Loading...
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 - -