Item B: Police Auditor Ordinance Review Report

Home Browse Search

PROPOSED REVISIONS; (2) Complaint Investigations. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) below, administrative investigations of complaints shall not commence until after the auditor has received, classified and routed the complaint. The investigation shall commence upon classification or as soon as possible after classification. (b) Paragraph (a) shall not preclude preliminary investigations by the auditor’s office, or a police supervisor’s attempt to resolve a service complaint, provided that the supervisor prepares and forwards to the auditor within 24 hours a report identifying the complainant and contact information for the complainant, and explaining the nature of the service complaint and the outcome of the supervisor’s conversation with the complainant. [Amendment #2: “Investigation of complaints shall commence upon classification of the complaint by the Police Auditor or as soon as possible thereafter, and no investigation shall occur before the Police auditor has received, classified, and routed the complaint.”] IN SECTION (b) AFTER "shall not preclude preliminary investigations by the auditor’s office"....... THE REMAINDER OF THAT PARAGRAPH SHOULD BE DELETED. THAT PARAGRAPH ALLOWS THE POLICE SUPERVISOR TO RESOLVE A SERVICE COMPLAINT ; IT CIRCUMVENTS THE AUDITOR'S AUTHORITY TO RECEIVE AND CLASSIFY AND ROUTE THE COMPLAINT. IT IS GIVING EPD THE ABILITY TO RECEIVE AND CLASSIFY A COMPLAINT BOTH FROM THE PUBLIC AND/OR AN INTERNAL COMPLAINT. THAT IS BLATANTLY UNDERMINING THE CHARTER. AND IT WAS ONE OF THE BIGGEST CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO THE PROLIFERATION OF 6 YEARS OF SEXUAL PREDATORY CRIMES HAPPENING UNDER THE NOSES OF OFFICERS BECAUSE THEY CONSISTENTLY DISMISSED COMPLAINTS, OR MISCONSTRUED COMPLAINTS AGAINST MAGANA/LARA. IN ONE CASE THEY CLAIMED IT WAS OK BECAUSE THE VICTIM DID NOT FILE A '"FORMAL" COMPLAINT OR GO THROUGH THE PROPER CHANNELS. PLEASE DON'T DO THIS. EVEN THOUGH EPD WILL NOTIFY THE AUDITOR WITHIN "24 HOURS" THAT THE COMPLAINT WAS RESOLVED, ITHERE IS NO TRANSPARENCY TO INVESTIGATION, AND WITNESSES COULD HAVE ALREADY BEEN COMPROMISED, AND IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE CHARTER.