05/12/2003 - Minutes • •
Salt Lake City Police Civilian Review Board
AGENDA
Room 542—Roger F. Cutler Conference Room
City& County Building
451 South State Street
Salt Lake City, Utah
Monday, May 12, 2003 at 5:00 p.m.
I. Convene Meeting of Salt Lake City Police Civilian Review Board, Temporary
Chair Brent Ward
II. Introductions
III. Introduction of Police Chief Rick Dinse
IV. Election of Chair and Vice Chair for 2003
V. New Business
a. Dates and Times of Future Meetings
b. Proposed Ordinance Amendments, Linda Hamilton, Investigator
c. Overview of Proposed Process for a Request for An Investigation, Linda
Hamilton, Investigator
d. Overview of Proposed Panels' Role in a Request for an Investigation,
Linda Hamilton, Investigator
e. Overview of Proposed Process for a Request for a Review
f. Overview of Proposed Panels' Role in a Request for a Review
g. Discussion of confidentiality concerns regarding Internal Affairs case files
and officers' complaint historiesida Hamilton, Investigator
h. Training—Define Successful Completion of Each Component and Assess
Individual Board member's status. _1
i. Ride Alongs
ii. Police Citizens' Academy
iii. Meeting with Community Groups—When, Who and Where
j/
• •
i. Procedural issue: Board Meeting Attendance Telephonically
"In accordance with State Statute, City Ordinance and Police Civilian
Review Board Policy, one or more Board Members may be connected via
speakerphone."
VI.Adjourn
On the 9t" day of May 2003, I personally emailed a copy of the foregoing
notice to the Mayor and City Council and posted copies of the same in conspicuous
view at the following times and locations within the City& County Building, 451
South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah.
1. At 5:00 p.m. in the City Recorder's Office, Room 415; and
2. At 5:00 p.m. in the Newsroom, Room 315
3. At 5:00 p.m. outside the City Council Chambers, Room
315
Investigator
A sound system for the hearing impaired is available and headphone can be obtained for
all public meetings upon four hours advance notice. Arrangements can be made for sign
language interpreters; please allow 72 hours advance notice. Large type and#2 Braille
agendas are available upon 72 hours advance notice.
Final action may be taken and/or adopted concerning any item on this agenda.
After 5:00 p.m. please enter the City & County Building through the east entrance.
Accessible route is located on the east side of the building.
• •
Minutes for the Salt Lake City Police Civilian Review Board held Monday, May 12,
2003 at 5:00 in Room 542, Roger F. Cutler Conference Room, City County Building, 451
South State, Salt Lake City, Utah.
In Attendance:
Board Members: Adrian R. Autry, Brent Ward, Daniel Levin, Masood Ui-
Hasan, Nancy Appleby, Paula Wolfe and Ramona
Gonzales.
Pending Board Members: Nisa Sisneros and Scott McCoy
Investigator: Linda Hamilton
Assistant City Attorney: Boyd Ferguson
Police Chief: Rick Dinse
Deputy City Recorder: Scott Crandall
Absent:
Board Member: Claudia O'Grady
Police Board Advisor: Dean Carr
I. The meeting convened at 5:05 p.m. for 34 years. He said his experience was
Temporary Chair Brent Ward presided. varied. He said he had worked in
internal affairs as an investigator for
II. Introductions: Mr. Ferguson said three years and three more years as the
the City ordinance creating the Civilian Assistant Chief of Investigation.
Review Board (CRB) designated the
Attorney's Office as legal counsel. He IV. Election of Chair and Vice Chair
said he would review board policies and for 2003. Mr. Ward said election for
help with interpretation of the ordinance. Chair and Vice Chair would be held at
He said questions could be passed on to the next meeting.
him through Ms. Hamilton. All
attendees made introductions.
V. New Business
III. Introduction of Police Chief a. Dates and Times of Future
Dinse. Chief Dinse said the CRB was Meetings. Mr. Ward said for the first
important to police officers and should several months the Board should meet as
be objective and fair. He said he had often as needed, possibly monthly. He
been with the Salt Lake City Police said later meetings could be as
Department for three years and with the infrequently as once every three months.
Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) A discussion was held regarding what
03 - 1
s •
•
dates and times were the best. The next directed her to investigate. She said the
meeting would be held Monday, June 9, Mayor wanted to preserve the CRB's
2003 at 5:00 p.m. A discussion was authority to investigate a complaint
held regarding the number of nomination which did not involve excessive force
approvals left. Ms. Hamilton said there even if a claim was not filed with the
were two seats waiting for advice and CRB.
consent of the City Council and three
additional seats were needed for a A discussion was held regarding
quorum. She said the board would total how an investigation would proceed.
14 members. She said the goal was to Ms. Hamilton said if she received five
have a quorum to set up policy and responses to investigate that would
procedure. constitute a majority of a quorum and
she would investigate.
b. Proposed Ordinance
Amendment. Ms. Hamilton said the Ms. Hamilton read some
Mayor wanted the CRB to have proposed changes to the ordinance. She
maximum discretion regarding said one change would be from "days"
investigation. to "business days". She said proof •
reading had found discrepancies in the
Ms. Hamilton read current Code ordinance with regard to terms of office.
