Police Oversight - First Annual Report - August 2020 - March 2021
FIRST ANNUAL
REPORT 2020
August 2020 – March 2021
City of Boulder
Police Oversight
Independent Police Monitor
Joseph L. Lipari
Email [Email Here]
1
Letter from the Monitor ........................................................................... 2
Police Oversight Panel Members .............................................................. 5
Enabling Legislation .................................................................................. 9
History of Police Oversight in Boulder ..................................................... 11
Establishment of Boulder’s Police Oversight Panel .................................. 12
Complaint Data ...................................................................................... 15
Case Summaries ..................................................................................... 18
Monitor’s Recommendations from 2020 ................................................. 41
How to File a Complaint ......................................................................... 44
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2
After more than a year of protest and public debate both locally and nationally,
the City of Boulder has successfully established a civilian-controlled police
oversight system. However, in many important ways, Ordinance 8430 – which
established the Office of the Independent Police Monitor and created the
Police Oversight Panel – represents an inflection point in a much longer
historical struggle. Throughout its history, local jurisdictions in the United
States have grappled with the question of how to provide public safety amidst
a constantly evolving social and political landscape. In some periods, police have been deployed in a
fashion that maintains the status quo or enforces an unjust order. At other times, when properly
directed and trained to do so, police have served as the bastions of a multi-racial democracy. There
has been and continues to be a constant push and pull on the profession of policing as society
attempts to stretch, fit, and shape it into what is needed for each generation.
As this process slowly and gradually unfolds, certain incidents become a flash point for more rapid
change. On the national level, the deaths of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Sandra
Bland, Walter Scott, Samuel DuBose, Breanna Taylor, George Floyd and others have galvanized a
moral vision that has brought into sharp focus the need for reimagining and clarifying the role of
armed police officers in a constitutionally based democratic republic. That necessary conversation is
often compounded by local challenges that can include high rates of violence and human exploitation
or how best to manage encampments and respond to the needs of unhoused people.
Here in Boulder, the Zayd Atkinson incident on March 1, 2019 and a series of viral videos and social
media posts by a Boulder officer stimulated ongoing discussions about police accountability and
transparency of the disciplinary process. When I arrived in Boulder to serve as the monitor in July
2020, I found a city administration that was eager to invest in and build racial equity within its
institutions, a police department that was deeply affected by recent allegations of racial bias, and a
vocal segment of the community that was generally suspicious and mistrustful of policing as well as
government’s ability or willingness to reform and improve policing. A new Chief of Police, Maris
Herold, had just arrived to lead the department and had brought with her a plan and set of
expectations for department reforms and modernization. Local advocates as well as police officers
were watching closely to see how all of the new changes would play out.
Now that many of the institutional components are in place and the post-pandemic re-opening of
society is beginning, an opportunity exists to lean in further to these necessary changes and build the
institutions we need for the 21st century. The critical policing challenge of the modern era will be how
Letter from the
Monitor
3
to reduce social harms while enforcing the law, respecting human rights and serving the most
vulnerable. Some jurisdictions will proactively embrace this challenge, others will have it foisted
upon them by events. Fortunately, Boulder currently possesses all the necessary elements to make its
way through this period and to develop an approach to policing that meets the evolving needs of our
complex community.
In the midst of ongoing and deepening distrust of law enforcement, informed community members
must use the levers of civilian input to help reshape policing and public safety. This will require the
courage to discard what has been ineffective or harmful, hold on to what is good and noble, and
construct some things anew with an intentional focus on community-building, public safety and harm
reduction.
Globally and locally, we are at the precipice of a dramatic shift and evolution in policing. Already,
more advanced systems of information technology are being adopted. Pilot programs exploring the
use of robotics and drones in policing are currently underway. New and more effective non-lethal
weapons are under research and development and will be marketed to local police agencies. As a
society, we must examine and understand the pros and cons – the risks and benefits – of these
technologies. Most of these technologies simultaneously possess the ability to both reduce harm and
to inflict greater harm. How they are used and what controls we put in place will determine our
ability to harness this technology for positive change and harm reduction while maintaining civil
liberties and protecting human rights.
The King Soopers shooting on March 22, 2021 reminds us of the necessity, grave risk and nobility
inherent in providing public safety. At the same time, the recurring deaths of Black people in police
encounters has rightly stimulated a fierce urgency to reduce use of force and deepen and diversify
the government’s suite of resources and responses for minor violations, serving vulnerable
populations and crisis intervention. Police departments can not and will not be successful doing this
alone. Robust public input is required. If we can identify and articulate common goals, we will find
that our local expectations of public safety are not as divergent as our current national discourse
suggests. This will require the provision of accurate, timely information to the public and the
dismantling of defensive and oppositional perspectives both within law enforcement and amongst
those calling for change and reform.
As Boulder and the nation continue to grapple with history, race, and policing, we cannot forget the
past, but we also cannot be trapped by it. We must allow it to guide us and warn us. Our awareness
4
of historic and ongoing injustice must inspire our determination to work through challenging
conversations, instill within us persistence and a steely determination to build a system that
prioritizes personal safety of all individuals, minimizes inter-personal violence, and provides police
officers with the tools and resources needed to properly serve the public, including the most
vulnerable. If we do that, we can build a system of local policing in which police can be not only first
responders – but also first connectors – to services and resources.
Implementing this vision will require a robust ongoing conversation between police and the public.
While primarily providing a check on the police complaint and disciplinary process, the monitor and
the panel will also participate in this conversation to ensure improvements are being implemented to
keep pace with national and international best practices. With a relatively low crime rate and city
leadership that is passionate about providing public safety and transforming police-community
relations, Boulder is well-positioned to develop, test and evaluate new approaches to public safety
services. The transformation will require public investment and a high level of long-term planning and
coordination across multiple city and county agencies as well as service providers.
But it can be done.
As the anthropologist Margaret Mead reminded us: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful,
committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
With respect and solidarity,
Joseph Lipari
Independent Police Monitor
5
Police Oversight Panel Members
Taishya Adams
Taishya Adams is a servant leader focused on collective liberation and
stewardship through community building, personal transformation, and
systems change. Taishya has been a Boulder, Colorado resident since 2012 and
currently serves as a commissioner to Colorado Parks and Wildlife. The
commission is a citizen board, appointed by the Governor, which sets
regulations and policies for Colorado’s state parks and wildlife programs. Taishya is the Policy
Director and Colorado Co-lead for Outdoor Afro. Outdoor Afro is a nationwide network that inspires
Black American connections to nature and leadership. As Policy Director, Taishya engages with our
leaders, networks, policymakers, and partners on education, health, and environmental policies
affecting Black people, Black communities, and the planet. Previously, Taishya worked at American
Institutes for Research as an Educational Equity Specialist leveraging policy, research, and practice to
strengthen public education. Taishya also worked with the National Alliance for Public Charter
Schools, the DC Public Charter School Board, and the Children Defense Fund Freedom Schools.
Taishya is the founding Board President of New Legacy Charter School, a public charter high school
and early learning center Colorado. Taishya also serves on the Colorado Natural Areas Council, the
NOAA National Marine Sanctuaries, and the #Nature for All International Taskforce. Taishya holds a
MA in International Education from George Washington University and a BA from Vassar College in
Political Science and Film.
Ariel Amaru
Ariel Amaru is a first-year associate at Crowell & Moring. She received her law
school degree from the University of Colorado and her undergraduate degree
from The George Washington University. Her undergraduate thesis on Black
women’s experience of DV won the outstanding undergraduate research of the
year award.
6
Suzy Gordon
Dr. Suzy Gordon is an occupational therapist who has worked extensively
with vulnerable populations in all parts of Boulder County through their
clinical career, working in both the fields of Home Health and Skilled
Nursing. Suzy enjoys helping others through their work but felt a strong
responsibility to pursue opportunities that would broaden their impact and
strengthen people, families, and communities as a whole.
Sarah Holt
Sarah has significant experience in the corporate world participating in and leading Diversity, Equity,
and Inclusion oversight councils – including developing data-based policies, training, and codes of
conduct. As a Latinx member of the LGBTQ community, with a black child; and coming from a family
of military and police service, she has a unique intersectional view of policing. Sarah moved to
Boulder County four years ago and is active in various community groups.
Suzy Gordon
Hadasa
Victor King
Victor King is a Recovery Coach Manager at Mental Health Partners. A
longtime Boulder resident who brings a passion and experiential knowledge
of recovery. He is a current member of the 2020 -2021 Leadership Fellows of
Boulder County.
7
Daniel Leonard
Daniel Leonard received his BFA, BA, and MBA from CU Boulder. He is the
Assistant Director of Marketing at CU Boulder for CU Presents. Daniel also
works with a local theatre company BETC. He believes the arts are essential
to a more empathetic and connected world.
Sasha Strong
Sasha Strong is an enrolled member of the Red Lake Band of Chippewa
Indians from the north country of Minnesota. She moved to Colorado nine
years ago to pursue an education at the University of Colorado Boulder. In
2016, Sasha received national honors as a Udall tribal policy scholar and
served on the Dean's Advisory Committee. Sasha ultimately received her
B.A. with Distinction in Political Science and a minor in Philosophy in 2017.
