Police Oversight - First Quarterly Report - January - March 2022
Police
Oversight
First Quarterly Report January – March 2022
Independent Police Monitor Panel Co-Chairs
Joseph Lipari Ariel Amaru and Daniel Leonard
1
| Contents
Purpose of Quarterly Reports 2
Police Oversight Panel Members 3
Enabling Legislation 6
Case Summaries 8
Complaint Data 14
How to File a Complaint 22
2
|Purpose of Quarterly Reports
Boulder’s Office of the Independent Police Monitor and the Police Oversight Panel were
established by City Council in February 2021. The enabling legislation (ordinance 8430) directs
the monitor and the panel to publish annual public reports that summarize the panel’s findings
and recommendations. Such annual reports are the primary means by which the monitor and
the panel provide transparency to the public on police disciplinary cases. In an effort to increase
the timeliness of this transparency, the monitor and panel shall also publish regular quarterly
reports that provide summaries of all misconduct complaints and their outcomes. The quarterly
reports will be published when the cases from that quarter have been fully adjudicated.
3
|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 Boulder native who recently left corporate law to pursue a
career in public policy. She received her law degree from the University of
Colorado and her undergraduate degree from The George Washington
University. Her undergraduate thesis on Black’s women’s experience of
domestic violence won the outstanding undergraduate research of the year award. Ariel has
4
served on the advisory board for a racially conscious reading organization and volunteers
regularly at a local domestic violence shelter.
Bwembya Chikolwa
Dr. Bwembya Chikolwa is Senior Manager of Property Tax at Lumen
Technologies, Inc. He earned a Ph.D. in Real Estate Investment and Finance
in 2008 and is currently pursuing a MS in Organizational Leadership at the
University of Colorado, Boulder. Before moving to Boulder, Dr. Chikolwa
practiced as a registered Property Valuer in both private and public sectors for over 12 years
before joining academia. In 2007, he joined Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane,
Australia, teaching and researching property investment and finance, and project and
infrastructure finance.
Sarah Holt
Sarah Holt 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.
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.
No photo
available
5
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.
Hadasa Vilalobos
Hadasa Villalobos 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 Wilson 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.
6
|Enabling Leglislation
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
7
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 recommendations from the
BPD command staff, the monitor, and the panel.
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.
8
|Case Summaries
All complaints filed between January 1, 2021 – March 31, 2021
Misconduct Cases
Case #MI2022-001
Panel Action: Full case file review conducted; panel recommended to Sustain the Rule 5
allegation, recommended additional investigation for two other officer’s actions, and
retraining for two dispatchers. BPD conducted the additional investigation
recommended by the panel and conferred with the dispatch supervisor regarding the
dispatchers performance.
Allegation: Rule 5 Police Authority and Public Trust Outcome: Not Sustained
Case Summary:
A young woman who is a tenant at an apartment complex engaged in a verbal confrontation
with several people who were playing tennis at the North Boulder Rec Center. There was a
tennis tournament and the players were using parking spots that were only authorized for the
apartment tenants. The tenant had previously told the tennis players that they were not
allowed to park there. One of the tennis players told the Rec Center employees to call police
after the tenant began yelling at someone. When police arrived, the responding officer initally
believed the tenant was in the right, but then viewed a cell phone video recorded by the tenant
that showed the tenant verbally confronting one of the tennis players. In the video, the tenant
had boxed in a woman's vehicle in the parking spot with her vehicle and began yelling at the
woman. She accused the tennis player of white privilege and said she would get her Taser if the
woman did not move her vehicle. The driver of the vehicle said she would move it if the tenant
would move her vehicle from blocking her in. Upon viewing the video, the officer realized the
tenant had actually committed the violation of harrassment (by indicating that she would get a
Taser). When the officer begins asking her questions about blocking the other driver in, she asks
if she could have a Black or Latino officer "that knew she had rights." The officer asks what he
did to offender her and she indicated that the officer's questions around blocking the other
driver in were offensive. The tennis player decided not to press charges for the harrassment.
The tenant wanted the tennis players' vehicles to be towed. The parking dispute was on private
property and was thus a civil matter for the apartment complex managers to resolve.