2.72. 150 (I). Report Of Investigator: She said a three-year term was correct.
Within two (2) days after his or her She proposed changing 96 hours to file a
completion of the investigation of a case, complaint to 4 business days to file a
the investigator shall provide to the complaint.
board a written report that summarizes
the case and such investigation, and A discussion was held regarding
states the investigator's the board appealing a panels' decision to
recommendations regarding the case. the full board. Ms. Hamilton said the
She said she wanted to be right rather ordinance did not have a mechanism for
than quick and suggested a 5-day period that. She said the ordinance specified a
with a mechanism to request an new panel would be chosen at random
extension. for each investigation.
Ms. Hamilton read current Code A discussion was held regarding
2.72.150(F)(1). Access To Internal the procedure for requesting copies of
Affairs Interviews: The investigator shall the investigative reports by other CRB
have access to all interviews scheduled members who were not part of the panel.
by the internal affairs unit. The police Ms. Hamilton said the reports were very
department shall notify the investigator sensitive. She said the Police
when all interviews are scheduled so Department and Union were not
that he or she may be present, at the comfortable with a large number or
investigator's discretion. She said her people having access to the reports.
original recommendation was that she
did not need to be notified of all A discussion was held regarding
interviews just those involving excessive 2.72.150(K). Board's Access To Files:
force and those that the CRB had Members of the board shall not discuss
03 -2
• .
•
with or release the contents of police investigator, requested by the CRB. She
department files to any person other said she would then make a
than members of the board, the police recommendation to the CRB to close or
chief or his or her designee, the internal reopen the case. She recommended that
affairs unit, the mayor or his or her only one copy of the file be given to the
designee, or the office of the city CRB and it be kept in her office. She
attorney. A breach of this confidentiality said if a member of a panel wished to
obligation by a member of the board review the file they could review in her
shall be grounds for removal from office, office. She said material in an internal •
as well as civil and criminal liability affairs file was confidential and sensitive
pursuant to any applicable city, state or and the Police Union did not want copies
federal law. Ms. Hamilton said the in undetermined locations.
investigator position had been omitted as
a person with which discussion could d. Overview of proposed panels' role
take place. She said this needed to be in a request for an investigation. Ms.
included. She said the language "except Hamilton said the ordinance provided a
where provided by law" would be mechanism for investigation in the form
inserted. She said this language would of a board panel (five individuals). She
help protect a board member from said the board could investigate
having to violate the ordinance if individual complaints of police conduct.
subpoenaed. She said the other broad issue in the
CRB ordinance was when a complainant
Ms. Hamilton said 2.72.230 of disagreed with the Chief's decision they
the code dealt with requests for review could request a review by a CRB board
by persons. She said currently 2.72.230 panel. Ms. Hamilton referred to a draft
(A) (1)stated: of a flow chart. (see file M 03-13 for
In General: Any person (other chart). She said a request could be made
than a police officer who was the by telephone, mail, e-mail and
subject of a complaint) who is eventually a web site. She said the
dissatisfied with a decision of the police complaint must be filed with internal
chief regarding a complaint filed against affairs for the CRB to review it. She
a police officer, may request a review of reviewed the flow chart. A discussion
the decision by a board review panel. was held regarding who would stand in
She said "and or an agent of the for the investigator if she were not
officer" needed to be added. A available. Ms. Hamilton said Robyn
discussion was held regarding the Stanczyk, Administrative Assistant to
wording change and decision was made Rocky Fluhart, would be available to
to change it to "or a person acting on take complaints.
the persons behalf". Ms. Hamilton said
she would have Mr. Ferguson review the e. Overview of proposed process for
new wording. a request for a review. Ms. Hamilton
said the CRB could make a
c. Overview of proposed process for a recommendation to close or reopen a
request for an investigation. Ms. case. She said a letter from the board
Hamilton said a request would be a needed to be sent to the Chief of Police
review of file documentation by the informing him of the recommendation.
03 -3
S
•
A discussion was held regarding based upon complaint history but could
recommendations by the investigator. recommend additional training for the
officer, fitness for duty evaluation, etc.
f. Overview of proposed panel's role
in a request for a review. Ms. Mr. Ward said a disciplinary
Hamilton said a request for review of a level could also be recommended
decision made by the Chief had already without a specific discipline being
been filed. She said the complainant had mentioned. He asked Ms. Hamilton how
filed with the previous CRB at the time the board would learn about the content
of its closing stages. She said a of the complaint history. Ms. Hamilton
discussion of this would be held in an said the union would be comfortable
executive session. She reviewed the with copies of the complaint history
flow chart for the CRB to process a being handed out, reviewed and
request for investigation. (See file M shredded at the site of the meeting.
