Complaint
Summary Report for Calendar Year 2007 (CALEA Standard 52.1.5)
_____________________________________________________________________________________
The purpose of this report is
to analyze and summarize the data provided by the department’s tracking of
complaints against its members. This
report is the result of a review of the (9) complaints received this calendar
year. The data analyzed shows the type
of investigation engendered by the complaint, the resolution of the complaint, the
average resolution period, and consequences of the complaint for the
member.
All complaints are referred
directly to the Chief of Police.
Complaints can be lodged in person, by mail, or by phone. In the absence of the Chief, the shift supervisor,
or acting shift supervisor can take a statement regarding a complaint and
forward the complaint to the Chief by the next working day. The Chief of police will assign an investigator
or supervisor to complete an investigation regarding the complaint and forward
a subsequent report to the Chief regarding the investigation outcome (GO 52 III
C. 1-4).
In 2007, officers responded
to over 14,318 calls for service. They affected
444 arrests and issued 820
For 2007, this is equivalent
to 1 complaint every 1,591 citizen contacts.
This number is miniscule compared to the undocumented daily contacts that
officers have with citizens on a daily basis to include field and telephone contacts. Thus, 9 complaints were referred by the Chief
for investigation regarding the actions of officers of the police department.
Agency policy defines the
disposition type regarding complaints made against department employees. The aforementioned dispositions are defined
as follows:
Exonerated – allegations have been verified, but actions
resulted from adherence to proper and appropriate police procedures and
techniques
Sustained – allegations true and disciplinary action taken
Not
Sustained – unable to verify the
truth of the matters under investigation
Unfounded – no truth to the allegations
Of the 9 complaints made
officers were exonerated in 7 instances.
One complaint involved (3) employees—one who was exonerated and two
where the allegations were sustained (C-006).
In the first of the four sustained
complaints (C-005), the officer was verbally counseled for interrupting a class
in order to speak to a witness in a case.
The next two sustained
complaints (C-006), a Police Officer and a Communications Officer were verbally
counseled for not providing information to a person making a complaint.
In the fourth sustained
complaint, the complainant was reimbursed for (2) concert tickets that were
seized from him after he was accused of soliciting without a permit. The subject did not make a complaint against
the officer, but just wanted to be reimbursed.
No discernible, negative
patterns on the part of officers, or improper procedural issues were identified
as a result of this review. The review
makes evident that complaints received by this department are handled with
requisite gravity and concern. The
department will continue to monitor the types of complaints being made against
the agencies employees and provide guidance and training that seeks to enhance
relationships with the community we serve.
In addition to the (9)
complaints received by the Police Department in 2007, there were (2) internal
affairs investigations conducted by supervisory and/or command staff
personnel. Thus, there were (11)
incidents involving Police Officer conduct that were investigated in 2007. This equates to about 1 in every 1455 citizen
contacts necessitating an internal investigation. This number is minute compared to the
undocumented daily contacts officers have with citizens on a daily basis.
Of the (2) internal affairs
investigations assigned in 2007, one was Sustained;
the other Not Sustained.
As indicated, there was a
significant decrease in the number of internal investigations to citizen
contacts in 2007.