HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem A: Tri-Annual Report to CC from Police Auditor
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Work Session: Tri-Annual Report to City Council from Police Auditor
Meeting Date: May 14, 2012 Agenda Item Number: A
Department: Office of the Police Auditor Staff Contact: Mark Gissiner
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541-682-5005
ISSUE STATEMENT
The Police Auditor is appearing before the City Council to discuss the activities of the Police Auditor’s
Office.
BACKGROUND
The Eugene City Council is the hiring authority for the Police Auditor. On an annual basis the Police
Auditor provides and discusses the Police Auditor’s Office annual report.
RELATED CITY POLICIES
Eugene Charter and Police Auditor Ordinances.
COUNCIL OPTIONS
The council may offer comments and ask questions related to this topic.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Not applicable.
ATTACHMENTS
A.Office of the Police Auditor – 2011 Annual Report
B.Eugene Civilian Review Board – 2011 Annual Report
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Mark Gissiner
Telephone: 541-682-5005
Staff E-Mail: mark.a.gissiner@ci.eugene.or.us
ʹͲͳͳ
Mark Gissiner, Police Auditor
6/29/2012
EUGENE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILORS
MAYOR: KITTY PIERCY
Ward One: George Brown Ward Five: Mike Clark
Council President
Ward Two: Betty L. Taylor Ward Six: Pat Farr
Council Vice President
Ward Three: Alan Zelenka Ward Seven: Andrea Ortiz
Ward Four: George Poling Ward Eight: Chris Pryor
City Manager: Jon Ruiz
June 29, 2012
Honorable Mayor Kitty Piercy
Council President George Brown
Council Vice-President Pat Farr
City Councilors
I am honored to present the fifth Annual Report of the Office of the Independent Police Auditor (OPA).
This report covers the period from January 1, 2011 December 31, 2011. This report highlights our
accomplishments and challenges during the fifth year of operation.
2011 was marked by stabilization of OPA staffing and Civilian Review Board (CRB) membership. With
minimal impact caused by personnel changes, both entities were able to focus on the work that needs
to be accomplished to meet Council and community goals.
This report includes analysis of complaints and trends, decisions on classifications of complaints, policy
and adjudication recommendations, the work of the CRB, community work, and discussion of major
cases. Statistical profiles of complaints, allegations and findings are provided with commentary.
Beyond complaint resolution, we work with the Police Commission and EPD to promote policy
improvements, emphasize training and skills necessary to enter into the daily encounters that occur
with the EPD. The OPA and the CRB meet and work with external groups to learn about their interests
and the services they provide.
I wish to thank the Mayor and City Council for their support in actively and vigorously participating in the
oversight process. Also, we wish to and other support staff for all of
functions they provide, including, but not limited to, finance, budget, information
technology and human resources. Without them, we would have a more difficult time providing
customer service to our community.
Staff work from Deputy Auditor Leia Pitcher and Senior Administrative Specialist Vicki Cox has been
nothing short of exemplary. Finally, I offer my congratulations to the members of the CRB, chaired by
Tim Laue, for their hard work on difficult issues and their tireless volunteer efforts to assist us with this
process. They take valuable time from their personal and professional lives to give back to the
community under circumstances that at times can be stressful and controversial.
We welcome your comments and suggestions regarding how we can improve this report.
Respectfully submitted,
Mark Gissiner
Police Auditor
i
Our Mission
To provide an accessible, safe, impartial and responsive intake system for complaints against Eugene
Police Department employees and to ensure accountability, fairness, transparency and trust in the
complaint system.
Our Purpose
The Police Auditor has three broad mandates: 1) to receive and classify complaints of police misconduct;
2) to audit the investigations based on these complaints; and 3) to analyze trends and recommend
improvements to police services in this city. In addition, the Police Auditor supports a Civilian Review
Board which provides valuable input about the fairness and diligence of the investigation process.
Ultimately, the goal of the Civilian Review Board is to make the system of police accountability more
transparent and increase public confidence in the manner that police conduct their work.
Contact Information
Mark Gissiner, Police Auditor; Leia Pitcher, Esq., Deputy Police Auditor, and Vicki Cox, Senior
Administrative Specialist
Office of the Independent Police Auditor
City of Eugene
800 Olive Street
Eugene, OR 97401
Phone: 541-682-5016
Fax: 541-682-5599
Email: policeauditor@ci.eugene.or.us
Website: http://www.eugene-or.gov or http://www.ci.eugene.or.us
Staff
Mark Gissiner, Police Auditor- started as Eugene Police Auditor in June 2009. He brings approximately
25 years of experience and consulting in the field of external oversight of law enforcement.
Mr. Gissiner worked 21 years for the City of Cincinnati. He previously worked for Cincinnati, Ohio as
Assistant Commissioner of Health from 2004-2007; responsible for business operations of the $40
million a year organization. In his career with Cincinnati
Office as Director and Investigator of the Office of Municipal Investigation (OMI) and worked in the
Department of Human Resources. He helped develop Collaborative Agreement and the
Memorandum of Understanding with the United States Department of Justice. Mr. Gissiner was the
first two- term President of the International Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement
human rights have been published in 13 languages. He consulted for the United States Justice
Department and governments including South Africa, Brazil, Northern Ireland, Portugal, Hungary,
th
Australia, China, Hong Kong and Spain. He was a keynote speaker at the 50 Anniversary of the
European Declaration of Human Rights in Evora, Portugal.