03-13 for chart). Mr. Ward asked what
happened if the case was reopened. Ms. h. Training-Define successful
Hamilton said at that point completion of each component and
communication with the Chief and assess individual board member's
Internal Affairs would begin. A status. Ms. Hamilton said one of the
discussion was held with regard to training requirements was to meet with •
beginning the process over. designated community groups. She said
the board should submit a list of groups
A discussion was held regarding to the Mayor for authorization.
the Sunshine law and communication by Suggestions were: LARAZA, NAACP,
e-mail. Mr. Ward asked Ms. Hamilton Centro Civico, ACLU, the Jewish
to ask Mr. Ferguson if the Sunshine Law Community, Interfaith Alliance, Calvary
prevented the CRB form communicating Baptist Church, NCCJ, Utah Domestic
with e-mailing or if the Sunshine Law Violence Council, and the American
permitted communicating with e-mailing Tongan Society. Ms. Hamilton asked
and how the board should comply. board members to E-mail her with
suggestions.
g. Discussion of confidentiality
concerns regarding Internal Affairs Mr. Ward asked if two ride
case files and officers' complaint alongs were mandatory. Ms Hamilton
histories. Ms. Hamilton said to request said that was correct. Ms. Hamilton
complaint histories was a sensitive issue. recommended attendance of three out of
She said the Police Department and six of the Citizen's Academy sessions be
Union were uncomfortable giving this mandatory. She also suggested
information out. She said the board and attendance of all Police Academy
the investigator would not receive meetings if possible. She said diversity
complaint history until after they had training would be given at the Academy
made a final decision. A discussion was for one hour and was mandatory to
held regarding the pros and cons of this. attend. She said the CRB would meet
She said the policy, which had not been with all of the community groups at the
adopted by the CRB, reflected that the next meeting. She said she wanted to
board would not change their decision
03 -4
• •
begin to work with the policies and
procedures.
The Meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m.
Civilian Review Board Chair
Deputy City Recorder.
03 - 5
• •
Expected Attendess of May 12, 2003 Meeting of the
Police Civilian Review Board
Board Members
Adrian R. Autry
Brent Ward
Claudia O'Grady(will be absent)
Daniel Levin
Masood Ul-Hasan
Nancy Appleby
Paula Wolfe
Ramona Gonzales -
Pending Board Members
Nisa Sisneros
Scott McCoy
Police Board Advisor
x Dean Carr
Investigator
Linda Hamilton
City Attorney's Office
Boyd Ferguson
Police Department
Chief Rick Dinse
/t Captain Ken Pearce
X Lt. Sam Hemingway
1( Officer Tom Gallegos
• •
DRAFTDraft Civilian Review Board Policy
Attendance Policy for Civilian Review Board Members
Whereas Members consider the work of the Civilian Review Board to be of the highest
importance, it is critical that all members of the Board participate fully in carrying out the
Board's responsibilities. Members must be available and willing to attend meetings of
the full Board and to serve on panels reviewing specific investigations.
As a result, it is deemed appropriate to adopt a policy regarding attendance of Board
members.
1. Responsibilities
A. It is the responsibility of the Board Investigator to maintain attendance
records and notify the Chair of any breach of the attendance policy.
B. It is the responsibility of the Chair to report any such violation to the
Mayor along with a recommendation that the Mayor remove that member
from the Board.
2. Policy
a. The Chair will recommend the removal of Board members who miss more
than two meetings of the whole Board in any calendar year, unless the
absence is caused by a long-term illness or injury. This policy will not
apply when the absence(s)were from special meetings for which there
was not at least one week notice.
b. The Chair will recommend the removal of Board members who decline to
serve on three panels reviewing specific cases in any calendar year, unless
caused by illness, injury, or a conflict of interest.
�� • • �" g
Police Civilian Review Board Procedure for Referring Malicious or False or
Frivolous Complaints to the City Prosecutor
Responsible City Agency: Management Services
Key Words: Malicious, knowingly, complaint,police officer, damage
1. General
The Police Civilian Review Board investigates allegations of misconduct by police officers. In
order to protect police officers from false, malicious, and/or frivolous complaints filed with the
Police Civilian Review Board,the ordinance also provides that any person who knowingly files a
complaint that is frivolous, malicious or false is guilty of a Class C misdemeanor. Additionally,
it provides that any person knowingly filing a false, malicious or frivolous complaint is liable for
all costs and expenses incurred in investigating the complaint.
The purpose of this rule is to provide information to the public on the consequences of filing a
. malicious, false, or frivolous complaint against a police officer with the Police Civilian Review
Board. A complaint will only be covered by this rule if the complainant knows or should have
known that the complaint is false and/or frivolous or is made with malice in an attempt to
damage a police officer.
2. Process for Determining Whether a Complaint is Malicious, False,
and/or Frivolous
3.1 Once the Board Investigator has reached a conclusion that a complaint is malicious, false,
and/or frivolous, and that the complainant knew or should have known the allegations were
false and/or frivolous or made maliciously with the intent to damage a police officer, the
Investigator will make a recommendation to a Board panel that the complainant filing the
malicious, false, and/pr frivolous complaint be referred to the City Prosecutor with a
recommendation for prosecution.
3.2 In formulating the recommendation the Investigator will consider the following:
A. Whether any evidence was generated during the investigation that supported the facts of
the allegation.
B. Whether there were other witness(es) whose statement(s) either controvert or support
complainant's allegations.
C. Whether the complainant appeared to make the complaint in an attempt to coerce the
police officer.
D. Whether the complainant knew or should have known the complaint was false.
4ID •
DRAFT
E. Whether the complainant knew or should have known that the police officer was acting
within police policy.
