Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Po!!~.gomplaint Syst~.~..~nd Civilian Ov~~~jght Recom~~E~9ations <br /> <br />be specified by ordinance. The Police Commission recognizes that the auditor's level of <br />involvement in a specific case will depend on the type of allegation. For instance, intemally- <br />generated investigations that involve employee performance issues may not merit the same <br />attention and resources as other cases, but these decisions need to be made on a case-by-case <br />basis. <br /> <br />In the course of monitoring an open investigation, the auditor may sit-in on and participate in <br />investigative interviews involving employees, complainants andior witnesses. A policy statement <br />may be necessary to clarify that employees are required to cooperate fully with the investigative <br />process and the auditor as part ofthat process. <br /> <br />L'1 hisiher review of an investigation, the auditor may require additional investigation by internal <br />affairs staff to ensure that, to the extent feasible, all relevant investigative leads were explored and <br />the facts ofthe case have been fully established. Additionally, if while monitoring a case, the <br />auditor believes that the standards for a high quality investigation are not being met, the auditor can <br />contract with an outside entity to assume the investigation. <br /> <br />Adiudication R~_~Qn!lnendations <br />Once the investigative portion of the complaint review is complete, an case materials win be <br />provided to the auditor. The auditor will make every reasonable effort to contact the complainant to <br />let him/her know that the investigation is complete, summarize the case findings, and determine if <br />the complainant has any additional infomlation to share relevant to the case. One of the objectives <br />of this contact is to promote a better understanding of the process and options available to the <br />complainant, induding possible involvement of the review board once the case is closed. Also, if <br />new infonnation is provided during this contact, the auditor can then direct further investigation. <br /> <br />Ifthe auditor is satistled that the investigation is complete at this point, sihe will meet with the <br />involved employee's supervisor to develop a case adjudication recommendation that will then be <br />fOiWarded up the chain of command to the Chief of Police. Any disat,lteements on the adjudication <br />recommendation between the auditor and the command staff will be documented and forwarded to <br />the Chief. Final adjudication and discipline decisions rest with the Chief of Police. <br /> <br />An associated effort pertaining to case adjudications was to review' the existing disposition terms <br />and determine if other adjudication types and/or names would help complainants better <br />understand the outcome of their complaint. It is irnportant to note that these temlS apply only to <br />complaints that have undergone an investigation; these definitions do not apply to complaint <br />outcomes that, after being classified, are processed without a formal investigation. The revised <br />adjudications being recommended are as follows: <br /> <br />1) Sustained: The complainant's allegation(s) were determined to be a violation ofEPD's <br />policies, rules, and/or procedures and, by a preponderance ofthe evidence, the employee(s) <br />involved committed the violation a,<; alleged. <br />2) Insufficient Evidence1; The chain of command was unable to detemline, by a <br />preponderance of the evidence, whether or not a violation ofEPD's policies, niles, an(Llor <br />procedures occurred. <br /> <br />1 Replaces "Not Sustained" <br /> <br />18 <br />