Leia Pitcher, Deputy Auditor Leia Pitcher began working as the Deputy Police Auditor in November
2010. She came to Eugene in 2003 for law school, and after obtaining her J.D., she clerked at Division
ii
Two of the Washington Court of Appeals for two years before returning to Eugene to work in private
practice. She also serves as Advisory Board Chair for the Community Health Centers of Lane County, is a
volunteers at Greenhill Humane Society.
Vicki Cox, Administrative Assistant Ms. Cox has worked for the City of Eugene for 6 years, beginning in
4 years as Administrative Assistant to the Police
Audit
functions, coordinates information flow to the civilian review board and the public, maintains files, data
entry and is the first point of contact for complainants or others in need of services, including services
iii
Table of Contents
Section Page
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 1
Duties and Responsibilities of the Police Auditor ..................................................................... 5
Complaint Process ................................................................................................................... 6
Budget .................................................................................................................................... 8
Audited Cases .......................................................................................................................... 8
Related Data ........................................................................................................................... 9
2011 Complaints Statistics and Review .................................................................................... 10
Allegations .............................................................................................................................. 12
Service Complaints and Surveys ............................................................................................... 20
Policy Complaints and Inquiries ............................................................................................... 24
Vehicle Related Incidents ........................................................................................................ 26
Commendations ...................................................................................................................... 27
Community Impact Cases ........................................................................................................ 27
Critical Incidents ...................................................................................................................... 28
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 28
Appendix A: Allegations Issues Identified
Appendix B: 2011 Allegations of Misconduct and Criminal Conduct
Appendix C: Service Complaints Issues Identified
Appendix D: 2011 Service Complaints Master Sheet
iv
Executive Summary
This is the Office of the , covering
January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011.
The Office of the Independent Police Auditor (OPA) was established by charter amendment in 2005 to
provide an external mechanism for the independent receipt, classification, and routing of complaints
against sworn and non-sworn employees of the Eugene Police Department (EPD); contract for outside
investigations when necessary; and provide monitoring of the EPD internal investigations of allegations
authorized the auditor to: make recommendations regarding adjudications, policies and training to the
Police Chief; prepare reports concerning complaint trends and police practices; and act as a liaison and
staff support for a civilian review board. The Police Auditor is hired and supervised by the Eugene City
Council.
Since the original charter amendment, enabling ordinances were crafted and a second charter
amendment was added which provided that Council was required to hire a Police Auditor, staff a civilian
voters could approve substantive changes to the authority and duties of the Police Auditor and CRB.
Eugene has an oversight system based on the parliamentary model of oversight, in which a professional
and experienced police oversight auditor is employed by the legislative branch, the City Council. Under
process. To enhance the system, Council appoints a civilian review board which gives a community
perspective on the police complaints process. This combination creates a sound structure for police
accountability when implemented effectively, fairly and without bias.
We intake all complaints against police employees, including complaints generated internally. We
independently, impartially and thoroughly monitor the investigation process; identify ways to improve
the complaint process; provide recommendations to the police chief and police commission on policies,
training and trends; and provide staffing and counsel to the civilian review board on cases and policy
issues. Our office monitors the overall integrity and fairness of the administrative investigative process,
and in the course of such examination, reviews how citizen complaints are investigated and resolved.
2011 represented the fourth full year of the office taking complaints, initiating complaints, reviewing
investigations and providing policy recommendations. The Civilian Review Board membership has
stabilized and they provide a thoughtful, frank and representative mix of community members
dedicated to improving policing in the community and gaining community trust.
We continue to strive to bring about a sense of understanding, consistency and normalcy to the process.
We recognize that customer service and resolution of citizen complaints through thorough, fair and
complete investigation and monitoring of allegations; and resolution of service and policy level
complaints are the cornerstones of our existence. The customer service aspect of our responsibilities
consumes a significant portion of our workload. We spend hours working with complainants to navigate
and understand the complaint process; and assist them in understanding the roles of the courts, their
rve as listeners for people with
problems that have nothing to do with the police. At the same time, identifying and advocating for
structural changes in EPD policies, supervision and police interactions has been a priority for us.
1
This year our complaints rose approximately 10%. Our classifications of complaints as allegations rose
approximately 50%. Allegations are those cases which are investigated by the Internal Affairs Section of
EPD and usually require far more comprehensive investigations and time. The balance of cases, called
service complaints, policy complaints and inquiries, are handled through an alternate dispute resolution
process (ADR); most often with supervisors discussing these issues with the complainants and officers.
Through ADR, the satisfaction rate is approximately 62% based on returned surveys.
civilian oversight of police, this is a good resolution measure.
Intake Processes and Accomplishments: Intake consumes a significant amount of staff time. Returned
survey data indicates a high satisfaction level with the intake and explanations received from the
I believe this is indicative of the oversight process, at least to some degree, bringing EPD supervisory
expectations to a higher level. It seems, more so than ever, that a larger portion of our intake time is
spent with individuals suffering temporary or permanent diminished mental and/or social capacity. As
with other City agencies, we become an outlet for these individuals. Also, I think more so than in the
past, people who receive traffic citations and appear or are scheduled for municipal court believe that
violation. Even with explanation, often times the expectation remains that our role is considered court
advocate, rather than a neutral evaluator of police conduct within the context of police policies and
procedures.
While I believe that our classifications are fair and neutral, some concerns are expressed about the
classification of some cases. I will admit that we do hold officers to high standards and probably identify
cases as allegations where in many jurisdictions they may not reach the level of an allegation (such as
use of pepper spray, which is considered a rather benign use of force in most policing jurisdictions).