F. Complainant's complaint history with the Police Department.
3. Actions of the Panel
4.1 If the Board panel determines that a complaint was malicious, false, and/or frivolous, the
chair of the panel will contact the Board Chair.
4.2 If the Board Chair agrees that a complaint was frivolous, he/she will direct the
Investigator to prepare a summary report for the City Prosecutor, containing the
following elements.
A. The allegation of the complainant.
B. A brief summary of the facts yielded by the investigation that were not supportive of
the allegation.
C. A brief summary of the facts yielded by the investigation that did support the
allegation, if any.
D. The reason(s) the Board believes the complaint was malicious, false or frivolous.
E. Recommendation for prosecution.
4.3 Once the report is approved by the Board Chair, it will be sent to the City Prosecutor with
a copy going to the complainant,the Police Chief, the Internal Affairs Unit, and the
officer involved.
4.4 The Board Chair will then instruct the Investigator to dismiss the complaint and provide
notice and advice to the complainant,the Police Chief, the Internal Affairs Unit, and the
officer involved that the complaint has been referred to the City Prosecutor.
•
r> t RAFT
4.5 The City Prosecutor will determine whether it is appropriate to file criminal charges
and/or whether to attempt to secure reimbursement for costs incurred conducting the
investigation.
Current Reference: Salt Lake City Code 2.72
Effective Date:
Mayor's Signature Date
• I
DRAFT
Police Civilian Review Board Policy
Criteria to Be Used by in Deciding Whether to Initiate an Investigation
When Requested by a Citizen
A. Complaints That Will Not Be Accepted
1. No complaints will be investigated where a complaint has not also been filed with
Internal Affairs. If necessary,the Investigator will assist the Complainant in
filing with the Police Department.
2. No complaints will be investigated where the complaint is received by the
Investigator more than four(4) business days after the complaint was filed with
the Police Department.
3. The complaint does not fall within jurisdiction of the Civilian Review Board.
B. Other Criteria That Will Be Considered in Making a Decision Regarding Accepting a
Complaint
1. The investigator is responsible for making a recommendation to the members of
the Police Civilian Review Board(CRB)regarding whether a citizen requested
investigation should be accepted or declined for investigation, along with the
rationale of that recommendation.
2. The criteria to be used by the investigator in formulating a recommendation are:
a. Egregiousness of the alleged Police Officer behavior.
b. Potential affect on community perceptions.
c. The complaint alleges that the complainant's membership in a group (e.g.,
race, ethnicity, religion, color, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability
status, etc.) was the cause of the Police Officer's behavior.
d. The complaint appears to be consistent with a pattern of behavior for a
specific Police Officer.
e. The behavior complained of appears to be a pattern of complaints through
the entire Department or in a specific geographic area.
3. The same criteria will be used by the Board in directing the Investigation to
either investigate or not investigate as those outlined in 2 above,with the
addition of"other factors relevant to the specific case at the discretion of the
Board."
` • •
D . AFT
C. Actions Subsequent to Decision on Accepting a Complaint
1. If five members of the Board direct that an investigation should be
conducted,the Investigator will:
a. Notify the complainant in writing within five business days.
b. Notify Internal Affairs within one business day.
2. If fewer than five Board members decide that an investigation should be
conducted,the Investigator will notify the complainant in writing within five
business days that the Board has declined to initiate an investigation
• •
DRAFT
raft Civilian Review Board Policy
Criteria for Dismissing a Request for Investigation
A. The Board Investigator may recommend to a Board panel that a request for an
investigation be dismissed prior to the initiation of any investigation under the following
circumstances.
1. The Civilian Review Board has no jurisdiction.
a. The complaint is not about alleged police misconduct
b. The request was not filed timely.
2. The request for an investigation is clearly frivolous on its face.
B. The Board Investigator may recommend to the Board panel that a request for
an investigation be dismissed once an investigation has commenced under the
following circumstances.
1. The complainant is not cooperating with the investigation
a. Complainant will not keep appointments
b. Complainant will not provide information
2. After preliminary investigation, the complaint is clearly frivolous.
• •
:4 4 D •'.
AFT
Draft Police Civilian Review Board Procedure
Investigative Procedures
Requests for an Investigation
1. Accepting Complaints
A. The Investigator shall accept Requests for Investigation from any person
who alleges police misconduct and who filed a complaint about a police
officer with the Police Department
B. Complaints will be accepted from the:
(1) Aggrieved party
(2) Witnesses
(3) Complainant's family members if the complainant is a minor or the
guardians of persons with a disability that renders them incapable of filing
the complaint themselves.
(4) Anonymous sources professing first-hand knowledge of alleged
police misconduct and the complainant gives a reason for refusing to
identify himself/herself that is credible in the sole discretion of the
Investigator.
C. Complaints against City employees other than police officers will not be
accepted because the Police Civilian Review Board does not have
jurisdiction.
D. Upon Receipt of a request for investigation,the Investigator will ask the
complainant whether he/she has filed a complaint with the Police
Department in care of Internal Affairs. If the complainant has filed with
the Police Department,the Investigator will determine whether the
complain is being filed with the Police Civilian Review Board within four
business days of filing the complaint with the Police Department .If the
complainant has not filed with Internal Affairs, the Investigator will advise
the complainant of that requirement and offer to assist, if necessary.