The next day the tenant called police to identify the tennis players who were back at the
tournament. She stated that one of the men had yelled at her in front of her child. The
responding sergeant explained that the apartment complex would have to take action. The
9
tenant accused the officer of not wanting to help her because he was offended she had
previously used the word "cracker."
While the sergeant spoke with the tenant, two other officers went to speak with the tennis
players to tell them not to interact with the tenant. At the conclusion of that interaction, a
female tennis player laughingly asks the officers if they can report the tenant to Child Protective
Services "to take care of her baby." It should be noted that the police report completed the day
before concludes with the note that "a two year old child...was present during the conflict and
a copy of this report will be forwarded to HHS for review."
The panel review committee recommended sustaining the Rule 5 allegation, additional
investigation regarding the HHS referral, additional investigation regarding an officer’s remarks
about an individual’s mental health condition, and retraining for two dispatchers who the
committee felt lacked empathy when interacting with the caller. The department conducted
the additional investigation recommended by the panel and concluded that no violations were
committed. The department concluded that the officer’s interaction with the complainant,
while at times unproductive, did not rise to the level of being unprofessional. The department
did not sustain the Rule 5 allegation against that officer. Further investigation was conducted
on the panel’s concern that the HHS referral was inappropriate. The additional investigation
found that the child was inside the vehicle when the mother used the vehicle to block another
vehicle from backing out, thus placing the child in danger and necessitating the referral to HHS.
Additional legal research was conducted by BPD and confirmed that HIPPA regulations do not
apply to police officers, thus no policy, rule or law was violated.
Case # MI2022-002
Panel Action: No case file review
Allegation: Rule 5 Police Authority and Public Trust Outcome: Unfounded
Case Summary:
A complainant whose prior complaint was sustained against a retired officer for applying for an
arrest warrant that was ultimately invalid filed another complaint against a sergeant in the
Professional Standards Unit. The complainant alleges that the PSU sergeant was once the
supervisor of the officer who applied for the invalid warrant and that the sergeant "signed off"
on the invalid warrant. This was not the case. The sergeant's name was on the associated police
report simply because he happend to be the supervising patrol sergeant for that shift (the
original incident occured in 2018). It was not his responsibility to confirm the information for
the warrant. It was the responsibility of the officer who completed the warrant application. The
complainant further alleges that the sergeant "deceived a federal investigation" and attempted
to coerce the complainant by attempting to schedule an interview with him. He alleges that the
sergeant intentionally gave him the "run around." The sergeant that he is accusing of giving him
the "run around" recommended that his first complaint about the invalid warrant be sustained
against the retired officer.
10
Case #: MI2022-003
Panel Action: No case file review
Allegation: Rule 5 Police Authority and Public Trust Outcome: Exonerated
Case Summary:
An individual sitting in his van was approached by police who were dispatched to the location in
response to a 911 caller complaining of a person sleeping in a vehicle. As officers approached
the vehicle, they shined their flashlights into the van. The individual complained about the
officers shining their light on him and then the individual shined his own flashlight back at
them. The individual was verbally confrontational with officers. Officers gave him a warning for
violating the city’s ban on sleeping in a vehicle and one officer repeatedly attempted to connect
the individual with services. The complainant has stated that the officers pointed their guns at
him, but it is clear from the body-worn camera footage that no officer ever unholstered or
pointed their firearm. The complainant also requested to have the violation issued against him
so he could take it to court and fight it.
Case #: MI2022-004
Panel Action: Full case file review conducted; panel recommended to Exonerate
Allegation: Rule 5 Police Authority and Public Trust Outcome: Exonerated
Case Summary:
An individual called the monitor to state that he was detained unlawfully during a 2021 arrest.
He described being tackled to the ground when he got up to leave. Body worn camera footage
and police reports were reviewed and the following was observed. Officers were dispatched to
a residential area in response to a white moving truck that was parked in front of a residence
for 10 hours. There were several people sleeping in the back of the truck and congregating near
the truck. As officers approached and explained to the owner of the truck that he could not
remain parked there, the owner became verbally confrontational and said he wanted to charge
harassment against the person who called the police. While investigating, the officers
discovered that the truck owner had an active arrest warrant. The individual continued to be
verbally antagonistic, telling officers that he would fight them and calling them deragatory
names. When the individual attempted to put his hands in his pockets, the on scene sergeant
told him several times to stop. When he refused officers' direction to sit down, two officers
grabbed his arms to detain him. He attempted to pull his arms away and was placed into
handcuffs. He was informed he was under arrest for Obstructing and then intentionally hit his
head against the side of the police vehicle and laid down refusing to get into the patrol vehicle.