After spending a year working in state-level policy post-graduation, Sasha decided to attend law
school at the University of Colorado School of Law in 2018. Sasha studies American Indian Law and
Family Law in earnest, having spent a year and a half in the Juvenile & Family Law Clinic representing
indigent families and youth under the Student Practice Act. In early 2020, Sasha won third place in
the National Native American Law School Association (NNALSA) Writing Competition for her paper
titled, Murder in the Right Place: Restoring Oklahoma to Indian Co untry.
In addition to her academic foci and success, Sasha has also dedicated herself to diversity and
inclusion - both within the law school and the Colorado community at -large. In fact, Sasha co-founded
the Womxn of Color Collective the University of Colorado Law School and currently serves as an
executive. Sasha is also the Vice President of the Boulder chapter of the Native American Law Student
Association. In addition, Sasha has held various leadership positions in the community, inclu ding time
as a Boulder County Head Start Councilmember and as a Denver American Indian Commissioner. In
2021, Sasha was appointed to the Boulder Police Oversight Panel and was elected to serve as the
panel's co-chair.
In her spare time, Sasha enjoys spending time with her family and dog, playing soccer, and beading
traditional Native American jewelry.
8
Hadasa Villalobos
Hadasa is a Quality Supervisor for a local food manufacturer where she
specializes in policy and compliance. Born to Mexican immigrants in the
Central Valley of California, she is a native Spanish speaker familiar with
both farming and inner-city communities.
Martha Wilson
Martha is a proud, Black Latina, mother of five, and doctoral student in Public
Administration. She has nearly 8 years of experience as a child welfare
caseworker and switched sides of the courtroom as a clinical consultant with the
Office of Respondent Parent Counsel to advocate on behalf of parents after
noticing the drastic racial disparities BIPOC families experience. Martha’s passion
for cultural competence and social justice yields the tenacity to gain traction in
appeals cases and support families through the Family Justice Initiative. Martha was a founding
member of the Boulder County Equity Council and is the coordinator for Boulder Conversations
About Race. On the weekends, Martha is an enhanced mental health crisis clinician with North Range
Behavioral Health, sees clients in her private practice, or can be found at demonstrations and rallies
engaging in community activism alongside her family. This might seem like a lot, but Martha makes
room for what matters and is always game for some good trouble.
9
Ordinance 8430 was adopted by the City Council on
November 10, 2020. The ordinance amends Title 2,
Chapter 11 of the Boulder Revised Code, establishing the
Office of the Independent Monitor and the Police
Oversight Panel. The Council created the role of the police
monitor to review the handling of complaints, to analyze
trends in policing and recommend improvements to police
practices, and to increase transparency around police oversight. The Police Oversight Panel was
created by the Council to increase community involvement in police oversight and to ensure that
historically excluded communities have a voice in police oversight.
The ordinance establishes the Police Oversight Panel an independent entity supported by the Office
of the Independent Police Monitor. The monitor assists the panel by providing summaries of
complaints and complaint investigations, data on monthly statistics, analysis of local policing trends
and access to national best practices. The monitor also organizes and facilitates the training of panel
members. The role of the panel is to review completed internal complaint investigations, make
recommendations on disposition and discipline for those complaints, and to make policy and training
recommendations to the department. The panel may also identify analyses that they would like the
monitor to conduct. The panel members also provide an oversight function with regard to the
monitor by providing regular feedback to the monitor and to the city regarding the work of the
monitor’s office.
In establishing the Office of the Independent Police Monitor, the Council authorized the monitor to
review all ongoing internal investigations in real time. The monitor has access to all complaint
records, including body-worn camera footage, and may observe all interviews with subject officers,
complainants, and witnesses. The monitor can make recommendations for additional investigation as
well as disposition and disciplinary recommendations at the conclusion of the investigation. The
monitor may make policy and training recommendations based on individual cases or trends in
complaint allegations. The monitor is further authorized to conduct analysis of department
operations and outcomes to identify and recommend improvements to police policies and practices.
The diagram below demonstrates the route a case follows as it is classified by the monitor,
investigated by BPD’s Professional Standards Unit, and reviewed by the panel. The Chief of Police
makes the final disciplinary determination after receiving recommendat ions from the BPD command
staff, the monitor, and the panel.
Enabling
Legislation
Ordinance 8430
10
Monitor classifies and
routes complaint/
monitors ongoing
investigation
Complaint and Disciplinary Process under Monitor – Panel Model
Police Oversight Panel reviews complaint
& investigative case files/
makes recommendations
BPD s Professional
Standards Unit
conducts
investigation
BPD Chief of Police
receives
recommendations from
BPD Command Staff,
Monitor, and Oversight
Panel before making
final determination.
Enabling Legislation
Ordinance 8430
11
History of Police Oversight in Boulder
Professional Standards Review Panel (PSRP)
Prior to the establishment of the new Police Oversight Panel in 2021, the Professional Standards
Review Panel existed within the Boulder Police Department. The PSRP was created in 1993 and was
comprised of 12 members who served two-year, renewable terms. Six of the panelists were non-law
enforcement community members selected by the City Manager. The other six were BPD
representatives selected by the Chief of Police with input from the police and municipal employee
unions.
The role of the PSRP members was to review BPD’s Professional Standards Unit (PSU) investigations
into allegations of serious misconduct filed against department members and provide
recommendations to the Chief of Police. The panel had the authority to provide input and
recommendations on the following issues:
o Was the investigation conducted fairly, completely, and reported accurately?
o Based on the material contained in the case file, what is the recommended disposition?
After supervisory review of a PSU investigation of a complaint, each PSRP panelist separately
reviewed the records and files of the investigation. The PSRP then met to discuss whether the
investigation and materials were sufficiently thorough, discuss the evidence and alleged violations,
have an opportunity to question BPD representatives about the investigation, and issue its comments
as to whether the PSU's investigation was fair, complete, and accurately reported. It also provided its
recommendation on the disposition of the alleged violations. The PSRP was not authorized to make
specific disciplinary recommendations.
During 2020, the last year of its existence, the PSRP reviewed seven Class 1 (serious misconduct
allegation) investigations. In addition, they were provided a synopsis, as well as the outcome of the
investigation for 17 Class 2 (misconduct allegation) investigations.
It should be noted that the PSRP recommendations to the Chief of Police were not always unanimous.
In some cases, the Chief of Police agreed with the recommendations and other times the Chief came
to a different conclusion, determining more severe or less severe discipline for the officer.
12
Establishment of Boulder’s Police Oversight Panel
Task Force – Implementation Team – Selection Committee
On February 2, 2021, the Boulder City Council approved the appointment of the first nine members of
Boulder’s new all-civilian Police Oversight Panel. This would not have been possible without the
dedicated work of the Police Oversight Task Force and Implementation Team, specifically: Todd
Conklin, Jr., Michelle Denae, Madelyn Woodley, Shawn Rae Passalacqua, Michele Simpson, and Pam
Gignac. The task force also included Sophia Pelecanos, Mike Rafik, Christian Gardne r-Wood, James
Hill, Shirly White, Sheila Davis, Nami Thompson, and John Gifford. Meetings were facilitated by Dr.
Carolyn Love of Kebaya Consulting Services. Their collective efforts resulted in the development and
passage of Ordinance 8430, establishing the Police Oversight Panel.
In March of 2019, the Zayd Atkinson incident captured local and national attention, bringing the
issues of policing and racial equity to the forefront in Boulder. City Council quickly convened a
community meeting to discuss how the Boulder community could move forward with more robust
transparency and accountability for police operations. Council subsequently convened the Police
Oversight Task Force in May 2019 to assist in developing options for Council to consider.
Zayd Atkinson questions his encounter with Boulder Police on March 1, 2019.
13
Based on the Task Force’s research, analysis, and final report; council adopted an initial ordinance in
October of 2019 directing the establishment of a hybrid model to include an independent monitor
and an all-civilian panel. In addition, council also established the Police Oversight Implementation
Team which was composed of existing Task Force members joined by city staff to focus on finalizing
the implementation details for the new model and passing the final police oversight ordinance. The
Implementation Team began meeting in early 2020 and included Todd Conklin, Jr., Michelle Denae,
Madelyn Woodley, Shawn Rae Passalacqua, Michele Simpson, and Pam Gignac.
These six individuals jumped into the work with passion and seriousness of purpose. They brought
different life experiences and perspectives to the discussion, each with their own strengths and each
of them contributing to the difficult work necessary to build Boulder’s police oversight institutions.
While developing the oversight model, they had to process their own trauma, as well as the
community’s trauma. They were creative, persistent, and not afraid to break new ground. They
developed an inclusive and thorough hiring process for the independent monitor and then worked
with the new monitor to finalize the police oversight ordinance for ultimate adoption by the Council
in November 2020.
Upon adoption of the final ordinance, the Implementation Team then transitioned into the Selection
Committee to interview and select the initial nine members of the Police Oversight Panel. The team
invited local non-profit organizations to provide representatives to be a part of the Selection
Committee – further broadening the team’s representation by incorporating individuals from Boulder
County’s Islamic Center and NAACP into the Selection Committee. This committee then reviewed all
53 applications that were submitted and interviewed a total of 18 applicants before selecting the
panel’s first nine members. The Police Oversight Panel held its first meeting on Februar y 11, 2021 and
their work is now actively underway. The monthly training of the panel members began in February
and includes the history of race, policing, and oversight; Boulder Police Department values and ethics;
Professional Standard Unit operations; use of force; stop and arrest procedures; search and seizure
law; mental health responses; homeless outreach; and investigations.