However, I believe that these classification standards are in line with community expectations and
efforts to build trust in the community. We recognize and appreciate the impact of our decisions on
complainants and their families, community, officers, their families and the other interested parties. We
make these decisions with careful consideration based on our experience, training and policy
evaluations, and most importantly, recognition that our decisions are not always going to please others.
Intake accomplishments include: fast turnover rate/referral for ADR or investigations; patient and
compassionate concern for individuals who are experiencing mental illness and social interaction
difficulties; comprehensive explanations of our role and the roles of other agencies.
Investigations: Despite some turnover in Internal Affairs, I believe that the quality of investigations have
helpful but not burdensome oversight of the investigations. The annual report by the CRB discusses the
thoroughness of the IA investigations. In addition, by having a timeliness measure, we believe that the
average of less than 90 days from intake to adjudication is an exceptional number based on my
knowledge and experience in civilian oversight. Nimbleness and timeliness are extraordinarily
important for successful civilian oversight. Our ability to turn these cases over quickly, to respond to
critical incidents and move them forward rapidly and calmly and report back to the community are
important factors in building community trust.
2
I remain troubled by the process for critical incidents, and in particular, officer involved shootings. The
processes for these investigations remain under the auspices of state law and the county IDFIT team.
The IDFIT investigative function is led by a member of the Oregon State Patrol (OSP). I am not a member
of the IDFIT team. Once they complete their investigation, they present their findings to the District
Attorney. Eventually, the process moves into an administrative process with an EPD use of force review
panel, in which I am a non-voting member. In these most critical incidents, for quite some time the
investigation are controlled by the OSP team leader. Having significant experience in investigating
critical incidents and with a keen sense of recognition that these are incidents that are most likely to test
the level of community trust, I remain concerned that our extended detachment from a controversial
major incident will negatively impact community trust.
Performance and Policy Impact: I believe our presence and communication of clear expectations has
been helpful in deterring willful and malicious misconduct. I feel the same about use of force. While the
Taser issue remains a major point of emphasis in the community, the fact is that the Taser use rate is
very low when compared to national statistics. For our 2011 annual report, we reviewed each use of
force complaint and investigation to gain a better understanding and look for any patterns or
opportunities for performance improvements.
With regard to other uses of force, in over 99% of police calls for service where an officer responds, no
physical control report is generated. I would hope that our presence, knowledge, and efforts have some
impact on this number.
Approximately 31% of cases resulted in sustained allegations, with an overall sustained rate of 27% for
all specific allegations, resulting in some form of discipline. I believe this matches up favorably or better
with like oversight organizations. While statistics are normally difficult to compare, the 2010 sustained
rate for Boise was 10%, Cincinnati 10% and Berkeley 13%. I believe that we play a significant role in
ensuring that when complaints and or officer conduct generates an allegation requiring an Internal
Affairs investigation, the complaints are investigated completely and the adjudication recommendations
are consistent with a reasonable analysis of the facts.
Another area that remains important in 2011 was vehicle pursuits. Several police pursuits in 2011 and
2012 resulted in sustained allegations and discipline.
We (Auditor and CRB) have successfully advocated for policy improvements in search and seizure,
canine use, vehicle pursuits and response to unusual behavior by arrested subjects. We are in the
process of asking for policy reviews generally on the handling of arrested subjects at jail intake including
but not limited to medical evaluations and bathroom needs.
Communications: We work to foster positive and constructive relationships and partnerships with
Council. This occurs through monthly meetings with the Mayor, Council President and Council Vice-
President, respectively; in addition to written and oral reports to Council. In late 2011 we established
our weekly newsletter. I believe that we are the only civilian oversight agency with nearly 400 annual
complaints to have a weekly newsletter. While we cannot name names, we provide a significant
amount of information each week about cases, topics and decisions. Anyone interested in receiving
them may do so. Deputy Auditor Leia Pitcher, Senior Administrative Specialist Vicki Cox and I have spent
3
innovation of pushing information out to interested people instead of waiting for them to chase links
can only enhance the transparency and understanding of the city government.
We made a significant effort to reach out to neighborhood associations but the response has not been
overwhelming on their agendas to present. CRB members have also offered to expand their availability
to the neighborhood associations. We met with the editorial board of the Register Guard and appear on
radio and television.
Other Accomplishments: returned budgeted funds to the general fund; initiated several investigations
of allegations of misconduct; provide staff support and training initiatives to the CRB; provide timely
service to the CRB; spend many hours assisting community members with problems unrelated to police
officers; attend public meetings in the community; available to the media; build a better partnership
with the University of Oregon by serving on a committee related to their effort to establish a police
department; publish a thorough and transparent annual report that captures the work and analysis of
our office; and providing critical training opportunities for the office.
Some of the goals we established for ourselves last year included:
More use of mediation as a complaint resolution process. I suppose just from human nature, it
is difficult for individuals to sit across from each other to discuss a less than pleasant encounter.
We continue to work on this and I am pleased that in one very difficult case, all parties agreed to
sit down and discuss the issues. I am also pleased that the ADR process through policy and
service complaints receives good responses from complainants; however, it is an area where I
hope we can continue to expand.
Continue to develop strategies for educating the community about the responsibilities of the
OPA, OPA operations and EPD practices. Our newsletter has had a significant impact and we are
well.
Work with EPD to improve our monitoring and investigation planning methodology and
developing and implementing a framework for investigations performance measurement and
perfecting the data collection systems. EPD is purchasing a new data tracking system for all
areas that I know will improve the gathering of information for service improvement.
Benchmarking investigative outcomes with like organizations. I am constantly reviewing
standards for others to emulate.