E. The Investigator will notify the Internal Affairs Unit telephonically of any
complaints filed with the Police Civilian Review Board not involving
excessive force within one business day. The Investigator will send a
confirming password protected email to Internal Affairs.
F. The Investigator will email, within one working day of the receipt of a
complaint,the following information to all Board members and the Board
Police Advisor:
• •
4
DRAFT
(1) A description of the incident.
(2) The specific allegation.
(3) An evaluation of the seriousness of the allegation.
(4) A recommendation on whether an investigation should be
pursued.
G. Board members will respond via email within one working day stating
their preference whether to investigate or not investigate.
H. The Investigator will initiate an investigation if at least five (5) Board
members state their preference for an investigation.
I. If fewer than five (5)Board members decide to initiate an investigation,
the Investigator will inform Internal Affairs within one working day and
the complainant in writing within five working days that the Board has
declined to investigate.
2. Conducting an Investigation.
A. The Investigator will conduct a simultaneous investigation with the
Internal Affairs Unit.
B. The Investigator will have access to all information related to the specific
allegation, including but not limited to, all police reports, all written
correspondence, including electronic correspondence, physical evidence,
photographs, etc.
B. Whenever feasible,the Investigator will attend all interviews with the
complainant, witnesses, and the officer(s) against whom the allegation has
been made.
C. The Investigator will gather, and objectively consider, all information
related to the specific complaint.
D. If necessary, the Investigator may consult with the Board's Police Advisor
during the investigatory process.
E. The Investigator will conduct thorough investigations and will attempt to
minimize recommendations of"no determination possible."
F. At the conclusion of the investigation the investigator will prepare a
recommendation to a Board panel categorizing the Investigator's
evaluation of the complaint as: unfounded, exonerated,no determination
possible, or sustained.
41 ••
DRAFT
G. When the Investigator has concluded the investigation and has prepared a
recommended fmding of unfounded, exonerated, no determination is
possible, or sustained, the Investigator will request a meeting with the
board panel,which will make the final determination.
3. Access to Complaint History.
A. If the complaint alleges excessive force and if the Investigator's
recommended fmding is sustained or no determination is possible, the
Investigator will submit a written request to the City Attorney to review
the electronic files for any information that is protected by law. If no
information precluded by law is in the officer's file,the Investigator will
have complete and unfettered access to the officer's electronic file.
B. If the complaint does not allege excessive force, and the Investigator's
recommended finding is sustained or no determination is possible, the
Investigator may submit a written request to the City Attorney to review
the electronic files for any information that is protected by law. If no
information precluded by law is in the officer's file,the Investigator will
have complete and unfettered access to the officer's electronic file, if in
the Investigator's sole discretion the complaint history is necessary in
order to fully and fairly consider the complaint.
C. The City Attorney's Office will be responsible for determining whether
the electronic file requested contain any information confidential by law.
If it does contain such confidential information,the City Attorney's Office
will provide the complaint history to the Investigator. If it does not
contain confidential information,the Investigator may have unfettered
access the file.
D. The Investigator will only have access to the complaint history of the
officer(s) against whom the allegation(s)has been made if:
(1) The Investigator has finalized a recommendation on a case, unless
the complainant alleges that the complaint is of the same type against the
same officer as previous complaints by that complainant.
(2) The recommendation is either sustained or no determination is
possible.
4. Reviewing the Complaint History of Officers.
A. When Internal Affairs has concerns that the Investigator may misinterpret
a complaint history, Internal Affairs may request a meeting with the
Investigator and the City Attorney's Office to review the history.
DRAFT
B. Any complaints contained in the history, for which there is no
documentation, will not be considered by the Investigator in making a
recommendation to the board panel, and the Investigator shall not furnish
information about such complaints to the Board panel
C. If the Investigator is recommending a finding of sustained or no
determination possible, and the board panel concurs,the Investigator will
provide the complaint history of the officer(s)to the board panel. If no
pattern specific to the officer is apparent after a review of the history by
the Investigator,the Investigator will include that conclusion in the
transmittal of the complaint history to the board panel.
5. Providing a Complaint History to a Board Panel.
A. No complaint history will be provided to the Board panel prior to that
panel reaching a decision regarding whether the complaint is sustained, no
determination is possible, unfounded, or exonerated.
B. If the panel concludes that the complaint is unfounded or the officer is
exonerated, no complaint history will be provided to the panel.
C. If the complaint is one of excessive force and the panel has determined
that it should be sustained or no determination is possible, the Investigator
will provide the complaint history to the panel.
D. If the Investigator did not ask for a complaint history in a case not alleging
excessive force and the Board panel determines that a complaint history is
necessary,the Investigator shall request a complaint history following the
procedure outlined above.
D. If the panel concludes that no determination is possible on a complaint not
involving excessive force,the Investigator will provide the complaint
history to the panel, if he/she had previously determined that the complaint
was serious enough to have warranted a request for the history and, in the
judgment of the Investigator the complaint is part of a pattern.