While struggling with officers, he attempted to bite them and kicked his legs around. To avoid
injuries, officers applied a leg restraint device to control him. He was medically cleared by
paramedics and transported by ambulance to the jail. The panel review committee
recommended to exonerate the officer and the department exonerated the officer.
11
Case #: MI2022-005
Panel Action: Full case file review conducted, panel recommended to Sustain
Allegation: Rule 4 Respect for Others Outcome: Sustained
Case Summary:
Officers were dispatched to a scene for a reported dispturbance. A man was screaming in a
residential area during the early morning. Officers attempted to get him to leave the area. The
man became verbally antagonistic and refused to stop yelling. He repeatedly accused officers of
protecting pedophiles. In response, as the individual is walking away from the encounter, an
officer asks the man four times if he is a pedophile. The panel review committee recommended
to sustain the allegation and impose a written reprimand. The department sustained the
allegation and issued verbal counseling to the officer.
Case #: MI2022-006
Panel Action: No case file review
Allegation: Rule 1 (Customer Service Value) Outcome: Exonerated
Case Summary:
A woman was involved in a minor vehicle accident. While the officer was issuing her a ticket,
she asked multiple times if she could be let off with a warning. The officer explained that he
could not do that. Her father, a metro-area fire fighter, arrived on scene and interacted with
the officer. He became upset when the officer would not give his daughter a warning instead of
a ticket. The father said he knew the officer could excercise discrection if he wanted to,
"especially for a fireman's daughter." The officer again explained that he could not do that. The
father filed a complaint with the following concerns: the officer did not let his daugher sit in the
patrol vehicle despite the cold weather, the officer was unprofessional (errors on the ticket)
and discourteous, the officer did not have a business card to give him, and the officer sent the
daughter a text that the father thought was harassment (he thought this was inappropriate and
suspicious). The monitor classified this complaint as an allegation of violating BPD's customer
service value. The officer attempted to provide his contact information to the father on scene
but he was out of business cards. The officer started to write his contact information down on a
piece of paper, but the father realized the information was on the report and said he thus did
not need the officer to write it down. So there was no violation of the rule to identify. An officer
did mix up the names on the tickets and put the wrong name on the report for the fireman's
daughter. The error was corrected and a new ticket was issued, which caused the additional
text message to the daughter. The department exonerated the officer.
Case #: MI2022-007
Panel Action: Full case file review conducted, panel recommended to Exonerate
Allegation: Rule 1 (Customer Service Value) Outcome: Exonerated
12
Case Summary:
An individual filed a complaint against a Property and Evidence technician alleging the
following: the technician incorrectly denied the individual access to a car title document; when
the individual attempted to explain to her that she needed to accommodate her hearing
impairment appropriately, and, that her name was on the document, therefore it should be
released to her, the technician aggressively put her palm in the individual's face to silence her.
The individual asserted that this was a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The
investigation determined that the Property and Evidence technician put her hand up to slow
down the exchange so that she could read and understand what was being written by the
person assisting the complainant. The car title was ultimately provided to the complainant. A
panel review committee recommended to exonerate the Property and Evidence technician. The
department exonerated the employee.
Serious Misconduct Cases
Case #SM2022-001
Panel Action: Full case file review conducted, panel recommended to Sustain
Allegation: Rule 1 Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders (specifically GO
309-6 (A). Notifications) and Rule 3 Truthfulness Outcome: Sustained
Case Summary:
An officer noticed damage to the front grill and push bar of his police vehicle as he was about to
start his shift. When he started the vehicle, multiple warning lights illuminated on the dash. He
reported the vehicle damaged. An investigation was conducted to determine how the damage
occurred. It was discovered that another officer had used the vehicle and claimed to have
"found" damage and reported it to a Sergeant. That Sergeant asked the officer who reported it
if he had struck anything. He said he had not. Review of security camera footage confirmed that
the vehicle was not damaged when that officer took it out and that it was damaged when he
returned it. An accident investigator interviewed the officer and reminded him that there were
a multitude of ways to figure out who caused the damage. The officer then acknowledged that
he had lost control of the vehicle and "spun out" near the intersection of 23rd and Meadow due
to snowy conditions. The accident investigator was able to identify a large landscaping boulder
that the officer's vehicle had struck while traveling approximately 10 mph. No other vehicles or
people were involved in the collision, and no one was injured. A panel review committee
recommended to sustain the allegations and terminate the officer’s employment for the
violation of untruthfulness. The department sustained the allegations against the officer and
the officer was terminated from employment.