14
15
Complaint Data: August 2020 – March 2021
From August 2020 through March 2021 there were 40 complaints, involving 53 separate allegations. Of the
53 allegations, 8 were Sustained.
• 16 involved Use of Force, Rule 6.
o 1 allegation was Sustained, and the remaining 15 were either Unfounded, Unsubstantiated,
Not Sustained, or Exonerated.
• 21 involved Violation of Rule 1 ranging from Value of Respect, Report Writing, Customer Service,
Arrest Discretion, Testimony, Pursuit Policy, Miranda Warning, Body Worn Camera Policy, Mask Policy,
Negligent Taser Discharge, and Supervision.
o 6 allegations were Sustained, and the remaining 15 were either Not Sustained or Exonerated.
• 8 involved Police Authority and Public Trust, Rule 5.
o All of these were either Not Sustained or Exonerated.
• 7 involved Respect for Others, Rule 4.
o 1 was Sustained, and the remaining 5 were either Unfounded or Not Sustained.
• 2 involved Truthfulness, Rule 3.
o 1 was Not Sustained, and 1 was Exonerated.
• 1 involved Conduct, Rule 8.
o The complaint was Sustained.
Month
Number of
Complaints
Filed
Allegation Types* Outcomes
August 2020 3
Rule 1 (Value of Respect)**
Rule 1 (Pursuit Violation)
Rule 6 Use of Force (3)***
Not Sustained
Sustained
Exonerated
September 6
Rule 6 Use of Force
Rule 6 Use of Force
Rule 1 (Report Writing)
Rule 6 Use of Force
Rule 6 Use of Force (4)
Rule 6 Use of Force
Rule 1 (Value of Respect)
Exonerated
Sustained
Exonerated
Exonerated
Exonerated
Exonerated
Exonerated
October 3
Rule 4 Respect for Others
Rule 6 Use of Force
Rule 1 (Customer Service)
Not Sustained
Unfounded
Exonerated
November 5
Rule 1 (Customer Service)
Rule 1 (Customer Service)
Rule 6 Use of Force (3)
Rule 6 Use of Force (3)
Rule 6 Use of Force
Not Sustained
Not Sustained
Exonerated
Exonerated
Exonerated
16
December 5
Rule 4 Respect for Others
Rule 6 Use of Force (3)
Rule 1 (Arrest Discretion)
Rule 4 Respect for Others
Rule 6 Use of Force (3)
Rule 1 (Report Writing)
Rule 4 Respect for Others
Sustained
Exonerated
Exonerated
Exonerated
Exonerated
Exonerated
Unfounded
January
2021 9
Rule 4 Respect for Others
Rule 5 Police Authority and Public Trust
Rule 6 Use of Force (3)
Rule 6 Use of Force
Rule 6 Use of Force
Rule 4 Respect for Others
Rule 1 (Report Writing)
Rule 1 (Testimony)
Rule 6 Use of Force
Rule 1 (Pursuit Policy) (2)
Rule 1 (Pursuit Policy)
Rule 1 (Miranda Warning)
Rule 4 Respect for Others
Rule 8 Conduct
Not Sustained
Not Sustained
Exonerated
Exonerated
Exonerated
Not Sustained
Exonerated
Exonerated
Not Sustained
Sustained
Sustained
Sustained
Not Sustained
Sustained
February 4
Rule 1 (Various) (7)
Rule 5 Police Authority and Public Trust (2)
Rule 5 Police Authority and Public Trust (2)
Rule 5 Police Authority and Public Trust
Rule 1 (Body Camera Policy)
Rule 1 (Mask Policy)
Not Sustained
Not Sustained
Exonerated
Exonerated
Sustained
Not Sustained
March 5
Rule 1 (Negligent Taser Discharge)
Rule 3 Truthfulness
Rule 5 Police Authority and Public Trust
Rule 1 (Supervision)
Rule 5 Police Authority and Public Trust (2)
Rule 1 (Communications & Incident Reporting)
Rule 5 Police Authority and Public Trust
Rule 3 Truthfulness
Rule 5 Police Authority and Public Trust
Rule 1 (Incident Reporting)
Sustained
Exonerated
Exonerated
Unfounded
Not Sustained
Not Sustained
Not Sustained
Not Sustained
Not Sustained
Not Sustained
*Each complaint can contain more than one allegation.
**Rule 1 allegations can include a variety of violations of the General Order manual. Therefore, the
specific type of allegation is provided in parentheses for the Rule 1 allegations.
17
***When the same allegation was made against multiple officers during the same incident, the
number of subject officers is noted in parentheses.
Definition of Findings
Exonerated: The incident occurred, but member actions were justified, lawful and proper.
Unfounded: The complainant admits to false allegation; the charges were found to be false; the
member was not involved in the incident; or the complainant has voluntarily withdrawn the
complaint prior to the conclusion of an investigation and the department elects not to continue the
investigation.
Not Sustained: An allegation is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Sustained: An allegation is supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Community Inquiries and Referrals
During this period, 40 Community Inquiries were registered, and six other complaints were deemed
Referrals. All six Referrals occurred prior to October 2020. The monitor recommended
discontinuation of the use of the Referral category which in the past had been used to address minor
performance or protocol issues. The monitor recommended that the department simply classify all
complaints based on the type of allegation, not the level of seriousness. Since mid-September 2020,
no complaints have been labeled as Referrals. See the Monitor’s Recommendation section at the end
of this report for more information on Referrals.
18
Case Summaries
The following case summaries include complaints filed after July 27, 2020 (the beginning of the
monitor’s tenure) and where the investigation was completed before April 1, 2021 (the beginning of
the second quarter of 2021). Going forward, summaries of completed complaint investigations will be
published on a quarterly basis.
Date/Allegation/Outcome Case Summary
August 4, 2020
Rule 1
(Value of Respect)
Not Sustained
On August 4, 2020 the City of Boulder received a complaint
regarding a postcard sent to an individual who had been
associated with a prior complaint recently filed against an officer.
The postcard was sent to the individual’s address and referenced
the prior complaint outcome, stating “Thank you for the paid
vacay! XOXO.” The postcard was signed with the first initial of the
last name of the officer involved in the prior complaint. The
complainant was concerned about harassment and that the
officer may have personally delivered the postcard to the
complainant’s home. The subject officer was interviewed and
indicated that their mother-in-law had sent the postcard without
the officer’s knowledge and that the officer did not direct the
mother-in-law to send the postcard. The officer indicated that
their spouse had informed the mother-in-law of the prior
complaint and that the officer did not know if their spouse had
directed the mother-in-law to do so. The officer learned that the
postcard had been sent through subsequent social media
postings, according to the officer. The investigating sergeant
conferred with the District Attorney’s office which advised that
there were no relevant criminal statutes to charge and that the
actions of the mother-in-law did not fit the criminal definition of
harassment. The investigator had the postcard examined by the
US Postal Service which was able to confirm that the postcard
was sent through the mail and delivered by a mail carrier. They
could not determine from where the stamps were purchased. The
postcard was then examined by a department criminalist for
markings that would not be visible to the naked eye, but no
additional information was obtainable from the postcards. The
investigator twice requested to interview the mother-in-law, who
ultimately declined through an attorney. Because the mother-in-
19
law was not a city employee and no criminal allegations were
present, the investigator could not compel the mother-in-law to
be interviewed or provide a statement. Because the investigation
did not prove the officer either sent the postcard or directed
someone else to send it, the allegation was not sustained against
the officer. It should be noted that the allegation involving the
postcard was added to the prior complaint allegation and was not
lodged as a separate complaint. The monitor recommended to
the department that in such instances going forward, the new
allegation should be filed under a separate complaint number
because it was a different incident occurring at a later date and at
a different location.
August 5, 2020
Rule 1 (Pursuit Violation)
Sustained
An officer responded to a hit and run call with a possibly
intoxicated driver. As they approached the location, they
observed the subject vehicle weaving and travel through two red
lights. A sergeant asked over the radio if they were engaged in a
pursuit, at which point they had already disengaged the pursuit.
The allegation was Sustained and resolved with non-disciplinary
supervisory coaching and counseling documented in a
performance note. The officer's supervisor discussed Colorado
law and several General Orders that guide when an attempted
traffic stop turns into a pursuit. The officer was receptive to the
supervisory instruction and engaged during the training.
August 24, 2020
Rule 6 Use of Force (3)
Exonerated
On August 22, 2020 an officer on routine foot patrol near the
Mapleton Ballfields made contact with several individuals, one of
whom had a felony warrant for aggravated robbery. Additional
officers were requested to the scene, but the individual had left
the area. Officers searched the area and located the individual. As
officers approached and informed the individual there was a
warrant for his arrest, the individual ran away. As two officers
pursued, an officer collided with the individual causing both to
fall to the ground. The officer hit his head on the pavement and
suffered a concussion. Officers attempted to place the individual
into custody, but the individual verbally and physically resisted.
