Loading...
03.10.22 POP Meeting NotesBoulder Police Oversight Panel Meeting Notes March 10, 2022 I. Finalization and adoption of panel by-laws Panel reviewed feedback and updated as needed. Notice that by-laws are a living document and can be updated on an on-going basis. Panel passed the by-laws. II. Committee reports a. Community Outreach & Communications Committee COC committee presented an update on members and schedule of plan development and framework of public engagement/communication plan. Information will be distributed through a shared folder. Educational collateral = info shared with public in form of flyers, digital content, etc. Monitor added that City communications dept. can assist in collateral creation. b. Governance committee is meeting monthly and will discuss the addition of education and training responsibilities. III. Monitor’s report a. Annual Report (March 2022) b. Report on outcome of case reviews i. MI2021-051: This case involved an allegation that the complainant’s First Amendment Rights were violated in June of 2018 when he received a harassment violation for following a demonstrator on the Pearl Street Mall. The violation summons indicated the reporting party told the officer that two males were following him after confronting him about his campaigning and soliciting signatures. Both individuals admitted to the officer that they were following the reporting party and said they were mistaken in believing that they were within their constitutional rights to do so as part of their free speech. The reporting party requested the individuals be issued a summons, and both individuals signed the summons. The complainant in this case is one of the individuals who received the summons. The DA’s office indicated that the narrative on the back of the tickets clearly supported probable cause to believe the defendants violated the harassment statute. However, the DA's office concluded that the incident involved political activity by the suspects and victim that implicated the First Amendment and did not appear to rise to the level of a prosecutable crime. The DA's office declined to prosecute the violation. The allegation was classified as Rule 5 Police Authority and Public Trust based on the issuance of the summonses. The investigation found that the officer did not violate any department policy and the allegation was deemed not sustained by both the panel and the Department. ii. MI2021-045: This case involved an allegation that a detective failed to interview relevant witnesses despite being notified of the witnesses and being provided with their contact information. An investigation found that the detective did not perform in a satisfactory manner, to include interviewing witnesses, suspects, and taking extended amounts of time to review items of evidence. The panel sustained the allegation and recommended a one-day suspension for the detective. The Chief of Police sustained the allegation against the detective and imposed a one-year letter of reprimand. iii. MI2021-046: This case involved a complainant that alleged an officer issued an arrest warrant for her, but not against her ex-husband. The officer was provided with evidence of harassment (this charge included a domestic violence enhancement which is required when harassment occurs between two individuals in an intimate relationship). An investigation found that the officer had sufficient probable cause to apply for the warrant and that such action was required under state law. Both the panel and the Chief of Police exonerated the officer on the allegation. c. Monthly case statistics • Six complaints and three community inquiries were filed in February • So far in March, one complaint and one community inquiry have been filed • There are currently 18 open investigations IV. Panel selection of cases to review The panel reviewed the summaries of the complaints filed. The panel voted on whether to conduct a full review of each case. The panel elected to conduct a full case file review of cases # MI2022-004, #MI2022-005, #MI2022-007, #SMS2022-002. V. Public Comment 6 members of the public were present. Members of public receive 2 minutes to speak. A member of public voiced concerns that by-laws duties and powers of oversight panel compared to ordinance are confusing regarding oversight of independent police monitor. A member of public thanked the panel for their volunteer work. Then asked for consideration from panel members to keep in mind the accessibility of public buildings including Boulder Police Department. A member of the public commented on the importance of POP by-laws to incorporate the Ordinance language and guidelines as they pertain to Independent Monitor oversight.