13
Case #SM2022-002
Panel Action: Full case file review conducted, panel recommended to Sustain
Allegation: Rule 1 (405-2 Investigative Accountability) Outcome: Sustained
Case Summary:
An individual who had an active arrest warrant for filing a false complaint against an officer
called 911 to report that his wife had been sexually assaulted the night before. Officers arrived
at their apartment, entered the building vestibule when another tenant entered, and waited for
the husband to come down the stairs into a common area. They spoke with him about the
reported sexual assault, then informed him that he was under arrest for the warrant. They
arrested him, told him they would go back to speak with his wife about the assault, but left
without speaking to the wife about the sexual assault. After placing the man in the patrol
vehicle, one officer went back to the apartment to speak with the wife but the door to the
common area was locked. The officer left without making any further attempt to contact the
wife. In the arrest report, the officer indicates that the sexual assault was unfounded and said
that it appeared that the husband was having a mental health episode. Subsequently, a
supervisor was informed of the outcome of the officers’ response and sent a detective to
conduct the sexual assault investigation. The panel review committee recommended to sustain
the allegation against the officer and impose a five-day suspension without pay, a written
reprimand, and retraining. The department sustained the allegation and imposed a one-day
suspension without pay.
14
|Complaint Data
January 1 – March 31, 2022
Nine complaints were filed involving ten separate allegations. Seven complaints were classified
as Misconduct, and two complaints were classified as Serious Misconduct. Of the ten
allegations, four were Sustained.
Community Inquiries
In the first quarter of 2022, seven
submissions were classified as Community
Inquiries by the monitor. A Community
Inquiry is defined by BPD as an allegation or
concern regarding department policies,
procedures, protocols or actions and
complaints regarding employee actions that
were within policy and law.
Nine complaints were filed
involving ten separate
allegations. Of the ten
allegations, four were
Sustained. The represents a
sustain rate of 40% for the
first quarter of 2022.
15
|Complaints, Allegations and Outcomes
January 1 – March 31, 2022
Month
Number of
Complaints
Filed
Allegation Types* Outcomes
January 3
Rule 4 Respect for Others Not Sustained
Rule 1 (309-6 (A) Notifications) * Sustained
Rule 3 Truthfulness Sustained
Rule 5 Police Authority and Public Trust Unfounded
6
Rule 5 Police Authority and Public Trust Exonerated
Rule 5 Police Authority and Public Trust Exonerated
Rule 4 Respect for Others Sustained
Rule 1 (Customer Service Value)** Exonerated
February Rule 1 (Customer Service Value) Exonerated
Rule 1 (405-2 Investigative Accountability) Sustained
March 0 - -
*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.
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.
16
|Data Analysis & Allegation Types
January 1 – March 31, 2022
*Each complaint can contain multiple allegations.
9
5 5
3
6
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
January February MarchNUMBER OF COMPLAINTSComplaints Received Q1 2021 & 2022*
2021 2022
4
1
4
1
0
Sustained
Not Sustained
Exonerated
Unfounded
Withdrawn
Allegation Dispositions
17
4
0
1
2
3
0 0 0 0 00
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Rule 1 Rule 2 Rule 3 Rule 4 Rule 5 Rule 6 Rule 7 Rule 8 Rule 9 Rule 10
Allegations by Type
18
|Boulder Police Department Rules
Rule 1. Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders
Except as otherwise approved by the Chief of Police, members of the department perform their
duties in accordance with city and department rules, policies, and procedures, and conduct
themselves within the framework of the department’s values.
Rule 2. Conformance with Laws
Members obey the laws of the United States of America and of any state or local jurisdiction.