One officer delivered a knee strike to the individual's common
peroneal nerve, but it did not have any effect. The same officer
delivered another knee strike, and the officers were then able to
get the individual into handcuffs. The officers placed the
individual on their side in a recovery position. Soon after, the
individual went into medical distress and appeared to have a
20
seizure. The individual appeared to stop breathing and began to
turn blue. Officers removed the handcuffs and transitioned to a
medical response. An officer performed chest compressions on
the individual and he began breathing again. During a standard
use of force investigation, the individual stated that they wished
to file a complaint against the officers who arrested them, stating
that they had been kicked in the side, struck in the head, and that
their ribs were injured by the chest compressions, which they did
not believe were necessary. The subsequent investigation,
including review of body worn camera footage, found that the
only strikes to the individual were the knee strikes reported by
one of the arresting officers. This use of force was found to be
justified and within policy. The chest compressions performed by
an officer were also found to have been in accordance with
department policy and training. The officers were exonerated of
all allegations.
September 2, 2020
Rule 6 Use of Force
Exonerated
A worker at a business called police regarding a verbal dispute
with a female customer who was visibly pregnant. When the
officer arrived, the customer was yelling at the worker in a
threatening manner. The officer attempted to deescalate the
situation through verbal interaction for several minutes. The
customer continued to yell at the worker, so the officer physically
escorted the customer out of the business using a firm grip to the
upper arms. Once outside, the officer sat the customer on a
bench and continued to try to speak to the individual. While
speaking, the individual made a swiping motion with her hand
towards the officer. The officer reacted by using their own arm to
briefly pin the woman’s arm across her upper body. The officer
released the hold and the woman then got up and continued to
yell as the officer asked her to sit back down. The woman was
seated on the curb as the officer kept a hand on her shoulder to
keep her seated until she calmed down. A witness who was a
friend of the woman claimed that the officer pushed the pregnant
woman on the ground forcefully with her belly on the ground. A
review of the body-worn camera footage indicated that did not
happen. The woman remained seated upright while the officer’s
hand was on her shoulder. The woman was interviewed and
provided an opportunity to watch the body-worn camera
footage. The investigation found the officer’s actions to be
appropriate and within policy. The complaint was classified as an
21
unsubstantiated complaint and the officer was exonerated of the
use of force allegation.
September 5, 2020
Rule 6 Use of Force
Sustained
While conducting a routine review of use of force entries, a
department commander reviewed an incident involving an officer
that occurred on September 5, 2020. The Use of Force entry
documented an incident that occurred when the officer was
transporting an arrestee to the Boulder County Jail. While they
were in route, the arrestee began to kick at the partition window
of the patrol vehicle. The officer pulled over and then extracted
the arrestee from the vehicle. In the process, the arrestee's head
appeared to strike the door frame and then appeared to strike
the curb. Once the arrestee was out of the vehicle, and on the
ground, a laceration was visible on the arrestee's forehead. The
use of force investigation found that the officer should have
waited until additional officers arrived to remove the arrestee
from the vehicle to ensure the force used could be more
controlled. The use of force allegation was sustained against the
officer. The department provided verbal counseling to the officer
stressing the importance of being more situationally aware when
considering the use of force. The officer was receptive to the
counseling.
September 11, 2020
Rule 1 (Report Writing)
Rule 6 Use of Force
All Exonerated
On September 11, 2020, an officer responded to a noise
complaint at a college party on Pleasant Street. While talking with
the roommates of the house, one roommate provided their
identification to the officer while another declined, telling the
officer that they did not need to know that. The officer indicated
that they would end up going to jail if they did not provide their
information. The individual told the officer that they could not be
arrested for that or for being on their own property as they
turned around and walked away. The officer followed and
grabbed the person's arm as they walked away. They appeared to
pull away when the officer grabbed their arm, told the officer to
stop several times, and stated that they were not resisting as they
turned away. The officer told them to put their hands behind
their back several times and called for non-emergency cover over
the radio. The officer directed the individual to stand up and give
the officer their hand (they appeared to be leaning towards the
ground). The officer asked them, “What are you doing?” and told
them that they were “walking away while I’m trying to talk to
you.” The officer told the individual to put their hands behind
22
their back and asked if there were going to “sit back.” The officer
followed this by saying, “Sit down then.” At this point, the officer
took control of the person's right arm, and appeared to direct
pressure on them, forcing them down towards the ground. The
individual ended up with their torso on a chair that was in front of
them. The individual then turned around and sat on the chair.
The individual filed a complaint alleging that the officer did not
have the authority to detain them and used excessive force to
push them onto a wooden bench. The investigation found that
the officer had legal authority to detain the individual and that
the manner in which the officer did so was within policy. During
the interview of the complainant, the complainant alleged a
discrepancy in the written ticket that the officer issued. The
investigation found that while the officer could have better
articulated the description of events, the officer’s written words
were not intended to mislead. The officer was exonerated on all
allegations.
September 14, 2020
Rule 6 Use of Force
Exonerated
Officers were called to a business regarding an individual who
was working on a vehicle in the business’ parking lot for several
hours. When officers arrived, they discovered the individual had
an active warrant. When officers attempted to place the
individual into handcuffs, the individual tensed their body and
raised their arms. The individual was then taken to the ground
and hand cuffed. The individual complained that there was no
physical attack on the officers so they should not have used force
to make the arrest. The individual was offered an opportunity to
watch the body-worn camera footage. Investigating personnel
explained to the individual that officers can use force to arrest
someone when they physically resist. The individual then
understood how their actions constituted resistance but
indicated that there would have been no resistance had the
officers verbally indicated the individual was about to be arrested
before placing their hands on the individual. The complaint was
closed as an unsubstantiated complaint and the officers were
exonerated on the excessive force allegations. The monitor
recommended to the department that when possible and safe to
do so, officers should inform individuals that they are about to be
placed under arrest.
September 18, 2020
Officers were called to a home regarding a domestic violence
assault. When officers arrived, the alleged perpetrator was
23
Rule 6 Use of Force
Exonerated
asleep. The victim led officers to the room where the individual
was sleeping. Officers woke the individual who appeared to be
intoxicated. The individual reacted by trying to quickly get up. An
officer pushed the man in the chest and officers briefly held the
individual on the ground. The officers hand cuffed the individual
and sat him down. The individual would eventually be taken into
custody and provided medical care for apparent intoxication. The
individual made multiple allegations against officers including
excessive force with multiple strikes to the body. The individual
also alleged that an officer inserted a thumb into the individual’s
rectum. The entire encounter was captured on multiple body
cameras, including the ride in the ambulance. The video evidence
demonstrates that no officer struck or otherwise assaulted the
individual. The only force used by the officers was the initial push
to the chest and the takedown to the floor while handcuffing. The
complaint was investigated and deemed an unfounded
complaint. The officer was exonerated on the excessive force
allegation.
September 21, 2020
Rule 1 (Value of Respect)
Exonerated
A former county agency employee filed a complaint against a
detective. In their professional capacity, the complainant worked
with Boulder County law enforcement officers on a regular basis.
The complaint involved a Zoom meeting that was attended by the
detective and other county agency employees. The complainant
reported that the detective failed to remember important
information that they had relayed to the detective. The
complainant alleged that the detective behaved in a manner that
was unprofessional by insinuating that the complainant was lying
in front of other professionals on the Zoom call. The complainant
reported that the detective had not responded to requests to
acknowledge previous emails and that the detective had been
‘aggressive’ with them during previous conversations and had
called them a ‘bold-faced liar’ in one of their phone calls. The
complainant filed the complaint on the same day they were
terminated as an employee of the county agency. A thorough
investigation was conducted which included interviews with
multiple witnesses to the encounter and a review of email
correspondence and phone records. None of the other
professional partners involved in the Zoom call with the detective
and the complainant indicated that the detective did anything
disrespectful or inappropriate. Multiple interviewees stated that
24
the detective maintained their professionalism and composure
with the complainant during the Zoom meeting. Additionally,
there was no evidence to support the complainant's assertion
that the detective failed to remember important case information
or failed to respond to emails. The detective was exonerated on
all of the allegations.
October 5, 2020
Rule 4 Respect for Others
Not Sustained
An anonymous male called dispatch to make a complaint about a
dispatcher for being rude during a previous call on a prior
evening. As part of the investigation, an audio recording of a
phone call into dispatch in which the subject dispatcher speaks to
the complainant was reviewed. The dispatcher used a calm, even
tone throughout the call. The dispatcher attempted to answer the
complainant’s questions and remained calm when the
complainant was not pleased with the answers and became
antagonistic. The dispatcher remained professional, but when the
caller told the dispatcher to have a good evening at the end of
the call, the dispatcher did not respond. The caller pointed out
that he told the dispatcher to have a good evening and the
dispatcher stated that they were electing not to respond. The
caller then indicated he would be filing a complaint against the
dispatcher. Although the dispatcher could have replied and
returned the courtesy, the failure to do so did not rise to the level
of a violation of Rule 4, Respect for Others. The allegation was not
sustained.
October 8, 2020
Rule 6 Use of Force
Unfounded
An individual contacted police to file a complaint regarding an
arrest that occurred several months prior but was unsure of the
exact date. The individual claimed that an African American
officer used excessive force when the individual was handcuffed,
causing a shoulder to pop out of place. An investigation was
conducted and found that the individual was confusing two
different encounters that occurred within several weeks of each
other. The African American officer was involved in the first arrest
and no force was used. During the second arrest, the individual
was handcuffed behind his back by two officers. Body-worn
camera footage indicated that the application of the handcuffs
was swift and unexpected, but there was no struggle and minimal
force was used to apply the handcuffs. While being handcuffed,
the individual claimed that one arm was already broken (there
was no cast or sling) and complained that the officers dislocated
that shoulder. The officers used two sets of hand cuffs to avoid
25
aggravating the reported prior injury. EMTs responded to provide
medical care. The allegation of excessive use of force was
deemed unfounded.