E. If the Investigator had not asked for a history on a case not involving
excessive force because in his/her judgment it was not warranted or has
requested the history and not provided it to the panel, but the board panel
determines that a history is necessary, the Investigator will request/provide
a complaint history following the procedure outlined above and provide
the information to the panel.
F. The board panel will not use a complaint history to change its conclusion
regarding whether the complaint is unfounded, exonerated, no decision is
possible, or sustained. The complaint history will only be used in
•
DRAFT
formulating a recommendation to the Police Chief regarding discipline or
other recommendations.
• •
DRAFT
Draft Civilian Review Board Procedure
Procedure for Assigning Board Members to Panels
The Civilian Review Board ordinance (Chapter 2.72) specifies that Board Members will
be assigned to panels "randomly." The City's Information Management Division has
developed a random number mechanism for making such random assignments. This tool
has been provided to the Board's Investigator.
A. As Board Members are appointed and approved by advice and consent,the
Investigator will enter their names in to the randomizer spreadsheet.
B. Subsequent to the Investigator's receipt of an excessive force complaint or to
being directed by the Board to investigate a complaint,the investigator will use
the random selection mechanism to come up with five names.
C. The result will be reported to the Board Chair for approval.
D. The Chair may contact the selected panel members or direct the Investigator to do
so.
E. If any of the selected panel members are unable to serve,the Chair will instruct
the Investigator to randomly select another Board Member's name.
F. The Chair shall ensure that the random selection process does not result in a
disproportionate burden of panel assignments being placed on any single board
member, but shall substitute board members when necessary to accomplish a
reasonably equitable distribution.
G. The Board Chair may also replace a panel member(s), if he/she has a conflict of
interest or has knowledge of the either the complainant or the subject officer.
Any Board member selected for a panel in which any person known to the board
member through a business, personal, or family relationship is involved shall
immediately make such a conflict known to the Chair.
• •
DRAFT
Complaint Form - Salt Lake City Civilian Review Board
Complainant Name: Home Phone::
Work Phone: Cell Phone:
Address: CRB Number:
Date Complaint Received: Date Complaint Filed With PD:
Location of Incident:
Date and Time of Incident:
Officer's Name and I.D. Number:
Brief Description of Incident:
Brief Description of Specific Complaint:
Names, addresses,phone numbers, and/or location of witnesses, if available:
Name:
Address:
Home Phone Work: Cell
Name:
Address:
Home Phone Work: Cell:
Name:
Address:
Home Phone Work: Cell:
Name:
Address:
Home Phone Work: Cell:
Other Comments:
• •
DRAFT
Police Civilian Review Board
Request for Review
Complainant Name Home Phone:
Work Phone Cell Phone:
Address: CRB Number:
Date Request for Review Received: IA Number:
Date and Time of Original Incident:
Location of Original Incident:
Officer's Name and I.D. Number
Police Chief's Final Disposition
Date Received Police Chiefs Disposition:
Reason for Dissatisfaction with Police Chiefs Disposition:
Brief Description of Original Incident and Allegation:
Additional Information:
i •
DRAFT
Draft Civilian Review Board Procedure
!Conducting Full Board Meetings
Pursuant to the Civilian Review Board Ordinance (Chapter 2.72)the Civilian Review
Board will meet at least every three months. The Board may also hold additional
meetings, as directed by the Mayor, or a majority of the City Council, or the Board Chair,
or by a Majority of the Board.
1. Time and Place of Meetings
Board agendas will be emailed to the Mayor's and City Council's Office at least 24 hours
in advance of the meeting. Board Agendas stating the time and place of all Board
meetings shall be posted in the following public places at least 24 hours in advance of the
meeting.
A. City Recorder's Office
B. Outside the City Council Chambers (room 315)
C. In the Newsroom(room 315)
Media representatives will receive electronic copies of agendas, as requested.
2.. Election of Chair and Vice Chair
A. First Board Meeting:
1. The Investigator will request a Board Member to serve as temporary Chair
of the first meeting of the Civilian Review Board until such time during
the first agenda that a Chair has been elected by the Board.
2. The temporary Chair will call for nominations for a Chair, and will inquire
of each nominee whether s/he is willing to serve.
3. The Chair will read the names of those nominated for Chair who have
expressed a willingness to serve.
4. The Chair will then present the names of each nominee individually and
request a roll call vote of all those wishing to elect that individual as
Chair.
5. The nominee with the most votes will become the new Chair.
6. As soon as a new Chair has been elected, he/she will conduct the meeting
and will follow the same procedure in electing the Vice Chair.
B. All Subsequent Meetings:
1. During the last Board meeting in any calendar year,the Investigator will
put on the agenda nominations for Chair and Vice Chair.
2. The Chair will ask Board Members for nominations for Chair and Vice
Chair.
• •
DRAFT
5. Convening a Special Meeting
A. It is the responsibility of the Mayor, Board Chair, or Executive Director of the
City Council to notify the Investigator of the desire for a special meeting and the
proposed time and location.
B. The Investigator will then notify the Chair, unless he/she is requesting the
meeting, and all Board Members either by telephone or electronically at least
three days prior to the proposed meeting.
C. The Chair and Board Members are responsible for notifying the Investigator by
telephone or electronically of their availability for the meeting within 24 hours of
being notified by the Investigator of the proposed meeting.