Enhance training for CRB members. The CRB has spent considerable time training in many areas
of the community, not just police specific. I appreciate their time and personal sacrifices for
valuable service to the community.
Communicate outcomes more effectively. We embarked on a major effort to improve the
quality and quantity of information complainants receive at the conclusion of their complaints
and most specifically the ones that are classified as allegations. It is not unusual for us to write
letters that are several pages in length describing specifically all aspects of the process, how the
decisions were made and why the decisions were made. Right along with the newsletter, one of
our most effective accomplishments for the year.
Advocating for the CRB to review diff
calls) cases.
4
Duties and Responsibilities of the Office of the Police Auditor Per Ordinance 2.454
Listed are the duties and responsibilities of the office and where we are in terms of implementation:
1) The police auditor is the administrative head of the auditor's office and shall:
(a) Oversee the operations of the auditor's office, establish program priorities and objectives,
and manage the implementation and evaluation of work programs: Ongoing.
(b) Develop and maintain operating procedures for the auditor's office, including protocols for
handling complaints and monitoring investigations: Established.
(c) Establish standards of professional conduct and provide necessary training for staff in the
auditor's office: Implemented and ongoing.
(d) Act as liaison and provide staff support to the civilian review board: Implemented and
ongoing.
In collaboration with the civilian review board, the police auditor shall:
1. Establish and maintain policies, procedures and operating principles for the civilian review board's
functions: Completed.
2. Conduct education and outreach activities to inform the community about the process for filing
complaints and commendations about police employees, and develop and disseminate information and
forms regarding the police complaint handling and review system: Implemented and ongoing.
(e) Receive and process complaints concerning police employees, monitor the complaint
investigation and review process and review a selection of service complaints: Implemented
and ongoing.
(f) Perform a quality assurance function with the goal of identifying systemic changes that will
improve police services to the community. These activities include:
1. Analyzing complaint trends and recommending changes to police policy, practices and
training; Implemented and ongoing.
2. Reviewing risk and tort claims and developing recommendations to reduce risk and
liability; Implemented and ongoing.
3. Reviewing and reporting trends in completed police employee disciplinary decisions.
Implemented and ongoing.
(g) Provide status reports to the civilian review board and city council and provide
recommendations relevant to police policies and practices to the police commission.
Implemented and ongoing.
(h) Develop and present to the civilian review board and city council annual public reports
describing the activities of the auditor's office, its findings and recommendations, the police
department's response to its recommendations, and any other information pertinent to
assessing the performance of the auditor's office. Implemented.
(i) Provide the city council with any other reports deemed necessary or requested by the city
council. All public reports shall strive to protect the privacy of all individuals and shall not
5
contain the names of parties to a complaint (employees, complainants and/or witnesses) not
previously disclosed. Implemented.
j) Determine whether applicants for the civilian review board meet the requisite qualifications in
section 2.242(1)(a)1. And 2.242(1)(d). Completed.
3. The police auditor shall receive timely notification of critical incidents to enable him/her, or a
qualified designee, to report to the scene of critical incidents. The police auditor and chief of police shall
develop necessary protocols for summoning the police auditor to the incident for purposes of first-hand
observation. Completed.
4. The police auditor shall participate in use of force review boards. Ongoing.
5. All case adjudication and employee discipline decisions shall be made by the chief of police. The police
auditor may develop adjudication recommendations, but is not authorized to recommend the level of
discipline for police employees. Implemented and Ongoing.
Complaint Process
Within an administrative complaint process, what remains problematic, and is often a major concern for
a complainant, is a complaint that they are not guilty of an offense, that the facts as stated by the officer
are not accurate, that others allegedly committing the same offenses are not arrested or charged, and
that the time and expense to defend oneself is onerous. Within the criminal justice system of the U.S., a
heavy burden remains with the courts, prosecutors and defense attorneys to ensure that justice is
served when someone is charged with an offense. Any failures in these systems places additional
burdens on individuals and agencies like citizen complaint avenues. The diagram on the next page
captures the flow of complaints, whether generated by the community (external complaints) or
generated internally from the police department. It does not include community impact cases. As the
diagram/flow chart illustrates, complaints are handled thoroughly and completely. Many variables exist
Amendments, union contracts and labor/management negotiated protocols all factor into the path of a
particular complaint.
This diagram, revised since last year to show the additional disciplinary steps is an excellent illustration
of the volume of work and number of decisions that are made throughout the complaint process. It is
indicative of the need to have experienced professionals with knowledge of administrative, and at times,
criminal processes. One of the most difficult aspects of the process is the classification of the complaint.
and never made hastily. The Auditor must evaluate information at hand which rarely if ever provides all
of the facts at the intake and classification stages. Sometimes, a classification may change one or more
times as additional facts are received.
It is important to note that, as the hiring authority (as delegated by the City Manager), the police chief is
the person who makes the
discipline trends. The chart below indicates that we take the complaint process seriously and invest a
significant amount of time trying to resolve the issues presented to us by the community members
through the complaint process.
6
7
Budget (FY2010-2011: July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012)
We project to return approximately $20,000 of our total budget to the City as cost savings for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 2012. Our total budget appropriation is approximately $416,000. Cost savings are
being realized due to not having a need to use personnel savings.
This also allowed us to provide much needed training opportunities for staff and CRB members. My
expectation for FY2011-2012 is that with a full staff complement, our budget will require cuts in training
and other non-personnel costs.
Audited Cases
The OPA audits all complaint investigations, including service complaints (even though not required by
from
the complainant or referred by another agency including the police. The OPA classifies each complaint.
