Laserfiche WebLink
THIS WHOLE SECTION NEEDS TO BE DELETED, NOT JUST THE SECOND <br />HALF, BECAUSE THE ORDINANCE CANNOT REMOVE OR LIMIT <br /> AUTHORITY GRANTED BY THE CHARTER. <br />LIKE IT OR NOT, (AND EPD DOES NOT LIKE IT, IT IS PROBABLY THEIR <br />BIGGEST OBJECTION) THE CHARTER DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE <br />BETWEEN CRIMINAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATIONS, IT SAYS <br />"ALL COMPLAINT INVESTIGATIONS" AND ALL "INTERNAL <br />INVESTIGATIONS." THEREFOR TO THE EXTENT A CRIMINAL <br />INVESTIGATION IS ATTACHED TO A COMPLAINT (OR VICE VERSA) AND <br />AS LONG AS THERE ARE NO STATE OR FEDERAL PROHIBITIONS, THE <br />AUDITOR HAS THE SAME DISCRETION TO OVERSEE MONITOR AND <br />PARTICIPATE IN THOSE CRIMINAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE <br />INVESTIGATIONS WITH A NEXUS TO A COMPLAINT. <br />```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` <br />```````````````````````````` <br />PROPOSED REVISION; (3) <br /> Access to Records and Materials. <br />(a)Except to the extent that a specifiedstate or federal law <br />provides to the contrary, or where information resides on a <br />restricted database governed by a contract that does not <br />allow access beyond certain law enforcement employees, <br />(i) the auditor shall have complete and unrestricted access <br />to all complaints, investigative records and information <br />obtained or developed by the internal affairs investigator <br />related to an administrative investigation of a complaint, <br />whether the information exists in electronic format or hard <br />copy including information stored on an internal affairs <br />database, (ii) the auditor shall be provided any other <br />information identified by the auditor that is relevant to a <br />complaint and (iii) the identity of any individual involved in <br />an event giving rise to a complaint shall not be withheld <br />from the auditor. When legally required or requested by <br />the police chief, the auditor shall keep confidential the <br />name of any such individual involved in a complaint and <br />other information leading to the name of the individual. <br />WHAT ARE THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF ALL THESE <br />CAVEATS? WHAT WILL, AND WHAT WON'T, THE AUDITOR HAVE ACCESS <br />TO? <br />DID YOU KNOW PART OF THE REASON MAGANA WAS HARD TO PIN <br />DOWN WHEN HE WAS WITH RDU IS BECAUSE THEY HAD THEIR OWN <br />SECRET "CHANNEL" FOR COMMUNICATING? (I WILL FORWARD THE <br />PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE FROM CIVIL RIGHT'S ATTORNEY MICHELLE <br />BURROWS, IT IS LENGTHY, BUT IT DOES SOME OF WHAT AN <br />ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION SHOULD HAVE DONE, REVEALS THE <br />FLAWS IN THE SYSTEM LEADING TO <br /> <br />