Laserfiche WebLink
Police Complaint System and Civilian Oversight Recommendations <br />3) Unfounded. <br />:The claim is unsubstantiatedIt wasdetermined by a preponderance of the <br />evidence that the employee(s)involved did not engage in the behavior as alleged by the <br />complainant. <br />2 <br />4) Within Policy <br />: It was determined, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the behavior <br />of the employee(s) involved did occur but was consistent with EPD policies, rules, practices <br />and/or procedures. <br />5) Mediated <br />:During the process of an investigation, it was determined that the case would <br />likely be more successfully resolved through mediation; all parties agreed to mediate the <br />complaint and the mediation process was completed. <br />6) Inactive <br />:The investigation cannot proceed forward without additional information. The <br />investigation may be reactivated upon the discovery of new, substantive information or <br />evidence. <br />7)Administratively Closed: <br /> The investigation is closed prior to reaching a conclusion. For <br />instance, the complainant does not provide the information needed or refuses to cooperate <br />with the investigation. <br />Systemic Review <br />One of the primary strengths of the auditor modelas proposed is to afford additional analytical <br />capacity that is not merely focused on individual complaints but strives towards systemic evaluation <br />of the complaint process and departmental practices in general. In furtherance of this objective, the <br />commission recommends that the auditor: <br />be summoned to the scene of critical incidents to enable first-hand knowledge of high <br />o <br />profile events should a complaint ensue; <br />participate in deadly force review boards (contingent on the result of SB301) <br />o <br />review risk/tort claims and develop risk/liability reduction plans <br />o <br />The City Manager’s contracted annual audit of closed internal affairs investigations would no <br />longer be necessary if the auditor model proposed is implemented. <br />The commission has found through its research that the ability to influence police policy is one <br />of the strongest accountability measures. Whilethis authority may be vested in either the <br />auditor’s office or the review board, experience nationally has indicated that the volume of <br />complaint investigations tends to diminish thecapacity to conduct thorough policy reviews. As <br />such, the Police Commission recommends that it is retained as the department’s policy review <br />body and that the auditor is charged with reporting any policy issues to the commission. <br />The auditor’s office will also develop an annual report of its workload, case handling and <br />investigative recommendations and suggestions for procedural improvements. The report may <br />also evaluate discipline decisions for consistency across personnel and relevant to specific <br />violations. The annual report should highlight any situations where the auditor recommended <br />actions that were not supported by the Chief of Police and how those disagreements were <br />resolved. The annual report should also enable both the review board and City Council to assess <br />the performance of the auditor’s office to ensure that it is functioning as intended. <br />2 <br /> Replaces “Exonerated” <br />19 <br /> <br />