Allegations of misconduct are investigated by Internal Affairs. The Internal Affairs investigations are
closely monitored by the OPA including attendance and participation in interviews, reviews of in-car
video and other evidence, and weekly progress reports with senior management. The Auditor then
command, and provides an adjudication recommendation to the Police Chief.
Other complaints are classified as policy complaints, service complaints and inquiries. Most of these
cases involve substantial work and effort in an attempt to resolve or explain issues that the complainant
may have. Inquiries typically occur when the complainant information is incomplete and EPD must
conduct additional research for our review before the complaint is classified. This may involve EPD staff
time to convert digital ICV information to CDs for review, compilation of police reports and any other
pertinent information. In each case, while not at the investigative level of most allegations, a substantial
amount of staff time is spent on research, outreach to complainants and involved officers, and after
explanation, follow up surveys.
After complaint intake and classification, those complaints classified as service complaints are
eport moves
up through the chain of command. A copy of the report is sent to the OPA for review and determination
of completeness and thoroughness.
Policy complaints are allegations which identify an involved officer but the officer was likely following
established EPD operational procedures and/or training. An example of a policy complaint is the use of
SWAT for a barricaded person. Once the Auditor has classified a complaint as a policy complaint, a
sergeant from internal affairs is assigned to identify the policy involved, whether the policy was applied
appropriately, and whether the policy could be revised. Usually, the sergeant will also contact the
complainant to explain the policy. Again, the report of the supervisor moves up the chain of command.
8
A copy of the report is sent to the OPA for review and determination of completeness and
thoroughness.
Complaints may also be informally resolved through mediation. It is a voluntary opportunity for officers
to enhance their customer service skills and for members of the public to develop understanding of
police procedures and operations. If during intake, a complaint seems appropriate for mediation, the
OPA asks the complainant if they are interested in mediation and explains the program. If the
complainant is interested, a note is made in the database and the involved officer is contacted.
Mediation requires the approval and consent of the auditor, the police chief, the involved officer and
the complainant.
The OPA has had a significant impact on the course and outcomes of investigations. An external
assessment of these processes broadens the understandings police have with regard to citizen
complaints and the important issues that arise from these complaints.
Related Data*
*(At times complaint numbers may not match up exactly, particularly in cases where the date of the incident occurred in a year
prior to the deposition: i.e.: complaint filed in December but adjudicated in February.)
ϮϬϭϭƚŽƚĂůƉŽůŝĐĞĐĂůůƐĨŽƌƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ;ǁŚĞƌĞƉŽůŝĐĞƌĞƐƉŽŶĚĞĚŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐŽĨĨŝĐĞƌŝŶŝƚŝĂƚĞĚͿ͗104,660 (up
approximately 7% from 2010); (2009: 98,796; 2010: 97,277)
ϮϬϭϬƚŽƚĂůĐƵƐƚŽĚLJĂƌƌĞƐƚƐĂŶĚŵŝƐĚĞŵĞĂŶŽƌĐŝƚĂƚŝŽŶƐŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐh//ĂƌƌĞƐƚƐ;ϱϵϲh//ĂƌƌĞƐƚƐͿ͗ 15,471
(2009: 16,358; 2010: 14,626)
ϮϬϭϬĐƵƐƚŽĚLJĂƌƌĞƐƚƐĂŶĚŵŝƐĚĞŵĞĂŶŽƌĐŝƚĂƚŝŽŶƐŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐh//ĂƌƌĞƐƚƐƉĞƌĐĂƉŝƚĂĂƌƌĞƐƚƐ;ďĂƐĞĚŽŶ
ĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶŽĨϭϱϬ͕ϬϬϬͿƌĂƚĞ: 0.099
ϮϬϭϭdĂƐĞƌĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞƐ͗20; 43 incidents where a Taser warning was given but not discharged
ϮϬϭϬdĂƐĞƌĚŝƐĐŚĂƌŐĞƐ: 20 (2009: 24)
dŽƚĂůhŶŝĨŽƌŵĞĚdƌĂĨĨŝĐŝƚĂƚŝŽŶƐ͗
2011: 13,133
2010: 16,760
2009: 18,299
2008: 15,282
9
2011 Complaint Statistics and Review
an increase of 10.7% from 2010 (when we
received only 326 complaints). As in previous years, the majority of the complaints (184) were classified
as service complaints.
Classification # of Complaints
Allegation of Criminal Conduct 8
Allegation of Misconduct 62
Inquiries 54
Policy Complaint 53
Service Complaint 184
2011 Total Complaints
15% Policy
Complaints (53)
15% Inquiries
(54)
17% Allegations
of Misconduct
(62)
51 % Service
Complaints (184)
2% Allegations of
Criminal Conduct
(8)
10
Complaints by Classification, 2008-2011
250
214
208
201
184
200
2008
150
2009
100
2010
62 62
50
54
53
2011
40
36
34
32
50
22
20
15
8
3
2
1
0
Allegation ofAllegation ofInquiryPolicyService
CriminalMisconductComplaintComplaint
Conduct
2011 Total Complaints
15% Policy
Complaints (53)
15% Inquiries
(54)
17% Allegations
of Misconduct
(62)
51 % Service
Complaints (184)
2% Allegations of
Criminal Conduct
(8)
11
Complaints by Classification, 2008-2011
250
214
208
201
184
200
2008
150
2009
100
2010
62 62
50
54
53
2011
40
36
34
32
50
22
20
15
8
3
2
1
0
Allegation ofAllegation ofInquiryPolicyService
CriminalMisconductComplaintComplaint
Conduct
There did not appear to be a monthly trend with our complaints during 2011. On average,
complaints per month in 2010).
