Item B: Update on Implementation of Measure 20-106

Home Browse Search

M..!:olice Complaint S~t~~~!!l and CiviHal}_.9versight Reco~.~.~ndations _... o Board members would have access to c.ase infomlation that, if purposely or inadvertently released to others, can breach the integrity of the investigation; . o For the board to have a meaningful discussion 011 an open case while protecting confidential information, it would need to meet in executive session, which compromises the transparency ofthe board's deliberations and actions; () Even if conducted in executive session, board members' actions and statements directly and indirectly related to the case can be called into question in an arbitration setting. It will be more difficult for the city to sustain discipline because it will have to prove that the board's involvement (or individual member's actions) did not influence the Chiefs adjudication decision. The commission reconsidered this model in light of these issues and approved a substitute process whereby the review board would have access to closed investigations, but have the authority to re-open the investigation with cause, It was ab'Teed that the alternative proposal mitigated some of the most serious issues i"lithout compromising the impact of the board in these high profile cases. The review board's function in community impact cases is described below. Investigations that meet the pre-determined criteria for a community impact case win be provided to the board upon adjudication ofthe complaint, but prior to a discipline decision if the case is sustained, The board would receive both sustained and un-sustained commtL'1ity impact ca..<;e investigations. As a starting point, community impact cases will include allegations of excessive force, bias/disparate treatment and allegations that involve violation of constitutional rights. A formalized definition will need to be developed as a matter of policy, The board would have full access to all investigative materials related to these cases, in a non- public setting, in preparation for discussion of the case in a public meeting}. TIle board will then convene to discuss the quality ofthe investigation and the outcome of the case with the auditor/lead investigator, and based on its discussions, could: Concur with the adjudication; ancl!or Develop findings regarding possible improvements about the investigative process, complaint handling practices, and/or other police procedures relevant to that case; and/or Find that there were deficiencies in the investigation that impacted the outcome of the case, or that the adjudication was not supported by the facts in the case, and vote to re-open the case to examine those areas. Unless the board votes to re-open the investigation, if the complaint was sustained, the case would proceed to the discipline pha..<;e. If the board requires further investigation, the auditor 'Nould report back to the board on the outcome of any additional investigation and \vhether the adjudication was rnodified. The board \vould have access to that portion ofthe investigation after it was completed and can develop a final set of findings on the entire case at that point The complainant would not be able to request any further review of "community impact" cases, However, complainants will still be able to request the board to conduct a prospective review of J Cases where the complaint is sustained could not be reviewed Ul a public meeting under the current EPEA contractual agreement 21