HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 Board of Police Commission Year End Complaint ReportBoard of Police Commission Investigator
Complaint Report
2004
Cases Assigned to the Board Of Police Commissioner's Investi, Permanent
2004
Year End Complaint Report
"There is a time in the life of every problem
when it is big enough to see,
yet small enough to solve."
Bernard. Brantley
Commission Investigator
City of Lansing
RECEIVED
TABLE OF CONTENTS 05 JUL 18 Q8
LANSINO Ci i r CLERK
INTRODUCTION........................................................................... 1
Board Of Police Commissioners.......................................................... 3
Commission Investigator................................................................ 6
COMPLAINT REVIEW....................................................................... 6
Synopsis............................................................................ 7
2004 CITIZEN COMPLAINTS ................................................................. 8
Formal Complaints.............................................................. 10
Informal Complaints............................................................. 14
CONCLUSION............................................................................ 17
In 1998 members of the Lansing community reacted to the death of a citizen (while in police custody) with the
formation of a group called the "March for Justice." This organized group suggested that Lansing adopt a "Citizen Review
Board." The Review Board concept had official roots in a few cities across the country but, as a practical matter, for
implementation in this city, would have required the renegotiation of numerous union contracts and impacted the manner in
which many City Departments conducted business. The Mayor, acknowledging the need for a different approach, researched
the Complaint Process in several major urban areas and found one that, with a few modifications could work well for both
citizens and the administration of City Departments. The Mayor's plan, to hire a "Chief Investigator" was accepted aftervoters
rejected the March for Justice initiative. In late November of 1998, Lansing's first Chief Investigator was brought on board
after a lengthy search process.
The Citizen Complaint Procedure was studied, re -written and then adopted by the Lansing Board of Police
Commissioners. It became the task of the newly hired investigator to prepare the framework so that the new procedure could
be implemented. This subsequent framework contained, among other things, a user friendly Citizen Complaint Form, Citizen
Complaint Brochure and procedures to promote a cohesive relationship between the civilian investigator and sworn officers
assigned to Internal Affairs. Additionally, it contained procedures to allow the flow of information from police personnel to the
Investigator. The day to day supervision of the investigator and numerous rules, regulations and mandates to facilitate the
implementation of the complaint process were also a part of this framework. Early on one of the initial concerns became the
need to change the name of the position to more accurately reflect its' mandate and origin. Since, under the new process,
the Board of Police Commissioners are the actual "Citizen Review", the position was subsequently renamed "Commission
Investigator."
Each year, the Commission Investigator generates a report, to the Board, which identifies and describes the incidents
investigated. That report reflects the number of complaints filed, complaint dispositions, complaint origins and a number of
additional categories which may be of interest to the citizen consumer. It also lists accomplishments and recommendations.
Ultimately the report explains the process and reviews accomplishments while projecting it's utility to members of the Lansing
community.
BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS
The current Chair of the Board of Police Commissioners is Miss Sandra Kowalk.
Miss Kowalk has been a member of the Commission
since 2000 and represents the 3rd Ward. She
undertook assignments with the Complaint Committee,
City Council Liaison and Human Resources Committee
3
Commissioner Patty Farhat is currently the vice chair and the
longest serving commissioner. She has been with
the Commission since June of 1996. She is also a member of
the Complaint Committee.
Commissioner Linda Sims was appointed to the Commission in
August of 1999. She recently completed a stint on the Complaint
Committee and is currently a member of the Awards and
Incentives Committee
Commissioner Maria Mejorado was appointed on November 24, 1997.
Commissioner Mejorado is a past member of the Complaint
Committee and currently the co-chair of the Awards and
Incentives Committee.
4
K4
Ic
Commissioner Derrick Quinney has served the Commission r
since October of 1997. During his term with the Commission,
Commissioner Quinney has served on various committees and
is now the Chair of the Complaint Committee. orl
Commissioner Robert Noordhoek was appointed to the Commission
in April of 2004. Commissioner Noordhoek is currently Chair of the
Budget Committee and is also a member of the Complaint Committee.
