Item A: Police Oversight System - Roles and Expectations

Home Browse Search

Police Complaint System and Civilian Oversight Recommendations Justification for dismissal o -Acknowledging that timeliness of the complaint is important, as memory diminishes over time and witnesses and evidence maybe more difficult to locate/uncover, a timeline for complaint acceptance should be established. A six month timeframe is recommended, as it would be consistent with the retention timefor dispatch tapes and any video recordings taken. The procedures allow, but do not require, the intake entity to dismiss complaints involvingincidents more than six months old. Exceptions to the timeline should be included, such as delays due to advice to first resolve a criminal case, hospitalization, or incarceration. No specific deadline for complaints alleging serious criminal conduct should be in place. -If the complaint is about an employee who does not work for the City, the complaint can be declined as outside the jurisdiction of the auditor’s office and the complainant referred to the appropriate entity; -If upon review of the complaint it is determined that the substance of the complaint is solely to contest the enforcement action taken (not the manner in which it was taken) the complaint may be dismissed and the complainant directed to the appropriate remedy or channel for that grievance, e.g., municipal court to contest traffic citation; Complaints that are closed due to insufficient information should be flagged as such in the o final case disposition. Warrant/Records Checks Some community members have expressed concern that the practice of running a records check on complainants, which not only provides basic incident information but also indicates whether a person has an outstanding warrant, could have a chilling effect on the complaint process and prevent people with old or active criminal histories from coming forward with complaints. Further, it was feared that reviewing a complainant’s record would have a prejudicial impact on the process, i.e., people with more police contacts would not be given as much credibility as others. It should be noted that a records check is a query of the local law enforcement database to show the number and types of police contacts, and includes notification of any outstanding warrants (state and national). This differs from a “background check” which is a more extensive search of a person’s law enforcement record, any resulting court proceedings and sanctions, credit checks, employment history, etc. By moving the preliminary investigation and classification of complaints under the auspices of the auditor’s office, the commission hopes to ameliorate some of the issues associated with law enforcement databases queries which inextricably determine the information necessary to process the complaint and indicate the existence of outstanding warrants. Unlike a police department employee, auditor’s office staff would not be obligated to act on an outstanding warrant, but could instead encourage community members to responsibly take care of court orders. The following process is recommended. Records/warrant checks should not be conducted on a routine basis as part of complaint o intake as this can be a deterrent to potential complainants. The auditor’s office will have the responsibility to screen and conduct a preliminary o investigation of complaints forclassification purposes. As part of this process, intake 15