2011 Complaints by Month
50
Service
45
Complaint
40
Policy Complaint
35
29
Inquiry
30
9
23 9
25
17
11
24
Allegation of
14
9
16
20
12
Misconduct
8
7
4
3
15
Allegation of
2
11
6
4
5
4 4
Criminal Conduct
1
4
7
10
9
8
9
2 4
1
2 2 6
7
8
3 7
5
6 2
5 6
4 6
3
4
3
3
2
1 1 1 1 1
1
0
JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
12
2011 Complaints by Month
50
Service
45
Complaint
40
Policy Complaint
35
29
Inquiry
30
9
23 9
25
17
11
24
Allegation of
14
9
16
20
12
Misconduct
8
7
4
3
15
Allegation of
2
11
6
4
5
4 4
Criminal Conduct
1
4
7
10
9
8
9
2 4
1
2 2 6
7
8
3 7
5
6 2
5 6
4 6
3
4
3
3
2
1 1 1 1 1
1
0
JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
For comparison, in 2010, we noticed a slight increase in complaints during the spring and
summer months.
Complaints Month-by-Month 2010-2011
50
40
30
20
2011 Total
Complaints
10
0
2010 Total
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Complaints
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
13
Complaints Month-by-Month 2010-2011
50
40
30
20
2011 Total
Complaints
10
0
2010 Total
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Complaints
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Allegations
A complaint is classified as an allegation if it alleges serious misconduct. There are two main categories
of allegations: allegations of criminal conduct (where the actions alleged, if found to be true, would
constitute criminal conduct by an employee) or allegations of misconduct (where the actions alleged
constitute a major rules violation, including excessive force that causes physical injury or egregious acts
s that were classified as
allegations of criminal conduct.
Criminal Conduct
Of the criminal conduct allegations, one was sustained a DUII conviction of an officer while he was in
from discussing the discipline of
that officer. In addition, as of May 2012, one criminal conduct allegation is pending outcome of an
Oregon State Police investigation.
from the investigative process.
Four criminal conduct allegations were adjudicated as unfounded following criminal and administrative
investigations (1 sub-classified as conduct, 2 conformance to laws, and 1 use of force). In the first, a
woman reported she was sexually assaulted by Eugene Police Officers. The investigation was turned
over to the Oregon State Police. During the investigation, the reporting party recanted. The
investigation uncovered no physical evidence to support the allegation. The completed criminal
which determined that there
was no evidence to support any assault charge against any Eugene Police employees. The criminal
investigation was adopted for purposes of the administrative investigation and reviewed by our office;
we found the investigation to be thorough, fair, and complete. Because no evidence supported the
14
complaint as unfounded.
reviewed a booking, and it appeared that an officer used excessive force against a man he brought to
the jail. A criminal investigation was performed by EPD and reviewed by the Lane County District
crime. An administrative investigation followed to determine whether the officer had violated policy
during the contact. The investigation showed that the officer had not engaged in the actions alleged; no
evidence supported the claim that he had violated law or policy during the contact. Our office found the
investigation to be thorough, fair, and complete, and we agreed with the EPD chain of command that
the allegations should be adjudicated as unfounded. The Chief agreed as well, and the Civilian Review
Board reviewed the case in January 2012. The CRB agreed that the administrative investigation was well
done and with the adjudication as unfounded.
A third criminal conduct allegation arose following the detention of a man on suspicion of stealing a car.
prior to the
detention was no longer there; he suspected that officers had taken the money. A criminal investigation
criminal charges against any of the involved officers. The criminal investigation was adopted for the
internal affairs process; our office found the investigation to be thorough, fair, and complete. The
align with the in-car
video (ICV) recording; the reporting party was also inconsistent about the amount of money stolen and
its composition, stating at different times that it was $100, $200, or $400 that had been stolen (made up
of either $100 bills or $20 bills). Given the inconsistencies, our office agreed with the EPD chain of
command that the allegation should be adjudicated as unfounded.
A fourth criminal conduct allegation arose following the transport of a reporting party to Buckley House.
The reporting party stated that he was wearing a ring at the time, and that he believed the officers stole
file charges due to insufficient evidence. The investigation showed that other property of the reporting
party that he had claimed was stolen was eventually found at the bar where he had been drinking, and
that there was a significant amount of time between the last time the reporting party recalled wearing
the ring and when he arrived at Buckley House without the ring, during which the reporting party could
not account for his whereabouts or the people he may have come into contact with. The complainant
also admitted that he had consumed a large quantity of alcohol. No evidence supported the allegation
that the officers involved took or removed property from the reporting party. The investigation was
adopted for purposes of the internal investigation, which our office found to be thorough, fair, and
complete. We agreed with the EPD chain of command that the allegation should be adjudicated as
unfounded.
15
In addition, two criminal conduct allegations were dismissed both for timeliness. In one case, the
complaint was dismissed after an initial investigation revealed that the crime alleged was a
misdemeanor for which the statute of limitations had long since expired. In the other, a reporting party
reiterated a complaint, initially reported in 2007; that she was assaulted during an arrest in the early
1990s. The complaint was investigated by EPD in 2007, and no evidence was found to support the
allegation. When we received the reiterated complaint in 2011, we forwarded it to the Oregon State
Police for investigation. The OSP criminal investigation wa
They determined that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the officer did anything other than a
permissible search; in addition, the statute of limitations had expired. Following the criminal
investigat
Misconduct
I
use of force, conduct, or performance. Allegations of misconduct
investigations. The 62 complaints included 134 total allegations of misconduct by EPD employees.