October 15, 2020
Rule 1 (Customer Service)
Exonerated
An officer responded to an accident call in the parking lot of
Target. The officer met with the drivers, investigated the crash,
and then issued a summons to the driver who had struck the
complainant's car. The officer then went into the Target store and
met with security to review video of the parking lot to see if the
collision was captured on video. The video recording did not
capture the crash and had no evidentiary value. The officer then
told the complainant that there was no video of the crash. The
complainant later contacted Target on their own and was told by
another employee that video of the crash did exist. The
complainant then filed a complaint against the officer for not
acquiring the video and for not responding to their calls. The
complainant then had an opportunity to review the video and
realized although there was video of the time the incident
occurred the video did not capture the crash. In regard to
responding to the complainant's communications, the officer had
talked with the complainant prior to going on emergency leave
and then was off for three weeks while sick with Covid. This was
during the time frame when the officer did not call the
complainant back. The officer was exonerated of all allegations.
November 3, 2020
Rule 1 (Customer Service)
Not Sustained
The complainant was engaged in a demonstration that involved
opposing sides. They called police asking for an opposing
demonstrator to be charged with harassment for coughing on
them. At the direction of a commander, a sergeant informed the
complainant that officers would not be sent because officers
would not be baited into a confrontation over something that
was not a crime. The caller complained that the sergeant was not
doing their job. Earlier that day, a different sergeant who had
worked that demonstration scene, had proposed that officers
only respond to that location at the direction of a supervisor or if
the nature of the call was serious, because this sergeant believed
that both sides escalated when officers were on scene and tried
to use the officers against opposing demonstrators. The
investigation found that the commander's decision was
reasonable considering the sergeant's observations of prior
interactions with the demonstrators. The department discussed
additional customer service options with the sergeant and
26
commander, including taking a phone report or providing
alternate reporting options instead of responding in person. The
allegation against the commander of violating the department's
value of customer service was not sustained.
November 11, 2020
Rule 1 (Customer Service)
Not Sustained
The complainant left their apartment briefly and left the door
unlocked. Upon their return, a burglar was exiting the apartment
with various items from the household. The burglar ran off and
the complainant called the police. Police responded and an
officer interviewed the complainant and roommates. Officers
conducted a grid search of the area but did not find the burglar.
After police left, the complainant drove around the neighborhood
searching for the burglar. The complainant ultimately confronted
a man the complainant believed to be the burglar while the
individual was waiting for a Lyft driver to arrive. The complainant
called 911 while confronting the individual. While on the phone
with the 911 dispatcher, the complainant was overheard telling
the suspected burglar not to move and that the complainant had
a gun. The complainant did not have a gun, but the dispatcher
indicated to police that he may be armed. The suspected burglar
fled as the Lyft driver arrived. Police arrived and engaged again
with the complainant. The Lyft driver attempted to assist police
by calling the rider back, as the Lyft app indicated the rider was
nearby. While police attempted to reach the rider on the phone,
the complainant became upset that the police kept their flashing
lights on while the rider the complainant believed to be the
burglar was nearby. The rider then disconnected from the app.
The complainant alleged that officers did not conduct a thorough
search, that they treated the complainant like a suspect, and that
the burglar escaped because police tried to contact the burglar
while their lights were still on which scared off the alleged
burglar. An investigation found that the lead responding officer
completed all required actions in response to the burglary report
and thus did not violate any policy. However, there were several
areas where the officer's supervisors found the officer could have
improved by being more inquisitive during initial interviews,
delegating responsibilities to other officers, and providing more
detail to the complainant of what investigative steps were being
taken. The allegations against the officer were not sustained. A
detective was assigned to continue investigating the burglary.
27
November 14, 2020
Rule 6 Use of Force
Exonerated
An individual who was arrested on a violence-related charge was
in the back seat of a police vehicle and was able to move their
handcuffed hands from behind their back to the front of their
body. Officers removed the individual from the vehicle and
brought the individual to the ground where the individual was
handcuffed again behind their back. The individual complained of
scrapes and abrasions to their legs and hands. Body-worn camera
footage was reviewed, and the investigation concluded that the
force used to remove and re-handcuff the individual was within
policy. The officers were exonerated of the allegation of excessive
force.
November 20, 2020
Rule 6 Use of Force
Exonerated
Officers responded to a call of a fight between a couple. When
officers arrived and knocked on the door, the officers could hear
two individuals inside the apartment. A female who answered the
door appeared intoxicated and had a small amount of blood in
the corner of her mouth. An officer asked her to step out of the
apartment and she refused. Aware that the other party to the
fight may still be inside the home, officers pulled the woman
away from her doorway and into the hallway. Officers held on to
her arms and attempted to get her to sit down, but she refused.
She eventually sat down and then laid down on the floor as the
officers attempted to learn what occurred. Officers asked if the
male individual who she had been seen fighting with was inside
the home and she said he was not. The door remained open and
officers saw the male inside and instructed him to exit the home
so he could be interviewed separately. During the discussion with
officers, the female made threats of suicide and attempted to
reenter the home. Officers took control of her arms and placed
her into handcuffs. Officers informed her that she would be
detained on a detox hold and she continually tried to get away
from officers and reenter the home. While officers held on to her
arms to control her, the individual intentionally slammed her
head against the floor. Officers stopped her, brought her outside,
and eventually placed her into an ambulance. While attempting
to escort her, the officers used firm grips and control holds to
maintain control of her as she continued to verbally and
physically resist the detention. The individual later complained of
bruising and pain to her arms and wrists. Body-worn camera
footage was reviewed, and the investigation found that the
responding officers acted professionally. The limited force used
28
by officers was reasonable and within policy. The officers were
exonerated on the allegations of excessive force.
November 28, 2020
Rule 6 Use of Force
Exonerated
An individual filed a complaint regarding an arrest that happened
nine years prior for violating a protection order. The individual
complained that during the arrest they were pushed to the
ground and the handcuffs were applied too tight (the handcuffs
had been reapplied after the individual was able to slip one hand
out of the handcuffs). Police reports from the original incident
were reviewed as a part of the investigation. Those reports
indicated that the individual pulled away from officers while
being handcuffed and the individual dropped down to the floor
between two bookshelves to avoid arrest. The officers reported
pulling the individual up from between the bookshelves and
applying handcuffs. While being escorted to a police vehicle, the
individual was able to slip one wrist out of the handcuffs so an
officer reapplied the handcuffs more securely. During the
interview of the complainant, the individual acknowledged not
being able to remember exactly what occurred. The officer’s
actions were found to be appropriate and within policy. The
officer was exonerated on the allegation of excessive force.
December 1, 2020
Rule 4 Respect for Others
Sustained
An Accident Report Specialist (ARS - not a police officer) was
dispatched to a traffic crash inside a parking garage. After
completing the accident report the ARS approached the exit gate.
The ARS contacted an attendant (who was in a different state)
through an intercom. The ARS notified the gate attendant that
they were a Boulder Police Officer and needed to exit the gate.
The gate attendant was very polite and notified the ARS that she
needed their name for the record and that she could then open
the gate. The ARS refused numerous times to give their first
name, and instead made numerous statements that their legal
name was Officer. The ARS continued to refuse to provide their
first name and told the attendant at least two times that “I need
to get out of this f---ing garage.” The investigation found that the
ARS' tone and manner during these interactions was rude and
demeaning to the parking company attendants. The violation of
Rule 4 (Respect for Others) was sustained, and a five-year letter
of reprimand was included in the ARS' file.
December 7, 2020
Rule 6 Use of Force (3)
An individual was arrested on the Pearl Street mall after an
officer approached the individual for smoking, littering, and
having a dog off-leash. The officer attempted to issue citations,
29
Rule 1 (Arrest Discretion)
Rule 4 Respect for Others
All Exonerated
but the individual initially refused to sign the citations. The
individual indicated that the dog was a service animal and was
thus allowed to be on the mall. The individual initially stated that
the dog was used for search and rescue and ski patrol, and then
stated it was a service dog for psychiatric service. When the
officer inquired to learn more about what kind of service animal
the dog was, the individual claimed the officer was violating
HIPAA (health privacy) law. The officer concluded that the dog
was an emotional support animal rather than a service animal
and believed the individual was not going to remove the d og from
the mall. Because the officer concluded that the individual was
not going to cease the behavior for which the citations were
being issued, the officer had the authority to arrest the individual.
During the arrest, the individual was escorted by officers using
control holds on the individual’s arms. While being escorted, a
watch band on the individual’s wrist was torn. Body-camera
footage of the encounter was reviewed, and the investigator
consulted with the City Prosecutor’s office and BPD legal counsel
who indicated there was sufficient cause for arrest and that the
officer’s line of questioning regarding what type of service the
dog provided was in accordance with ADA guidance. The officers
were exonerated on all allegations.
December 8, 2020
Rule 6 Use of Force (3)
Exonerated
An individual filed a complaint regarding an arrest in which the
individual was taken to the ground and pepper sprayed by
officers. The individual had made threats of harm to others and
had previously made reference to having a gun in a vehicle. When
officers attempted to pull over the individual while driving a
vehicle, the individual did not immediately pull over. An officer
blocked the vehicle’s path with a police vehicle to affect the stop.