6. Rules for Board Members
A. Members will not speak in meetings until they have been recognized by the Chair.
B. Members will not interrupt another Board Member when that other Board
Member has been recognized by the Chair.
C. At the Chair's discretion he/she may open the Board meeting to discussion among
Members that does not require recognition by the Chair.
D. Members will not interact during meetings with any members of the public or
media in attendance.
E. Members will not direct comments or questions to any members of the public or
media in attendance.
F. Members will always treat each other,the Board Police Advisor, and the
Investigator with civility.
G. The Chair is responsible for the orderly conduct of each Board meeting. The
Chair is specifically authorized to order any member of the public or media to
leave the meeting to end disruptive behavior.
7. Public and/or Media Rules
A. The public and media may attend all Board and Board Panel meeting, except
executive sessions.
B. The public and media are prohibited from speaking to the Chair, Board Members,
or the Investigator during Board Meetings.
C. The public and media are prohibited from making comments not directed to the
Chair, Board Members, or Investigator during the meeting.
• •
.1 ' AFT
Request for a Police Civilian Review Board Review of Police Chiefs
Decision
Responsible City Agency: Management Services
Key Words: Police, civilian review, investigation, discipline, decision
1. General
1.1 Salt Lake City's ordinance 2.72 provides that a person who has previously filed a
complaint with the Police Department alleging police misconduct and who is dissatisfied
with the Police Chief's fmal decision is entitled to request a review of the Police Chiefs
decision by the Police Civilian Review Board. The purpose of this rule is to provide
information to the public regarding the process used to request a review of the Police
Chiefs fmal decisions.
2. Process to Request a Review of the Police Chiefs Final
Disciplinary Decision
2.1 The request for review must be filed within 30 days of the person's receipt of the
decision of the Police Chief.
2.2 The only exceptions to the 30 day restriction are:
A. Severe illness or injury of the complainant rendering him/her incapable of
filing a request for review
B. The complainant has been out of the State for more than 30 days since the
Chiefs decision was communicated.
C. The complainant asserts that new information or witnesses are now
available that were not available during the original investigation.
D. The original complaint was filed since January 1, 2001 and there was no
functioning Police Civilian Review Board when the Police Chief issued
his/her fmal decisions.
2.3 A written request for review may be made by in person by contacting the Board's
Investigator by mail at 451 South State,room 512, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 or
telephone (535-7230).
2.4 It is at the Board's sole discretion to decide whether to accept a request for review
and direct the Investigator to conduct a review.
3. Board's Standard of Review for Requests
3.1. Criteria for Decision on Accepting Request for Review
• • •E
-T
A. If the complainant had previously filed a complaint on the same issue with the
Civilian Review Board,the extent to which the Police Chiefs fmal decision is
consistent with, or diverges from, the Board's recommendation.
B. The Board's perception of the thoroughness of the previous investigation.
C. The apparent egregiousness of the officer's alleged conduct compared to the
disciplinary action imposed by the Police Chief.
D. The complainant alleges new evidence or witnesses are available.
E. The appearance of a pattern in disciplinary actions for specific individuals,
divisions, or management levels.
F. The appearance of a pattern in disciplinary actions when the alleged victims of
police misconduct may be classified as members of distinct group based
ethnicity, national origin, race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, or age
group.
G. Other factors relevant to the specific case at the discretion of the Board Chair.
4. Investigator's Report
4.1 The Investigator will review all documentation of the previous investigation(s).
4.2 Based on the review, the Investigator will provide a report to a Board panel and
recommend whether the panel should provide a recommendation to the Police
Chief that the case be reopened.
5. Panel's Actions/Authority
5.1 The panel must reach a conclusion within 75 days of receiving the Investigator's
report.
5.2 The panel may request the Police Chief to reopen the case.
5.3 The Police Chief has fmal decision making authority on the reopening or fmal closing
of cases.
5.4 If the Board disagrees with the Police Chiefs decision, the Board may advise the
Mayor and Police Chief of that disagreement in writing.
•
DRAFT
5.5 After reaching its final conclusion, the Board will provide a written report regarding
the matter to the complainant, Mayor, Police Chief, and Internal Affairs Unit.
Current Reference: Salt Lake City Code 2.72
Effective Date:
Mayor's Signature Date
DRAFT'
Police Civilian Review Board Panel Procedures for a Request for an
Investigation
1. Responsibilities
It is the responsibility of Board panels, comprised of five members assigned randomly:
A. To receive and review the investigations of the Police Civilian Review Board
Investigator and the Internal Affairs Unit.
B. To meet with the Board Investigator to discuss the case.
C. To direct the Investigator to conduct additional investigation, if necessary.
D. To make a determination whether a complaint is unfounded, sustained, or the
officer is exonerated, or no determination is possible.
E. To make a recommendations to the police chief regarding
1. Training
2. Discipline
3. No discipline
4. Any other recommendations deemed appropriate by a majority of the
Board panel.
F. To make recommendations to the full Board regarding possible recommendations
for changes in Police Department policies and procedures.