Commissioner Clyde Carnegie, the most recently appointed member,
Joined the Commission in September of 2004. Commissioner Carnegie
served on the Disciplinary Advisory Task Force with a number of citizens
and Commissioners Noordhoek, Farhat and Sims
5
COMMISSION INVESTIGATOR
The Commission Investigator, Bernard Brantley, was hired in
November of 1998. His initial assignment was the preparation
of the Complaint Brochure (See Appendix) and the revamping
of the Citizen Complaint form.
Mr. Brantley is a retired member of the Detroit Police Department and
former Administrator with the City of Jackson, Michigan Police Department. During his 26 years with the Detroit Department,
Mr. Brantley was assigned to the Armed Robbery and Major Theft Section for three years, the Homicide Section (Special
Assignment Squad) for 11 years and Internal Affairs (Special Investigative Section) for two years. After promotion to
Lieutenant in 1989, he spent two years as an Investigative Operations Commander and five years as a Precinct Patrol
Supervisor. After retirement, Mr. Brantley worked, in a civilian capacity for the Jackson, Michigan Police Department as its'
Records Coordinator.
COMPLAINT REVIEW
The Board's Complaint Committee, composed of three Commissioners, meets monthly (to discuss the previous
months closed cases) and as needed to discuss ongoing cases and cases which may be of particular interest to the
Investigator, the Commission or the community at large. Prior to the monthly meeting, the Commission Investigator reviews
each case closed within the previous 30 day period. A synopsis is prepared and forwarded to members of the Committee.
The Chairperson of the Complaint Committee either assigns or allows individual members to choose several cases to
personally review and present to the full committee on the meeting date. During the 2004 calendar year, 129 cases were
reviewed and a synopsis prepared (see Table 1). All reviewed cases are Formal complaints investigated by the Police
Department, Internal Affairs or the Commission Investigator.
Table 1
Cases Reviewed and Synopsis Prepared
2004
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Total
Cases
14
15
12
10
15
12
14
4
10
11
5
7
129
The synopsis facilitates each member's review by identifying potential areas of concern. Citizens may be assured
that all complaints are reviewed, some as many as three times, by the Commission Investigator, the Department's Internal
Affairs Section and the Board's Complaint Committee.
For reasons of confidentiality, case synopsis do not contain the names of citizens or officers. However, since most
cases contain unique, identifiable information, it is difficult to present an accurate example of this process.
I
If the Complaint Committee is not satisfied with any portion of an investigation, members may request additional
investigation, reassign the investigation to the appropriate entity, make suggestions about how the matter might be resolved
and/or meet with the Chief of Police to address the specific concern. The results of these reviews are presented to the entire
Board of Police Commissioners by the Chairperson of the Complaint Committee.
2004 CITIZEN COMPLAINTS
The Commission Investigator received 72 requests for assistance in the calendar year 2004. These requests
were categorized as Formal and Informal Complaints. Although all complaints are fully documented, Formal Complaints
are those which result in a complete written investigation of an employee of the Department while Informal Complaints
may be resolved without extended investigation (an example of each type of complaint may be found later in this
document). Formal and Informal Complaints are summarized as follows:
■ 18 Formal Complaints were lodged with the Commission Investigator
■ 54 Informal Complaints were filed with the Commission Investigator. These complaints were
resolved, to the citizen's satisfaction, without formal investigation.
8
Allegations
The Lansing Police Department's "Rules of Conduct Procedure" lists 52 rules which encompass the regulations by
which an employee is governed. In reviewing the frequency of complaints, twelve categories of improper actions were
identified from the eighteen formal complaints lodged. Once the complaint is received and the case initiated, the
Commission Investigator, in conjunction with the Internal Affairs liaison, determines the proper complaint category using
the "Rules of Conduct Procedure." Based on a review of the circumstances, formal allegations are assigned to each
complaint. In some cases, more than one allegation may be assigned. In fact, as shown in Figure 1, and later noted in
the Dispositions section of this report, 65 allegations resulted from the 18 formal Complaints. The 3.6 allegations per
complaint average is slightly above the average for 2003 and equal to that of 2002.