As the individual exited the vehicle, an officer ran up to the
individual from behind, grabbed the individual, and forced him
against the vehicle before taking the individual to the ground.
Officers instructed the individual to place their hands behind their
back while on the ground struggling, but the individual did not
immediately place their hands behind their back and instead
tensed their arms. One officer delivered two knee strikes to the
individual’s leg and another officer deployed pepper spray to the
individual’s face before officers were able to apply the handcuffs.
Body-worn camera footage was reviewed. Due to the threat of
violence by the individual and the fact that the individual had
30
made prior reference to having a gun in the vehicle, the
emergency takedown and force used to get the individual into
custody quickly was deemed within policy. The officers were
exonerated on the allegations of excessive force.
December 9, 2020
Rule 1 (Report Writing)
Exonerated
The complainant was arrested nine years ago for assaulting their
spouse. In December 2020, the complainant filed a complaint
alleging inaccuracies in the arrest report written by a detective
nine years ago. The investigation found that some of the
language the complainant disputed was simply documenting the
claims of the opposing party. During questioning, the
complainant acknowledged that they may have said other things
that were attributed to them that they later disputed. The
detective did not remember the case but discussed their standard
operating procedures that would prevent inaccurate statements
from appearing in their written reports. The investigation
concluded that the detective did not include inaccurate
information in the report and the detective was exonerated of
the allegation.
December 23, 2020
Rule 4 Respect for Others
Unfounded
An individual accused an officer of harassment for following up
on an alleged violation of a protection order. The individual
claimed that the officer provided the individual with a business
card “forcefully” and that the officer “stands misogynistically.”
Body-camera footage of the interaction was reviewed and
revealed no basis for the allegations. The complaint was deemed
unsubstantiated, and the allegations were unfounded.
January 15, 2021
Rule 4 Respect for Others
Rule 5 Police Authority and
Public Trust
All Not Sustained
An officer was working an overtime assignment at an Apple store.
The assignment was to be a visual presence while store
employees spoke with customers. [Due to COVID regulations, the
store had a new protocol in place where customers had to
register for a time slot to speak with customer service. Private
security was on scene to implement the protocol.] An individual
was at the store and became upset that he could not immediately
speak with customer service. As private security attempted to
provide a store phone to the individual to talk with customer
service, the individual offered his ID to the security guard to hold
while he used the store phone. The BPD officer accepted the ID
instead of the security guard. The officer ran the individual's
name to check if there were any notes regarding dangerous
behavior. As the officer ran the individual's name over the radio,
the individual realized this was happening and became upset. The
31
individual asked the officer why they were running his name and
called the officer a "b--ch." The officer responded that they
needed to document the individual's information for Stop Data
purposes. The individual continued to yell at the officer and asked
for the ID back. The officer returned the ID within ten seconds of
this request. As the individual continued to yell at the officer, the
officer replied sarcastically, "You seem very nice," and disengaged
from the contact. A friend of the individual complained that the
officer ran the identification "illegally." However, officers are
allowed to run an individual's name through law enforcement
databases for a legitimate law enforcement purpose. The officer
was engaged in an on-duty contact with an individual that was
upset and yelling in public. The investigation found that the
officer had a reasonable and legitimate public safety concern
while interacting with the individual. Thus, the allegation of
violating Rule 5: Police Authority and Public Trust was not
sustained. During the course of the investigation, the officer
acknowledged that they became frustrated with the individual
and the response of, "You seem very nice," was not the best
approach. However, the investigation concluded that the
response did not rise to the level of a violation of Rule 4: Respect
for Others and was deemed not sustained.
January 18, 2021
Rule 6 Use of Force (3)
Exonerated
An individual was stopped by police as while was pulling into their
driveway after neighbors called 911 to report the individual
driving erratically. A sergeant first encountered the individual and
explained why they were being stopped. The sergeant asked the
individual to step to the back of the car, but the individual
refused. The individual further refused to hand an ID to the
sergeant and stated that they were going to go inside the house.
The sergeant and two other officers grabbed the individual by the
arms and said that was not allowed at that point. The individual
pulled their arms away and attempted to free themselves. The
officers then brought the individual to the ground using a straight
arm bar takedown. The individual continued to resist by kicking
and moving their body. Officers directed the individual to place
their arms behind their back, but they did not. The sergeant
placed one knee near the individual's shoulder blade while
handcuffing. Officers were able to apply handcuffs successfully
and then rolled the individual on their side in the recovery
position. The officers did not use any strikes or blows to restrain
32
the individual. Once handcuffed, the individual yelled that they
had a disability and that the officers were violating their rights
[the individual would later indicate that they suffer from PTSD].
The individual filed a complaint alleging officers used excessive
force, failed to wear a face covering, and violated the Americans
with Disabilities Act by not providing appropriate
accommodations. While interviewing the individual for this
investigation, it was also alleged that officers laughed at the
individual during the arrest. The investigation found that the
force used to arrest the individual was reasonable and within
policy. Body camera footage was reviewed and confirmed that all
officers on scene were wearing appropriate face coverings in
accordance with the Public Health Order. The individual did not
inform officers of any disability until after being handcuffed. At
that point the individual was already in the recovery position.
Medical care was immediately requested by officers and provided
to the individual. Regarding the allegation that officers laughed at
the individual, extensive body camera footage was reviewed, and
it was discovered that several officers did slightly laugh when the
individual yelled their respective races at each officer as the
individual was being wheeled away on the medical pram ["White,
white, white, white, white, brown!"] In response, a few officers
chuckled and nodded in agreement. The laughter did not appear
malicious nor intended to demean the individual in any way.
Officers were exonerated of all allegations.
January 18, 2021
Rule 6 Use of Force
Exonerated
Boulder Community Health security contacted police and asked
for assistance in removing a man who had been discharged and
was sleeping in the lobby. An officer responded and contacted
the man in question. The officer began to escort the man outside.
At the entryway, the man hesitated to leave, and the officer
grabbed his arm and directed him outside. After the man tried to
walk back into the hospital multiple times, the officer applied a
light push on the man's chest, to stop him from re-entering. The
officer maintained his composure throughout the contact and
continued to ask the man to leave. The man said he wanted to
file a victim report and to speak with a sergeant. While speaking
with the sergeant, the man indicated that he wanted the officer
fired and he wanted one billion dollars in compensation. The
officer’s actions were within policy and he was exonerated on the
allegation of excessive force.
33
January 25, 2021
Rule 6 Use of Force
Exonerated
On January 25, 2021, an intoxicated individual was transported by
ambulance (with a police officer in the ambulance for security) to
Boulder Community Hospital for medical attention. Upon arrival
at the hospital, an officer learned that the individual had
previously assaulted one of the ambulance crew. As an officer
encountered the individual, the individual cursed at the officer
and asked to call a relative. As the officer attempted to retrieve
the individual’s phone from property to allow the individual to
make a call, the individual continued to swear at the officer and
threatened to strike the officer. The individual then stood up and
walked toward the officer. The officer told the individual to step
back and pushed the individual in the chest. The individual
continued to advance on the officer and the officer pushed the
individual again with one hand. The individual advanced again on
the officer and the officer then pushed the individual in the chest
with two hands, causing the individual to fall backwards on his
buttocks. The individual’s head made slight contact with a cabinet
while falling. The individual complained to a supervisor that an
officer pushed the individual down causing a “cracked pelvis” and
the individual claimed to have vomited blood. [The individual
received medical attention and was approved for release shortly
after.]
Body-worn camara-footage was reviewed and was consistent
with the officer’s account of the incident. The officer’s use of
force was appropriate and within policy. The officer was
exonerated of the allegation of excessive force.
January 27, 2021
Rule 4 Respect for Others
Not Sustained
An individual filed a complaint against an officer regarding an
interaction that occurred several years after a prior interaction.
During the first interaction that occurred several years ago, the
individual was investigated for potentially having committed a
crime but was not charged or arrested. The individual had filed a
complaint against the officer regarding that interaction. In
January 2021, the individual was walking down the street and saw
the same officer driving by. According to the complainant, the
individual stated to the officer, “Oh, I know you…You’re the fella
who roughed me up in my alley three years ago.” The officer
responded, “I never roughed you up.” The next part of the
exchange was captured on body-worn camera. The officer stated,
“You’re lucky, you should have gone to jail, but I released you.”
34
The complainant and a witness responded that the officer was a
bully and was traumatizing them. The officer then said to have a
good evening and disengaged. The investigation concluded that
the officer’s comment, “You’re lucky, you should have gone to
jail, but I released you” was a statement of the officer’s
perception of the probable cause the officer believed existed in
the prior interaction and not an attempt to threaten or intimidate
the individual. The department concluded that while it was not
necessary for the officer to share this comment, it did not rise to
the level of a violation of Rule 4 Respect for Others. The
allegation was deemed Not Sustained.
