Transcript July 2008--Auditor’s Quarterly Report to Council

University of Oregon
Oversight System
Goals of the U of O
Civilian Oversight System
1) To build trust between the
community/students and the University
Police Department.
2) To improve police performance.
3) To reduce the risk of liability to the
university.
Established …
State of Oregon authorizes.
Police Department is organized, including
selection, training, policies and
procedures.
Police Department activiates.
Work begins on intake, classifying,
monitoring and reviewing complaints.
Complaint Process
• Entry for Complaints
– One process for students (Shang); one process for
others. Consideration of a bifurcated system.
– How can complaints be taken: in person, writing,
telephone, third party, rep. like an attorney,
anonymous, confidential?
– Once taken, what is the communication process
to the complainant?
Complaint Process Continued
Who decides what the classification should be? What happens if a person is
making an allegation that is criminal in nature? What happens if the
matter should be decided by the courts (i.e.: I should not have received a
citation for trespassing.)
Mediation as a valuable tool.
What about non-sworn employees?
Should there be a separate investigative process, an auditor, or should
someone within the current infrastructure of the university coordinate all
complaints and reviews? What resources (cash) will be allocated to meet
this process?
Who will manage public and exempt records?
What happens when an officer fires his gun?
Who conducts investigations?
Once an investigation is completed, who decides whether the employee
acted appropriately?
Classification of Complaints
Currently, complaints fall under two broad
categories…..
1)
2)
Misconduct
Service Complaints
Classification determines how the complaint will be
investigated.
Types of Conduct Complaints
(Sub-classification)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Criminal Conduct
Allegation of Misconduct
Deadly Force Review (Internal Process)
Inquiry
Policy Complaint
Service Complaint
Use-of-Force Review (Internal Process with
OPA participation)
Allegations of Misconduct
• These allegations include the following
subcategories:
– Conduct
– Constitutional Rights
– Courtesy
– Discrimination
– Use of Force
Service Complaints
• Conduct
• Constitutional Rights (seldom used in this
context)
• Courtesy
• Discrimination
• Disputed Facts
• Other
• Performance
• Service Level
• Use of Force (seldom used in this context)
Complaint Intake Process
• Whenever possible, individual complainants are personally
interviewed and the interview is recorded.
• Staff gather the who, what, when, where and how of the
incident.
• Staff gathers contact information from the complainant and
collects data relating to age, racial background, gender and
other issues relevant to data tracking.
• Staff write a summary of the complaint, make an attempt
to identify the employees and, if more than one officer was
involved, what their individual roles were.
Communication to Complainants and
Employees at the End of the Process
• Complainant intake office, police,
combination?
• Unlikely that public will know the names,
outcomes or discipline as a result of the
complaint process – complainant is
probably entitled to at least a portion of
this info – ultimately for U of O counsel to
decide.
Oversight of U of O Police
Should there be a review board external of police to review investigations of
complaints involving sworn police officers and other employees, to:
(a) review the completed investigation and adjudication of complaints filed
against sworn police officers;
(b) require that the police re-open an investigation;
(c) provide comments on an investigation, including recommendations to
the police chief and final decision maker;
(d) review trends and statistics of complaints against employees, and provide
reports and recommendations to the President or other designated
administrators.
(e) Oversee and evaluate the work of the complaint body/office.
Performance of Process
• Investigations into allegations of police
misconduct are investigated in a thorough,
fair and timely manner. (60 to 90 days)
• The process is as transparent as possible.
• The process is free from bias.
• Should the oversight system be independent
from the police.
• To build trust between the community and
the police department.
ACCOUNTABILITY AND
TRANSPARENCY
* Police authority is by
* Accountability requires
grant from the
transparency.
communities they serve. * Transparency requires
* The authority is subject
access to information.
to limitations & should
* Transparency ensures
reflect community
public confidence.
values.
Oregon public record
* Police are account-able
exemptions make it
to the public.
more difficult.
Strengths
–
–
–
–
–
All external complaints go through external office
Ability to monitor ongoing Internal Affairs Investigations
Ability to participate in interviews of witnesses
Widespread community support
Access points for complaints, separate from police. Police
should still be available for intake or solve customer service
issues.
– Transparency through deliberations of case reviews in public
meetings
– Opportunities for public comment
– Opportunities for translating findings into policy
recommendations
Investigation of Misconduct
Allegations
• Allegations of criminal conduct are reviewed
by the DA. If it does not appear to rise to the
level of criminal (i.e., intent) then it is
investigated through the IA process as an
administrative investigation.
• Other misconduct allegations are investigated
by one of two IA sergeants. This process is
usually completed within 60 days.
• For EPD, ask OSP to investigate.
Internal Affairs Investigations
• IA investigators review police reports, view
in-car-videos, dispatch entries etc.
• IA investigators interview civilian witnesses
and police department witnesses. They are
recorded.
– Sworn officers have the right to have their union
representatives present with them during the
interview.
– Sworn officers have Garrity Rights, this means
they must answer questions but the information
cannot be used against them in a criminal
investigation.
Monitoring the Investigation
• Throughout the investigation, OPA engages in
conversation with the IA investigators
– To identify emergent issues not recognized in the
initial complaint intake
– To discuss possible questions for witnesses
– To assist in contacting witnesses or providing services
(translators, interpreters etc.)
• Meets with senior staff and IA to ensure the
investigation remains on schedule and discuss
policy and training issues related to individual
cases.
Review of the Investigation
• After the IA Investigative Report is written,
OPA reviews
– the investigative report and police records,
– Listens to all the recorded interviews
– Reviews photographs, medical records, in-carvideos
– Reviews the relevant policies.
– Meets with the named employees supervisors to
discuss adjudication outcomes based on the IA
investigation.
Recommendations
• After reviewing the investigation, OPA makes a
recommendation to the Chief of Police (designee
of the hiring authority) as to whether the
allegation(s) should be adjudicated as
–
–
–
–
Sustained
Unfounded
Within Policy
Insufficient Evidence (The allegation cannot be
proven by a preponderance of the evidence)
Recommendations (continued)
* In the adjudication recommendation OPA
may also comment on the quality and
thoroughness of the investigation. For
example, OPA may address any perceived
bias toward witnesses.
* OPA may also identify any policy or training
issues that were identified in the course of the
investigation.
Recommending Cases for Review
by the CRB
* Cases close when the employee(s) named in the
complaint have been notified as to the Chief’s
adjudication determination and, where
applicable, the employee has received notice of
any discipline that will be imposed.
* At the end of each month OPA publishes
synopses of the closed cases and provides these to
the CRB with recommendations as to which
case(s) have merit for review.
Collecting Data & Spotting Trends
• Each month, closed cases are entered into a spreadsheet
maintained by OPA. Tracking includes:
– The length of time to investigate and close cases.
– The age, race, gender or special status that was identified (i.e.
disabled, demonstrator, mental health issues)
– A summary of the complainant’s statement.
– The allegations against each officer(s)
– Whether the complainant was charged, jailed or taken into
protective custody.
– Whether there were injuries to complainants or officers and whether
medical treatment was required.
– The adjudication recommendations by: the chain of command, the
Chief, OPA and, where applicable CRB.