The breakdown of allegations (See Figure 1) shows 17 complaints of Arrest, Search and Entry, 15 allegations of
Excessive Force, 8 allegations of Courtesy violations, 5 allegations of Unsatisfactory Performance, 4 of Harassment and
4 alleged Procedural violations. Additionally, there were allegations of Dissemination of Information, Inhumane
Treatment, Denial of Medical care, Property and Demeanor.
9
Figure 1
2004 Frequency of Allegations
®Arrest Force ❑Courtesy
❑ Unsatisfactory Performance ■Harassment ®Procedure
MAbuseof Process ❑InhumaneTreatment ■Denial of Medical Care
MDisseminationof Information ❑Property IMDemeanor
3% 3% 3% 3% 2%
5% 3fi%
6%
6%
% 23%
Arrest, Search & Entry accounted for twenty six percent of the allegations made. A review of Figure 1 reveals the
total percentage of the other listed allegations.
Formal Complaints
As mentioned previously, 18 Formal Complaints were filed and processed by the Commission Investigator.
Descriptive information about the complaints and their dispositions follows.
10
Origin of Formal Complaints
As the Complaint Brochure emphasizes, complaints are accepted from any source. A complaint may be filed by a
person involved in direct contact with the police or on that person's behalf by a relative, friend or concerned citizen. The
complaint may be filed with the Commission Investigator, The Police Department or the Mayor's Office. Complaints may
be lodged by telephone, sent by letter and/or filed in person. In previous years, citizens were more likely to telephone the
Commission Investigators office than to either walk in or write. That trend continued in 2004. This year more than sixty
percent of the complainants telephoned and nearly forty percent walked in. No citizen, seeking assistance, wrote a letter.
Table 2
Origin of Formal Complaints
Ori in
Number
Percent
Telephone
11
61.2
Walk -In
7
38.8
Letter
0
0
Total
18
100.0
11
Race and Gender of Formal Complainants
nformation regarding the race and gender of those who filed complainants is shown in Table 3. When
multiple complainants refer to or are involved in the same incident, only the race and gender of the primary person filing
the complaint or on whose behalf the complaint was filed, was counted for the purposes of this review. The total number
of complainants for the eighteen cases is twenty.
Table 3
Race and Gender of Formal Complainants
Gender
Minority
White
Total
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Males
8
40
0
8
40
Female
10
50
2
10
12
60
Total
18
90%
2
10%
20
100%
Dispositions of Formal Complaints
The five possible dispositions for each allegation are as follows:
Sustained The Commission found sufficient evidence to support the complaint.
Not Sustained The Commission did not find sufficient information to prove or disprove the
complaint.
12
Exonerated The Commission found that the alleged act occurred but was justified, lawful and
proper.
Unfounded The Commission proved the allegation was false and did not occur.
Policy Failure The Commission found the action justified by existing policies or procedures.
However, the policy or procedure was not sufficient to protect the public interest.
Policy and/or Procedural changes are recommended.
Table 4
Allegation Dispositions
Dispositions
Number
Percent
Sustained
11
17
Not Sustained
13
20
Exonerated
22
34
Unfounded
19
29
Policy Failure
0
0
Total
65
100
13
The 18 Formal Complaints processed by the Commission Investigator in the year 2004 resulted in 65
alleged violations and subsequent dispositions. Table 4 reveals that 17 percent of the alleged violations were sustained.
One in five, 20 percent, lacked the evidence necessary to prove or refute the allegation and were not sustained. More
than half the complaints, 63 percent, were either unfounded or exonerated. As shown in Table 4, the Commission found
no basis to support approximately 30 percent of the complaint allegations.
INFORMAL COMPLAINTS
Fifty-four Informal Complaints were lodged with the Commission Investigator in the calendar year 2004. Informal
Complaints were typically presented as inquiries about whether an officer's actions were justified or legal and whether
there was evidence that an officer was truthful regarding the reason for his/her contact with a citizen. These types of
complaints require the Commission Investigator to review police documents, policies and/or procedures, check with the
Communications Center, Records Section or some other departmental entity. After contact was made and the necessary
information provided to the citizen inquirer, he/she generally indicated that they did not wish to file a formal complaint or
pursue a formal investigation.