January 27, 2021
Rule 1 (Report Writing)
Exonerated
Rule 1 (Testimony)
Exonerated
Rule 6 Use of Force
Not Sustained
An individual filed a complaint in January 2021 regarding an
interaction that occurred on November 26, 2019. An officer was
dispatched to a traffic accident and suspected alcohol use of one
of the drivers. When the officer went to acquire the second
driver’s documents, the individual suspected of alcohol
consumption began to reposition their vehicle and appeared to
be driving away. The individual stopped the vehicle but was now
further away down the street. An uninvolved vehicle stopped
near the vehicle that had been repositioned. In the darkness and
heavy snow fall, the officer was unsure what was occurring and
briefly drew their firearm. The officer reassessed and then
holstered the firearm. The investigation proceeded and the
individual was ultimately arrested for DUI. The individual
complained that the officer unnecessarily pointed the firearm,
testified falsely under oath in court, and was inaccurate in a
written report. The investigation found that the officer’s decision
to briefly unholster the firearm was not a violation and was thus
not sustained. The allegations of false testimony and inaccurate
report writing were in response to the officer stating “no” on the
stand when asked if the officer had drawn the firearm and in
regard to whether the officer read the individual Colorado’s
Express Consent Law as required. After testifying in court, the
officer reviewed the body-worn camera footage from the incident
and realized that they had in fact briefly drawn their firearm. The
officer immediately contacted the district attorney’s office to
inform the prosecutor of the error. Body camera footage showed
the officer attempted to read the Express Consent Law to the
individual while in a disciplinary cell at the jail, but the individual
turned around and walked away despite the officer asking, “you
35
don’t want to hear it?” The investigation concluded that the
officer did not intentionally make a false statement on the stand
and that, while the officer’s report could have been written more
clearly, the officer was not inaccurate in writing the report. The
officer was exonerated on the allegations of violating the
department’s general orders for testifying and report writing.
January 28, 2021
Rule 1 (Pursuit Policy) (2)
Sustained
Two officers engaged in a vehicle pursuit of a suspected stolen
auto on December 9, 2020. During the pursuit, a commander
directed the officers to terminate the pursuit. The officers did so,
but a deputy chief filed an internal complaint to review whether
the officer’s initial decision to engage in a vehicle pursuit was
within policy. Upon further investigation, the officers were found
to have violated the department’s pursuit policy which prohibits
pursuing a vehicle where the only crime is auto theft. The
allegations of violating General Order 218 were sustained against
both officers. Both officers received verbal counseling
documented in a performance note.
January 28, 2021
Rule 1 (Pursuit Policy)
Sustained
An officer engaged in a vehicle pursuit after conducting a stop of
a suspicious driver who fled the scene. There was no evidence a
felony had been committed; therefore, the pursuit was in
violation of General Order 218. A deputy chief filed the internal
complaint. The allegation against the officer was sustained and
the officer received verbal counseling documented in a
performance note.
January 28, 2021
Rule 1 (Miranda Warning)
Sustained
Rule 4 Respect for Others
Not Sustained
Rule 8 Conduct
Sustained
On January 28th, 2021 an Assistant District Attorney notified a
police commander of a deficient Miranda warning and
inappropriate comment by an officer during the handling of a
case. Video of the arrest was reviewed which confirmed that the
officer’s delivery of the Miranda warning was deficient. That
allegation was sustained, and the officer received verbal
counseling and remedial Miranda Advisement training. The ADA
also provided an email exchange in which the officer made a
remark to the ADA regarding the arrestee’s immigration status.
The investigation found that the officer’s remark was
inappropriate and violated the department’s rule on conduct.
However, an allegation of failure to demonstrate respect for
others was not sustained because body-worn camera footage
showed that the officer was professional and considerate while
interacting with the arrestee. The officer received a performance
note for the inappropriate remark in the email to the ADA.
36
February 1, 2020
Rule 1 (Various) (7)
Not Sustained
Rule 5 Police Authority and
Public Trust (2)
Not Sustained
On February 1, 2021, an individual filed a complaint regarding the
manner in which a detective and sergeant conducted an
investigation involving a child custody dispute. The complainant
made the following allegations: the detective did not respond to
attempts to communicate, the complainant was unable to obtain
a police report, the detective may have been involved in a reward
posted on social media by one party to the dispute, that an
officer failed to charge one party with a Violation of a Temporary
Protection Order, that the detective violated the state’s Address
Confidentiality Program (ACP) guidelines, and that the detective
inaccurately told one party that the other party was authorized to
contact them based on a misreading of an order issued in another
county. The investigation found the following. Phone and email
records demonstrated that the detective had been in regular
contact with the complainant from 2019 – 2021. The District
Attorney’s Office declined to charge the accused party and no
supplemental police report was written. The detective was aware
of the social media posts but had no role in offering a reward. An
investigator consulted with the District Attorney’s Office and
charged one party with harassment instead of a violation of the
protection order because an arrest for the violation of the
protection order would have caused the children to be turned
over to social services and placed in foster care. The detective
requested the true address of the complainant to establish
jurisdiction to investigate but did not enter the true address into
any public reports. Lastly, the detective told the complainant that
the legal situation was complicated but did not say that the other
party was authorized to violate the court order. All allegations of
violating department rules and violating police authority and
public trust were not sustained.
February 9, 2021
Rule 5 Police Authority and
Public Trust (2)
Exonerated
On February 9, 2021 an individual filed a complaint alleging an
officer entered their home illegally and unnecessarily forwarded a
report to Health and Human Services (HHS). The incident
occurred in December 2020 and was captured on officer body-
worn cameras. Police were dispatched to a domestic altercation
in which neighbors had reported sounds of fighting that sounded
physical and that a child was at the location where screams could
be heard. An officer arrived and could hear a male and female
voice yelling at each other. The officer knocked on the door,
turned the handle, and opened the unlocked door while
37
announcing police presence. A female came to the door and told
the officer to leave. The officer briefly placed their foot on the
door to assess the situation, then allowed the female to close the
door. The female exited the location a short time later and told
the officer that she is fine. A sergeant responded to the scene to
explain why exigent circumstances allowed the officer to enter
the home. The responding officer requested that the report be
sent to HHS and it was. The investigation found that the officer
acted consistent with Colorado law and department policy in
responding to the incident. The officer was exonerated of the
allegation of violating police authority and public trust.
February 15, 2021
Rule 5 Police Authority and
Public Trust (2)
Exonerated
Rule 1 (Body Camera policy)
Sustained
On February 11, 2021, an individual filed a complaint against an
officer for sending a copy of a domestic violence incident report
to Health and Human Services (HHS). The individual alleged that
the officer advised a property manager to make a complaint
against the individual to HHS and that the act of sending the
report to HHS was a malicious act by the officer. The investigation
found that the officer responded to a call of a domestic dispute in
progress and contacted the individuals in question. The couple
did not wish to speak to police, but the female party assured the
officer that she was okay. The officer disengaged. This portion of
the interaction was captured by police dash camera. The officer
then spoke with another officer who had responded to a prior call
involving the same couple to gather more information. The
officer then contacted the property manager who expressed
concern for the welfare of the couple’s child and asked what
could be done to bring the situation to the attention of someone
who could help. The officer indicated that this information would
be forwarded to HHS because the officer was also concerned for
the child’s welfare. The investigation found that the officer did
not violate policy or law by making the referral to HHS and the
officer was exonerated of the allegation of violating police
authority and public trust. The responding officer failed to bring
their body-worn camera to the encounter (it was the officer’s first
call of their shift) so the interaction with the property manager
did not get captured on video or audio. The officer immediately
reported their failure to bring the body worn camera to their
supervisor and returned to the police department to retrieve the
body-worn camera to be used for the rest of the shift. The
department sustained a violation of the body-worn camera policy
38
and directed the officer to review the policy, which the officer
did.
February 16, 2021
Rule 1 (Mask policy)
Not Sustained
On February 16, 2021 an individual filed a complaint against an
officer alleging that the officer violated the city’s mask policy
while issuing the individual a speeding ticket earlier that day.
Body-camera footage was reviewed and indicated that the officer
adjusted their mask several times during the interaction, but it
was unclear if the mask was ever removed. The officer was
interviewed and remembered having to adjust the mask several
times but did not believe the mask ever dropped completely off
their face. The allegation against the officer was not sustained.
March 1, 2021
Rule 1 (Negligent Taser
Discharge)
Sustained
On March 1, 2021 an internal complaint was registered against an
officer for negligent discharge of a Taser. While on meal break in
the Police Department’s kitchen area, two officers were joking
around, and one accidentally deployed a Taser on the other. The
officer who discharged the Taser immediately reported the
incident to a supervisor. A violation of Rule 1 Compliance with
General Orders was sustained against the officer and a 12-month
letter of reprimand was placed on the officer’s record.
March 3, 2021
Rule 3 Truthfulness
Exonerated
On March 9, 2021, an individual filed several complaints against
an officer stemming from their interaction on June 1, 2017. The
officer was off duty at the time and driving home. The individual
was on a skateboard and made contact with the officer’s vehicle.
Words were exchanged, a foot pursuit ensued, and the officer
ultimately arrested the individual for striking the officer’s
personal vehicle with a skateboard and for brandishing a knife
towards the officer after the officer chased him. The individual
disputed several elements of the officer’s written report on the
incident and accused the officer of being untruthful. In the report,
the officer wrote that the individual was standing on the median
of the street prior to their interaction; the individual claimed he
was actually jumping over that median at a high speed on a
skateboard. The officer also wrote that the individual swung his
skateboard at the officer’s vehicle striking and damaging the rear
passenger side panel; the individual claimed that he did not swing
his skateboard at the vehicle but rather that he crashed into the
front passenger side of the vehicle. Lastly, the individual disputed
the officer’s claim that the officer announced that he was a law
enforcement officer during the foot chase from the car; the
individual claimed that the officer only identified himself as an
39
officer after the individual drew a knife to conduct what the
individual described as a citizen’s arrest. Photos of the damaged
vehicle show a dent in the rear passenger-side panel consistent
with the officer’s description of events. A witness contradicted an
element of the complainant’s description, the complainant
acknowledged having memory problems, and the District
Attorney’s office found the officer’s account to be credible. The
officer was exonerated of the allegation of untruthfulness.