Employees have a duty to report any custodial arrest, criminal summons or receipt of a
restraining/protection order they are served to an on-duty supervisor. A conviction for violation
of law is prima facie evidence of a violation of this rule.
Rule 3. Truthfulness
Members are truthful in matters associated with or related to department business or
responsibilities, except as recognized for legitimate investigative purposes.
Rule 4. Respect for Others
Members treat others with fairness and respect.
Rule 5. Police Authority and Public Trust
Members are entrusted to effectively, help fully, and non-abusively use the authority and public
trust vested in them. Members do not take any police action which they know, or reasonably
should know, is not in accordance with the law, and always use their position and credentials
appropriately. Members appropriately utilize city equipment, resources, and public monies.
Rule 6. Use of Force
Members only use a level of force that is lawful and reasonable under given circumstances.
Rule 7. Adherence to Orders
Members obey lawful orders and directives.
19
Rule 8. Conduct
Members use reasonable judgment and refrain from conduct which reflects unfavorably on the
department. This type of conduct includes that which:
• causes embarrassment to the department or its members or compromises the
department’s reputation;
• reflects discredit upon the individual as a member of the department; or
• tends to impair the operation, effectiveness, credibility, or efficiency of the department
or its members.
Rule 9. Cooperation in Investigations
Members assist and cooperate with any department-authorized investigation.
Rule 10. Security of Police Information
Members treat the official business of the department as confidential. Members do not:
• access, disseminate, or remove any official report or record for other than authorized
purposes;
• communicate any information which may jeopardize an investigation, arrest, police
action, or prosecution, or which may aid a person to escape, destroy, or remove evidence;
or
• communicate any information which may endanger the safety or well-being of others or
jeopardize the operation of the department.
In addition to the ten rules above, violation of the following department values can be the basis
for a complaint:
Customer Service
We are dedicated to exceeding the expectations of our community and our co-workers by
demonstrating consistent and professional service with a solution-oriented approach.
20
Respect
We champion diversity and welcome individual perspectives, backgrounds, and opinions. We
are open-minded and treat all individuals with respect and dignity.
Integrity
We are stewards of the public’s trust and are committed to service that is transparent and
consistent with city regulations and policies. We are honorable, follow through on our
commitments and accept responsibility.
Collaboration
We are committed to organizational success and celebrate our shared dedication to public
service. We believe community collaboration and the sum of our individual contributions leads
to great results.
Innovation
We promote a forward-thinking environment that supports creativity, calculated risks and
continuous improvement. We embrace change and learn from others in order to deliver leading
edge service.
21
|Race and Sex of Complaints
*For the purposes of this graph, self-identification on complaint forms as well as demographic indicators
from police documents were used. No complainants self-identified or were identified in police documents
as non-binary. Only external complaints received by members of the public are included in the graph.
Internal complaints filed by members of the police department or DA’s office are not included in the
graph.
Complainants by Race
Asian Black or African American Latinx Unknown White Internal Complaint
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Male Female
Complainants by Sex*
22
|How to File a Complaint
A complaint can be accepted in writing, over the phone, or via email.
In 2021, the monitor worked with BPD’s Professional Standards Unit and Information
Technology officer to build a new on-line complaint form. The new form prompts complainants
to provide a more thorough and detailed
account of their complaint, includes space
for a preferred name, and contains the
ability to include the complaint’s gender
identity. Complaints filed through the new
online form are immediately transmitted to
both the Independent Police Monitor (IPM)
and BPD’s Professional Standards Unit (PSU).
The new form also allows complainants to
file a complaint anonymously.
Complaints received are immediately reviewed by the IPM for classification and then routed
back to PSU for investigation. Complainants may file a complaint with either the IPM or PSU.
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, makes investigative recommendations during the course of PSU’s investigation, and
serves as an information resource for complainants.
To file a complaint online visit https://bouldercolorado.gov/police-commendation-and-complaint-
form.
Independent Police Monitor, Joey Lipari
Phone: 720-376-3980
Email: liparij@bouldercolorado.gov.
BPD Professional Standards Unit
Phone: 303-441-1802
Email: PSU@bouldercolorado.gov
A complaint can be filed with
the Office of the Independent
Police Monitor or the Boulder
Police Department’s
Professional Standards Unit.