14
Origin of Informal Complaints
As shown in Table 5, the majority of the Informal Complaints were initiated by telephone. A tenth of the Informal
Complainants initiated the process by walking into the Commission Investigator's office.
Table 5
Origin of Informal Complaints
Origin
Number
Percent
Walk-in
5
9.3
Telephone
48
88.9
Letter
1
1.8
Total
54
100.0
15
Gender of Informal Complainants
Males comprise approximately forty percent of the Formal Complainants (as shown in Table 3) and close to
seventy percent of the Informal Complainants (See Table 6). Since most contact was by telephone, it is difficult to cite
specific detail as to the race of all Informal complainants. Table 6 clearly indicates that the differences in gender among
the Informal complainants is more pronounced than those of the Formal complainants.
Table 6
Gender of Informal Complainants
Gender
Number
Percent
Males
37
68.5
Females
17
31.5
Total
54
100.0
16
CONCLUSION
In 2004 the Board of Police Commissioners and the Commission Investigator worked to implement a new
complaint synopsis (see appendix) and Commission Investigator monthly activity report. These new procedures will
assist the Commission in developing an ongoing mechanism for determining the critical value of the Commission
Investigator.
As in past reports, the Appendix also contains the Complaint Brochure and the revised Citizen's Complaint Form.
All of the items in the Appendix are provided for your perusal.
17
APPENDIX
If you would like additional information
about the complaint process,
please contact:
Commission Investigator
4th Floor, City Hall
124 W. Michigan Avenue
Lansing, Michigan 48933
(517) 483-4002
TDDNoice (517) 483-4479
Lansing Human Relations and
Community Services Department
(517)483-4477
Lansing Mayor's Office
(517)483-4141
Lansing Police Department
Internal Affairs Office
(517)483-4804
Lansing Police Department Supervisor
(517) 483-4600 (press "2")
OF POLICE
COMMISSIONERS
jl
CITIZEN
COMPLAINT
PROCESS
"There is a time in the life of every
problem when it is big enough to see,
yet small enough to solve."
BOARd Of PONCE COMMISSIONERS Complaints may be filed with the: COMPLAINT INVESTICIATION
A Board of Police Commissioners is authorized by
the Lansing City Charter. The board is composed
of eight citizens who are appointed by the Mayor,
with the advice and consent of the City Council, to
serve four year terms. The City Charter requires
this citizen review board to establish procedures
for receiving and resolving complaints against the
Lansing Police Department.
The Commission meets the third Tuesday of
each month at 5:30 p.m. Meetings are held at the
Lansing Police Department's South or North
Precinct. These meetings are open to the public.
Call (517) 483-4800 for more information.
COMMISSION INVESTigATOR
An independent civilian investigator works for
the Police Commission. The investigator's
duties are to monitor and process citizen
complaints. The Commission Investigator's
office is located on the 4th Floor of City Hall at
124 W. Michigan Avenue in Lansing.
COMPLAINTS
Any person, regardless of age, residence, citizenship
or the nature of the complaint, may file a complaint
against the Lansing Police Department. A complaint
may be filed by letter, telephone, in person, or through
a friend or family member.
• Commission Investigator at:
(517) 483-4002
• Lansing Human Relations and
Community Services Department
at: (517) 483-4477
• Lansing Mayor's Office at:
(517) 483-4141
• Internal Affairs Office of the Lansing
Police Department at: (517) 483-4804
• Police Department supervisor at:
(517) 483-4600 (press "2")
You will be asked to provide the details of your
complaint in writing. Assistance completing the
complaint form will be provided, if necessary.
Your complaint can also be taken by phone.
There is no time limit for filing complaints.
However, it is better to file as soon as possible. It
may be difficult to prove the complaint or
interview witnesses if you wait.
A complaint can be withdrawn at any time. But,
depending on the nature of the complaint, an
investigation may continue and result in
discipline, if appropriate.
Within two weeks of receiving your
complaint you will be notified in writing about
the investigation process and the time frame
for completion.
