Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~mnmnm... Police CompL~.~~~.~.Y.~tem and Civm~.~.gyersight Rec~.~.~~.ndations <br /> <br />o Justification for dismissal <br /> <br />Acknowledging that timeliness of the complaint is important, a.<; memory diminishes <br />over time and witnesses and evidence may he more difficult to locate/uncover. a <br />timeline for complaint acceptance should be established. A six month time.fi'a~le is <br />recommended, as it would be consistent with the retention time for dispatch tapes and <br />any video recordings taken, The procedures allmv, but do not require, the intake <br />entity to dismiss complaints involving incidents more than six months old. <br />Exceptions to the time1ine should be included, such as delays due to advice to first <br />resolve a criminal case, hospitalization, or incarceration. No specific deadline for <br />complaints alleging serious criminal conduct should be in place. <br /> <br />If the complaint is about an employee who does not work for the City, the complaint <br />can be declined as outside the jurisdiction of the auditor's office a..'1d the complainant <br />referred to the appropriate entity; <br /> <br />If upon review of the complaint it is determined that the substance of the complaint is <br />solely to contest the enforcement action taken (not the manner in which it was taken) <br />the complaint may be dismissed a..'1d the complainant directed to the appropriate <br />remedy or channel for that grievance, e,g., municipal court to contest traffic citation; <br /> <br />o Complaints that are closed due to insufficient information should be flagged as such in the <br />final case disposition" <br /> <br />.'Yy"~rrant/Records Checks <br />Some community members have expressed concern that the practice of running a records check <br />on complainants, which not only provides basic incident infom1ation but also indicates whether a <br />person ha.<; an outstanding warrant, could have a chilling eftect on the complaint process and <br />prevent people \vith old or active criminal histories from coming funvard with complaints. <br />Further, it was reared that reviewing a complainant's record would have a prejudicial impact on <br />the process, i.e" people with more police contacts \vould not be given ,lS rrnlch credihility as <br />others. It should be noted that a records check is a query ofthe local law enforcement database <br />to show the number and types of police contacts, and includes notification of any outstanding <br />warrants (state and national). This differs from a "background check" which is a more extensive <br />search of a person's law enforcement record, any resulting court proceedings and sanctions, <br />credit checks, employment history, etc. <br /> <br />By moving the preliminary investigation and classification of complaints under the auspices of <br />the auditor's office, the commission hopes to anleliorate some ofthe issues associated with law <br />enforcement databases queries which inextricably detem1ine the information necessary to <br />process the complaint and indicate the existence of outstanding warrants. Unlike a police <br />department employee, auditor's office staff would not be obligated to act on an outstanding <br />warrant, but could instead encourage community members to responsibly take care of court <br />orders, The following process is recommended. <br /> <br />o Records/warrant checks should not be conducted on a routine basis as part of complaint <br />intake as this can he a deterrent to potential complainants. <br /> <br />o The auditor's office will have the responsibility to screen and conduct a preliminary <br />investigation of complaints for classification purposes. As part of this process, intake <br /> <br />15 <br />