavior that would constitute a policy violation. Service complaints, in large part, will replace the category of complaints currently treated as "inquiries:' The formal definition of a service complaint wi.ll need to be developed and incorporated into police department policy. An allegation of misconduct will be those complaints that, if true, would be a violation of department policy, a violation of a person's civil rights, or a criminal offense, Both service complaints and allegations of misconduct wiB be further categorized by type for statistical tracking purposes and to allow trends analysis on the nature ofthe complaints received. 11