If a complaint cannot be resolved informally, an
investigation may be ordered by the Police
Commission. You may be contacted to provide
additional information or answer questions about
your complaint. Others, who have information
about your complaint, may also be contacted.
Every effort will be made to complete each
investigation within 90 days. You are welcome to
call anytime about the status of your complaint.
After the investigation is completed, you will be
informed in writing about the results. The results
will include one of the following:
• Sustained - The Commission found
sufficient evidence to support the
complaint. Discipline may result.
• Not Sustained - The Commission did not
find sufficient information to prove or
disprove the complaint.
• Exonerated - The Commission investigation
revealed the alleged act occurred but was
justified, lawful and proper.
• Unfounded - The Commission investigation
proved that the allegation was false and did
not occur.
• Policy Failure -The Commission investigation
proved the action was justified by
policies or procedures which were not
sufficient to protect the public interest. The
Commission will recommend policy or
procedural changes.
In the event that new evidence or an error is
found in the manner in which the investigation
was conducted, you may request that the Police
Commission review your complaint again.
D
v
17. DATE OF INCIDENT
18, TIME OF INCIDENT:
19. LOCATION OF INCIDENT:
20. WITNESSES:
21. NO.OF
1. ❑ A.M.
1. ❑ YES
OFFICERS
MM DID YY
2. ❑•P.M.
2. ❑ NO
INVOLVED:
DETAILS OF INCIDENT: (Include name, address and phone of all witnesses; name, badge number and work assignment of all officers, Include addi-
tional pages if necessary)
W
'D
0
I HAVE RECEIVED A COPY OF THE ABOVE COMPLAINT
AND ATTEST THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS
CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. SIGNED '(OPTIONAL)
PRINT NAME AND TITLE OF PREPARER OF REPORT SIGNATURE OF PREPARER OF REPORT
WHITE -ORIGINAL GREEN -COMMISSION INV. COPY YELLOW -INTERNAL AFFAIRS COPY PINK -POLICE CHIEF COPY GOLD -CITIZEN COPY
PLEASE MAIL ALL COPIES TO THE COMMISSION INVESTIGATOR WE WILL RETURN YOUR GOLD COPY TO YOU.
AREA(S) OF CONCERN:
UNIT OR OFFICER INVOLVED:
1. 2.
AREA(S) OF CONCERN:
UNIT OR OFFICER INVOLVED:
1 2. 3. = t
AREA(S) OF CONCERN:
UNIT OR OFFICER INVOLVED:
1. 2. 3.
AREA(S) OF CONCERN
1. FORCE Complaint regarding the use or threatened use of force against a person.
2. ARREST Complaint that the restraint of a person's liberty was Improper or unjustified.
3. ENTRY Complaint that entry into a building or onto property was imprgRer and/or that excessive force was used against property to gain entry.
4. SEARCH Complaint that the search of a person or his property was Impynr or in violation of established police procedure or unjustified.
5. HARASSMENT Complaint that the taking or method of police action was predkhted upon factors irrelevant, under the circumstances to good jaw enforcement, decision
making, sucft as race, attire, sex, age,'etc. Complaint of improperly selective law enforcement on the basis of factors such as those just listed.
6. DEMEANOR Complaint regarding members bearing, gesture, language or other action which allegedly is offensive or of doubtful social propriety or gives the appear-
ance of conflict of interest, misuse of influence or lack of jurisdiction or authority.
7. PROCEDURE Complaint regarding other alleged actions in violation of department rules, regulations, procedures or policies.
8. SERVICE Complaint regarding the tack, tardiness or inadequacy of police service.
9. PROPERTY Complaint regarding property lost.or damaged while in police custody or confiscated through police action.
CASE SYNOPSIS
(DATE)
Complaint Number
Original Date of Complaint
Complaint Initiated by
Complaint was initiated via
(phone, writing etc.)
Brief Summary/Synopsis
People Interviewed
Allocated to Complaint
Relevant Law, Policy and/or
Procedure
anal Recommendation of the
Commission Investigator
Outcome (LPD)
Commission Investigator's Activities
(July)
Date
Activity
Action Taken
7-15-04
Completed case review. Prepared synopsis.