19 of the 62 complaints were sustained, about 30.6% of the complaints. In addition, two complaints
were still pending at the time of this writing, and three complaints were administratively closed
(because the involved employee no longer was employed by EPD).
2011 Allegation Cases by Classification*
Criminal Conduct Misconduct
25
22
20
15 15
15
8
10
6
5
1 1 1 1
0
16
2011 Allegation Cases by Classification and Source*
Criminal Conduct Misconduct
25
20
15
15 1
9
Internally
10
Reported
14
5
Externally
8
7
6 6
Reported
1 1 1 1
0
2011 Allegation Cases by Classification with Disposition*
Misconduct
Criminal Conduct
25
2
20
1
Administratively
5 Closed
1
1
15Pending
1
4
3
Within Policy
7
10
1
2
Dismissed
3
1
5
5
9
Unfounded
2 8
4
1
2
1
1
1 Insuff. Evidence
1 1 1
1
0
Sustained
17
2011 Allegation Cases by Classification*
Criminal Conduct Misconduct
25
22
20
15 15
15
8
10
6
5
1 1 1 1
0
2011 Allegation Cases by Classification and Source*
Criminal Conduct Misconduct
25
20
15
15 1
9
Internally
10
Reported
14
5
Externally
8
7
6 6
Reported
1 1 1 1
0
18
2011 Allegation Cases by Classification with Disposition*
Misconduct
Criminal Conduct
25
2
20
1
Administratively
5
Closed
1
1
Pending
15
1
4
3
Within Policy
7
10
1
2
Dismissed
3
1
55
9
Unfounded
2 8
4
1
2
1
1
Insuff. Evidence
1
1 1 1
1
0
Sustained
* In the three graphs above, only the primary allegation is indicated.
The following table and graph illustrate in further detail the types of allegations and their outcomes for
2011 (instead of only addressing the primary allegation). When a complaint is entered into the IA
database, the program keeps statistics based on the primary of what may be several allegations against
several officers.
19
Table 1. 2011 Allegations**
# of Administratively Insufficient Within
Pending Dismissed Unfounded Sustained
Allegations Closed Evidence Policy
Abuse of Position 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Associations 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
Automated Records
System5 0 0 1 0 0 0 4
City
Equipment/Property 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Confidentiality of
Information 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 2
Constitutional
Rights/Arrest 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Constitutional
Rights/Discrimination 7 0 0 0 7 0 0 0
Constitutional
Rights/Interrogation 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
Constitutional
Rights/Search &
Seizure 13 0 5 0 0 0 8 0
Courtesy 4 0 0 0 3 0 0 1
Illness/Injury Reports 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Insubordination 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
Judgment 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 7
Mobile Data
Computers 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Neglect of Duty 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
News Media 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Property/Evidence
Handling 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Respectful Work
Environment 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Sick Leave 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Sleeping on Duty 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Truthfulness 3 0 0 2 1 0 0 0
Unbecoming
Conduct 10 1 5 1 1 1 0 1
Unsatisfactory
Performance 14 0 1 0 4 0 2 7
Use of Department
Resources 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Use of Force 36 0 0 0 25 0 11 0
Use of Taser 6 1 1 0 2 0 2 0
Vehicle Pursuit 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 3
TOTAL 136 3 15 6 52 1 23 36
20
The highest number of specific sustained allegations were for violations of the policies for judgment and
performance (7 each). There were also three sustained violations of the vehicle pursuit policy, three
sustained allegations of sleeping on duty, and four violations of the automated records system policy.
Specific Sustained Allegations
Abuse of Position,
1
Use of Department
Resources, 1
Vehicle Pursuit, 3
Automated
City Equipment/
Records System, 5
Property, 1
Unsatisfactory
Performance, 7
Confidentiality of
Information, 3
Courtesy, 1
Sleeping on Duty, 3
Unbecoming
Judgment, 7
Illness/Injury
Conduct, 1
Reports, 1
Respectful Work
Environment, 2
Mobile Data
News Media, 1
Computers, 1
23
Discipline for specific sustained allegations was as follows:
Disciplinary Action for Sustained Specific Allegations**
17
18
16
14
12
9
10
8
5
6
4
3 3
4
2
0
24
Disciplinary Action for Sustained Specific Allegations**
17
18
16
14
12
9
10
8
5
6
4
3 3
4
2
0
conclusion of the investigation. However, the
numbers are included here because the likely result of the investigation appeared to be sustained
allegations and discipline.
** The grievance process resulted in one instance of documented counseling being changed to coaching,
Service Complaints and Surveys
Service complaints, policy complaints, and inquiries are handled in a different manner than allegations
performance or demeanor, customer service and/or level of p
service complaints are referred to the supervisor of the involved officer(s) for follow up with both the
complainant and the involved officer(s). The supervisor will write a memo detailing their review of the
25
c
2011 Service Complaints by Sub-Classification
41% Performance
(75)
10% Service
level (18)
2% Use of
Force (4)
7% Other (14)
3% Conduct (5)
2% Disputed
Facts (3)
0%
Constitutional
0% Discrimination
35% Courtesy (64)
Rights (1)
(0)
Service Complaints by Sub-Classification, 2008-2011
78
75 75
80
64 64
70
60
54
60
51
46
50
41
40
2008
40
2009
30
2010
20
18
15 15
14
20
13
2011
11
10 10
6 6
5
4
10
3 3
2
1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0 0
0
26
Service Complaints by Sub-Classification, 2008-2011
78
75 75
80
64 64
70
60
54
60
51
46
50
41
40
2008
40
2009
30
2010
20
18
15 15
14
20
13
2011
11
10 10
6 6
5
4
10
3 3
2
1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0 0
0
27
Service Complaint Surveys
We received 44 returned surveys in 2011 (from 184 total service complaints). The questions on the
surveys are as follows:
1)Staff member(s) at the Office of the Police Auditor was/were helpful in taking my complaint.