3. Access to Information
Board panels will have access to all information made available to the Investigator and
Internal Affairs, including but not limited to:
A. All police reports
B. All written correspondence, including electronic correspondence
C. Physical evidence
D. Photographs
E. Tape recordings of interviews with officer(s) and witnesses
F. Witness statements
G. Officer statements
H. Officers' complaint histories, after the panel has made a final decision that the
complaint is either sustained or no determination is possible.
I. Any other information that has arisen that is pertinent to the case.
4. Communication
Panels must not have any communication with the complainant, witnesses, or the
officer(s) against whom the allegation has been made.
The panels must communicate their fmdings along with any recommendations to the
Police Chief within five working days of preparing such report.
• •
DRAFT
Draft Civilian Review Board Policy
Board Ethics
1. All Members of the Civilian Review Board shall be subject to and bound by the
provisions of the City's conflict of interest ordinance, Chapter 2.44, or its successor.
Any violations of the provisions of Chapter 2.44 or its successor shall be grounds for
removal from office.
2. Additionally, the Board has adopted the following ethics rules.
A. Board Members will not discuss the specifics of any case with any individual
other than other Board Members, the Investigator, the Police Chief or his/her
designee, the Internal Affairs Unit, the Mayor or his or her designee, or the
Office of the City Attorney.
B. Board Members will declare any conflict of interest regarding specific cases
being reviewed or any other Board business.
C. Board members will recuse themselves from Board panels if they personally
or professionally, or their immediate family personally or professionally, have
knowledge of either the complainant or the officer(s) against whom the
allegation.
D. No more than six Board Members, including the Chair, will meet informally
to discuss Board related issues or information.
E. The Board Chair, Police Advisor and Investigator should always be invited to
any informal meetings.
F. Board Members will not make direct or indirect contact with any
complainants or any police officers.
G. No statements will be made to media other than those that have appeared on
the agenda of a full Board meeting, with a majority of Board members in
attendance voting in favor of releasing a statement to the media.
Police Civilian Review Board Process on Request for
Review
rs
Board Queried 114
{g`
-►;About Exception to ►.. No > Letter Declining g Y
30 Days ► Review Sent to ,,A f "�
-�\ No Complainant �+
Investigator ''✓ \
Receives Request ► Filed Within 30 ►i Yes
for Review Days? \
i✓ I Board Asked Letter Sent to
Des Review is Complainant
Desired No Declining Review li
►<" Yes ♦., __.----
' -- -' --- ---- Investigator
Whether Reports Back to
. Police Chief and
��, ---1 - - Investigator Reports
Panel c
ith
II,(- Yes > Chair Creates Conducts Review Recommendation
Panel IA Review fied of -_ __ - ---III Regarding
► Reopening Case
Letter Sent to
Panel Does Not Chief and
Want Case - -_ Complainant with
h Recommendation Letter
Reopened that the Case Not ►.,''�Yes •► g
Communicatin
be Reopened _ Disagreement 1
Panel Exercises \, Sent to Mayor 1
i< No j Option to Send
Letter to Mayor? -
Letter Sent to ►-7 N��
Panel Does Want Chief Asking that F Chief Agrees? /�
Ill
/\Case Reopened � � �
Case be t
Reopened - ---f< Yes Investigation
\ J Reopened
CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD PROCESS / L
REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION K NNo ? Investigator r
--_ \�\// Directed to Do
Unfounded Additional
I- Exonerated , ! Panel Meets Investigation
....., ,
�; _ ►'L and Agrees? --- ----
- �Yes�j ► Letter Sent to
Complainant
i ti \/
--If-— — _ No Determination-1
If Complaint isInvestigatorPossible --., "� Investigator Investigator Informs BoardInvest at or __ Pre ares __I Panel toNotifies I.A.Within I.A.LA.and repes - - _ Directed _
---._- - 1 WorkingDayEXInvest Investigator Conduct Preliminary - i Meets and K No Additional
Agrees?
Investigation Recommendation
J i / Investigation
Complaint Filed /� ---♦ ► Sustained -- �
► with I.A.? Yes j ♦ i
• -_� �% Investiga or Asks �,
Board Whether to / Capt.Rec.No
�, Investigate Non- Yes Yes -al Determination.
CRB Investigator '_-- �" Possible
Receives Request --- Excessive Force
File Complaint Referred to I.A.to No/ Investigator Captain
p /�� Informs
Recommends it
I- _- ��No Complainant and Captain Schedules be Sustained
I.A. Pres-Disdplinary .— --- -------
Hearing
I
♦ -..-......_-___------ -- -----. . _......- - ---- I
--- ____-_ Recommendation
Investigator May II Complaint History - ►i Sent to Police
No Determination Board is Reviewed at -- -
r------ is Possible Is Possible -- Chief I
•
Invests — Investigator Makes -- DeliberatesoardPaneland Panel's Discretion �,Recommendation -
Inte sti Pre- Final �I ► Request History ► NoDeterminationl - ► et is Formulatedmendati � I, !-
•
Hearing Recommendation I Complaint
Will o -to _ - Complaint History �L_ Notice is Sent to
g --- g Sustained ---► Request _ Comes Decistoni Complainant
Hearin to Board Panel
_--_ - -►I ►I Sustained ►II
Complaint History Is Reviewed - -