E-mailed & Mailed to
Committee Members
7-15-04
New Case (2004-074)
Researching information w/Communications on
an additional complaint which will lead to another
New Case.
7-15-04
North Network Center
Review Professor Curry's report. Checked with
Complaint Committee
7-19-04
Southside Community Center
7-19-04
New Case 2004-085
Letter from Susan Cancro
7-19-04
Interviews and Statements RE: 2004-081 & 2004-
080
7-20-04
Police Commission Meeting
7-20-04
New Case 2004-086
7-22-04
North Network Center
North Precinct
Discussion of Curry Report
7-25-04
Advent House
Complaint Presentation
7-26-04
Closed Case (2003-144)
Interviews & Transcribing Statements
8-6
Complaint Committee Meeting
Reviewed June Closures
8-7
African American Picnic & Parade
8-14
Race & Diversity Back to School Picnic
Cases
Month
Year
Open
3
7
Closed
1
8
Commission Investigator's Activities
August 2004
Date
Activity
Action Taken
Checked w/Lt Person re: Citizen Complaint Form
8-16
on LPD Web site.
Police Commission Meeting
List of closed complaints for
the month of July to
8-17
Complaint Committee
members.
North Side Community Network Center
Available for complaints,
8-19
interaction w/citizens
Completed July Synopsis Review.
Typed synopsis and e-mailed
8-23
copy to complaint committee
South Side Community Center
Available for complaints,
8-23
concerns etc.
8-24
Mailed copy of July synopsis to Complaint
Committee
8-25
Staff Meeting
North Network Back to School Race & Diversity
8-27
Picnic
8-30
905 Shiawassee
Canvass Re: 2004-080
8-31
Interviews
2004-065
9-1
Complaint Committee Meeting
To Internal Affairs - Reviewed Closures for the
Prepared Synopsis. Mailed &
month of August
E-mailed synopsis to
Complaint Committee
Working on open cases, conducting interviews,
canvass, phone contacts, etc.
Assigned as a Co-chair to United Way
Busy with notifications and
9-4
preparation for the 2004
campaign
9-8
HR&CS Staff Meeting
Phone call from citizen - possible new complaint
Scheduled for interview on 9-
9-10
11 (No Show)
Completed monthly report for HR&CS and
9-10
forwarded to director.
Cases
Month
Year
Open
0
7
Closed
0
8
Commission Investigator's Activities
September 2004
Date
Activity
Action Taken
9-14
E-mailed monthly report to Jim Deline
9-14
Typing file # 2004-070 (awaiting three reports
from IA for closure) Still awaiting reports on
Files 080, 074& 085
9-15
Staff Meeting
9-20
CAUW - Preparing Press Release
Arranging a Co-ordinator's meeting
Completed and closed 2004-065
Working on 2004-070. Will
submit both at the same time.
United Way - paperwork & notifications
North Network Center
Available to log complaints,
speak with citizens
South Side Center
Available to log complaints
9-28
CAUW - Coordinator's Meeting
9-29
Cornerstone Group Meeting
10-4
United Way - Campaign Kick off
Typing closure 2004-070
Prepared Commission notifications for September
closures and placed in mail.
10-06
Complaint Committee Meeting
To Internal Affairs - Reviewed September's
closures
Typed September Synopsis
Completed and mailed to
Committee
10-08
To Internal Affairs. Obtained copy of Chief s
letter (067) Re: Dennis Lofton
Forwarded letter to Mayor's
office
10-12
Completed & Closed 2004-070
Delivered both cases to I.A.
10-12
Begin typing closure 2004-085
Cases
Month
Year
Open
0
5
Closed
2
10
For more information about the Citizen Complaint Process, contact:
Bernard Brantley
Commission Investigator
4' Floor, City Hall
124 W. Michigan Avenue
Lansing, Mi. 48933
Phone: (517) 483-4002
TDDNoice (517) 483-4479
Fax: (517) 377-0078
E-Mail: Bbrantle@ci.lansiing.mi.us
6/2005