2)
3)If yes to #2, my concerns were addressed by the supervisor.
4)The supervisor listened to my concerns.
5)I am satisfied with the outcome of the complaint investigation.
6)Would you have preferred to speak with the involved officer rather than the supervisor?
Questions #1, #3, #4, and #5 are answered with a ranking: Agree, Agree Somewhat, Disagree Somewhat,
-up survey where the respondent apparently felt that issues
raised in the first contact with the supervisor were not addressed in a later contact).
Question #6 was added to the survey during 2011; it is a yes or no question and includes a space for
comments. Of the 20 surveys returned that answered this question, only 2 would have preferred
speaking with the officer; 18 preferred speaking with the supervisor.
28
Question 1: Helpfulness of the Auditor's Office Question 3: Supervisor Addressed Concerns
6 Agree
2 Agree
Somewhat,
Somewhat,
15%
5%
1 Disagree
Somewhat,
5 Disagree
2%
Somewhat,
36 Agree,
26 Agree,
4 Disagree,
12%
84%
65%
9%
3 Disagree,
8%
Question 4: Supervisor Listened to Concerns Question 5: Overall Satisfaction with Outcome
3 Agree
2 Agree
Somewhat,
Somewhat,
7%
5%
2 Disagree
Somewhat,
23 Agree,
11
5%
30 Agree,
55%
Disagree
73%
7 Disagree,
Somewhat,
17%
26%
5 Disagree,
12%
29
helpful in taking
their complaint (Question 1). This was a slight drop from 2010 (when 95% of respondents answered the
same), but still a great increase from 2009 (when only 81% of respondents agreed or somewhat agreed
to Question 1). Overall satisfaction with the process (Question 5) held steady at 62% (same as 2010).
Additionally, overall response rate continued to increase, up to 23.9% from 21.5% in 2010 (46 surveys
returned) and 18.4% in 2009 (37 surveys returned).
Service Complaint Surveys 2009 - 2011
40
35
30
25
20
2009
15
2010
10
2011
5
0
Service Complaint Surveys 2009 - 2011
40
35
30
25
20
2009
15
2010
10
2011
5
0
30
Policy Complaints and Inquiries
complaints are referred to either a supervisor (where appropriate) or an Internal Affairs sergeant. For
example, a policy complaint may be investigated by a supervisor where a particular officer, division, or
program is the focus of the complaint. Similar to a service complaint, the investigator will contact the
complainant, as well as any involved officer(s), and write a memo detailing their resolution of the
A complaint may be classified as an inq
EPD
Police Operations Manual (POM) 1102-3, Part I.A.1. An inquiry may be investigated by a supervisor,
informed regarding the progress of inquiries and will contact the reporting party with a resolution.
Policy Complaints and Inquiries, 2008-2011
54
60
53
50
36
4034
32
Policy Complaints
30
22
Inquiries
20
15
20
10
0
2008200920102011
31
Policy Complaints and Inquiries, 2008-2011
6054
53
50
36
34
40
32
Policy Complaints
30
22
Inquiries
20
15
20
10
0
2008200920102011
Vehicle-Related Incidents
Vehicle pursuits declined in 2011, from 25 to 21. However, vehicle accidents increased, from 24 to 37.
Overall, both vehicle pursuits and vehicle accidents appear to be declining since 2008.
Vehicle Accidents and Pursuits, 2008-2011
46
50
37
40
28
27
24
30
23
25
20
21
10
Vehicle Accidents
0
2008
Vehicle Pursuits
2009
2010
2011
32
Vehicle Accidents and Pursuits, 2008-2011
46
50
37
40
28
27
24
30
23
25
20
21
10
Vehicle Accidents
0
2008
Vehicle Pursuits
2009
2010
2011
Commendations
Department received 383 commendations, consistent with 2010 levels.
Commendations
500
450
400
350
300
Commendations
250
200
Trend
150
100
50
0
200320042005200620072008200920102011
33
Commendations
500
450
400
350
300
Commendations
250
200
Trend
150
100
50
0
200320042005200620072008200920102011
Commendations continue to outnumber complaints, despite the sharp increase in complaints in 2011.
Complaint and Commendation Totals, 2008-2011
500
450
400
350
300
Commendations
250
Complaints
200
150
100
50
0
2008200920102011
34
Complaint and Commendation Totals, 2008-2011
500
450
400
350
300
Commendations
250
Complaints
200
150
100
50
0
2008200920102011
Community Impact Cases
The Auditor did not receive any complaints in 2011 that were designated as a community impact case.
Critical Incidents
significant police action including, but not limited to, a civil disturbance or riot, an officer-involved
Conclusion
We wish to also thank the outstanding volunteers for the civilian review board, past and present;
commission. We truly appreciate the outstanding support provided by the Central Services Department
for finances, information technology, budgets, human resources, payroll and other core functions. The
assisting the aud
Mayor and City Councilors for having patience and taking the time and energy to be effectively involved
in the evolution of the oversight process in Eugene.
35