March 12, 2021
Rule 5 Police Authority and
Public Trust
Exonerated
On March 12, 2021, an individual filed a complaint against an
officer in reference to a DUI stop that occurred in January of
2016. The complainant alleged that he passed the roadside
sobriety test, but the officer inaccurately claimed the individual
failed it. The individual ultimately tested positive for cannabis,
but negative for alcohol. The individual further claimed that the
officer was discriminatory in making the stop because the
individual’s first name can be pronounced to sound similar to an
ethnic reference and/or slang term for drunk. The investigation
found that the officer had justification to conduct the stop and
made no reference to the individual’s name. The officer was
exonerated of the allegation.
March 17, 2021
Rule 1 (Supervision)
Unfounded
On March 15, 2021, an individual filed a complaint against a
supervisor for failing to properly investigate and discipline an
officer after the individual had filed a complaint against the
officer in 2016. [The officer in question is no longer employed by
the Boulder Police Department.] The complainant claimed that
the department ignored the prior complaint about the officer and
allowed the officer to continue to harass people, leading to a
confrontation with another individual in 2019. The complainant
also claimed that the officer "stalked" the individual for several
days after their initial encounter in 2016. A review was conducted
of the supervisor’s investigation of the 2016 complaint. The
investigation and documentation of that complaint were
thorough and complete. The investigation concluded that the
allegation was unfounded.
March 23, 2021
Rule 5 Police Authority and
Public Trust (2)
During the King Soopers shooting on March 22, 2021, an
individual called 911 three times making remarks that led
dispatchers to believe the individual may be involved as a second
active shooter. On the short calls to 911, the individual asked if it
was true someone killed one of their "pigs" and laughed, then
laughed while remarking on officers being "finished off," and said
40
Rule 1
(Communications/Incident
Reporting)
Rule 5 Police Authority and
Public Trust
Rule 3 Truthfulness
Rule 5 Police Authority and
Public Trust
Rule 1 (Incident Reporting)
All Not Sustained
officers got what they deserved for harassing journalists.
Dispatchers could hear sounds from the scene of King Soopers in
the background, so they initially believed the individual may be
somewhere in the store. [The individual was not at the store, but
a live stream of the incident from Facebook was playing in the
background.] A police negotiator contacted the individual by
phone while SWAT operators were dispatched to the individual’s
apartment. In the process, the individual’s name and address
were aired over the police radio. News media responded to the
location as well as police. After some negotiation with the
individual by phone and in person, officers realized the individual
was not involved in the shooting and left the location. The
individual filed a complaint with a host of allegations and
demands for investigation and charging of reporters, officers, and
anyone who posted the individual’s information on social media.
During the interview, the individual raised complaints about
previous encounters with other officers. The complainant
believed that multiple police agencies were colluding with the
media to harass the individual and violate the individual’s parole
status. The investigation found no violations of policy by BPD
personnel. All allegations were not sustained.
41
Monitor’s Recommendations from 2020
Complaint Classification
Before the creation of the Office of the Independent Police Monitor , BPD’s Professional Standards
Unit (PSU) classified all complaints against members of the Boulder Police Department. The
department’s classification system included: Class 1/Serious Misconduct, Class 2/Non-serious
Misconduct, Referrals, and Inquiries. The department also tracked whether the complaint was filed
internally by another department member or externally by a community member.
In the past, “Referrals” were defined as allegations that did not appear to be intentional misconduct,
but rather a “minor performance or protocol issue.” In recent years, referrals represented a
significant portion of the classified complaints. In addition, the category of “Inquiries” was defined as
general or specific questions related to department policies and procedures. However, some
complaints that were very generalized or appeared unfounded would also be classified as inquiries.
In 2020, the monitor discussed the classification system and practices with the department and the
Professional Standards Unit. In those discussions, the monitor recommended renaming Class 2
complaints as simply “Misconduct” instead of “Non-serious misconduct.” The monitor also
recommended classifying each allegation in a complaint by rule type (i.e. Rules 1 – 10 of BPD’s
Department Rules).
The new Police Oversight ordinance now requires the monitor to classify all incoming complaints. In
August 2020, the monitor began classifying the allegations in each complaint by rule type. At the
monitor’s recommendation, the department dropped the term “non-serious” from its Class 2
category. Internally, the department now uses the terms serious misconduct and misconduct instead
of the Class 1 and 2 terminology. This internal terminology is more relevant to officers for procedural
purposes and contractual labor rights, while the monitor’s classification by rule type provides more
specificity and transparency for the purposes of public reporting. As of January 1, 2021, the
department has adopted the internal terminology of Serious Misconduct and Misconduct.
42
Use of Force Policy
When the monitor started in July 2020, the department was in the process of revising its Use of Force
policy. The department proactively provided a draft of the new Use of Force policy to the monitor
and requested the monitor’s input and feedback. The monitor reviewed the draft policy and found
that it largely reflected national best practices. The policy is based on a strong foundation rooted in
the United Kingdom’s ICAT system (Integrating Communication, Assessment, and Tactics) and the
Critical Decision-Making Model. This model centers the sanctity of all life as its guiding principle and
teaches officers to continually assess and reassess an encounter to ensure their actions are
appropriate and consistent with the department’s ethics and values. The policy also clearly
distinguishes between levels of subject resistance and corresponding levels of force options for
officers. The policy contains strong and unambiguous language on officers’ duty to intervene to stop
and report excessive force by a fellow officer. The policy provides rules for the use of each police
weapon or tool – including less-lethal options – and clearly states under what circumstances certain
forms of force are limited or prohibited. Chokeholds and neck restraints are not permitted under this
policy and the pointing of a firearm at someone to gain control or compliance is considered a
reportable use of force. The new policy also introduced routine, mandatory investigations for all
incidents involving an officer’s use of force – a practice that did not exist within BPD prior to this
policy.
The monitor provided two recommendations for improvement: the removal of references to excited
delirium and the inclusion of clear language that prohibits strikes to the head or neck unless deadly
force is justified. The department chose to keep the language regarding excited delirium in the policy .
The department did include language prohibiting officers from targeting the head or neck with a
baton or impact weapon except in situations where deadly force is justified. However, the
department included language that allows officers to strike the head and neck with hard empty hand
strikes in response to a threatening assailant or active assailant. The department also included
language instructing officers to avoid targeting the head with less lethal impact projectiles and Taser
deployments, except when deadly force is justified.
At the request of the department, the monitor revised relevant portions of the policy to include the
Office of the Independent Police Monitor in complaint intake, classification, and investigation
protocols. The policy was revised to include the monitor as a non-voting member of the police
department’s Use of Force Review Board which includes commanders, the department’s training
sergeant and a peer officer who review use-of-force incidents involving a firearm discharge or a
serious injury or death to identify tactical or training improvements. With the establishment of the
43
Police Oversight Panel in February 2021, the department will need to revise department policy to
remove the section on the operations of the previous Professional Standards Review Panel and
replace it with a section on the role and procedures of the new Police Oversight Panel. The monitor
will assist with this revision.
Disciplinary Matrix
When the monitor began work, the Boulder Police Department was in the process of developing a
disciplinary matrix to bring consistency and predictability to the disciplinary process. Disciplinary
matrices provide structured disciplinary outcomes by outlining the disciplinary options for each
possible rule or policy violation and allow departments to impose progressive discipline for an
officer’s repeated violations of the same policy. The proposed matrix initially included an element
that required supervisors to assess the mental state (i.e., intentionality and awareness of
wrongdoing) of the officer when the infraction was committed. The monitor and other department
members raised concerns over how that assessment could be conducted fairly and accurately. The
monitor and others pointed out that disciplinary matrices typically incorporate aggravating and
mitigating circumstances to adjust the disciplinary action up or down based on factors that are fact-
based and demonstrable. Upon further review and discussion, the department decided to use
aggravating and mitigating factors as a part of the disciplinary matrix instead of asking supervisors to
assess an officer’s mental state.
44
How to File a Complaint
To file a complaint against a member of the Boulder Police Department, individuals can contact either
the Office of the Independent Police Monitor (IPM) or the Boulder Police Department’s Professional
Standards Unit (PSU). The IPM can be reached at (720) 376-3980 or at liparij@bouldercolorado.gov. A
complaint can be accepted in writing, over the phone, or via email. To file a complaint online with
PSU, visit https://bouldercolorado.gov/police/police-commendations-and-complaints. A new shared
online complaint system is being developed and will be used by both the IPM’s office and the PSU
office. The new online complaint system is expected to be operational by July 2021.
Complaints received by PSU are immediately transmitted to the IPM for classification and then routed
back to PSU for investigation. Complaints filed with the IPM are classified and then immediately
transmitted to PSU for investigation. Complainants may file a complaint with either entity. The
classification and investigative process are the same whether the complaint is filed with the IPM or
with PSU. The monitor reviews all complaint investigations, observes the interview process, and
serves as an information resource for complainants.
45
In Memoriam
Your sacrifice will never be forgotten.