Loading...
Police Oversight Panel - Third Annual Report - January - December 2023Police Oversight 2023 Annual Report Table of Contents Letter from the Independent Police Monitor ......................................................................................... Police Oversight Panel .................................................................................................................................... Processes and Procedures ............................................................................................................................ Enabling Legislation ................................................................................................................................ Panel Member Training .......................................................................................................................... Case Investigation Procedure ............................................................................................................. What is a Misconduct Investigation?................................................................................................ Case Review Process.............................................................................................................................. Quarterly Meetings with the Chief of Police .................................................................................. Panel Subcommittees ............................................................................................................................ Complaint Data ................................................................................................................................................. Community Inquiries............................................................................................................................... Case Summaries ................................................................................................................................................ How to File a Complaint ................................................................................................................................. Looking Ahead: Goals for 2024/2025 ........................................................................................................ Challenges for 2024/2025 .............................................................................................................................. Appendix I: Boulder Police Department Mission, Vision and Values ............................................... Appendix II: Boulder Police Department Rules ....................................................................................... Appendix III: Police Oversight Panel Case Review Process ................................................................. Appendix IV: Boulder Police Department Disciplinary Matrix ........................................................... Appendix V: Case Summaries ...................................................................................................................... 3. 4. 8. 8. 9. 10. 10. 12. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 16. 16. 16. 17. 18. 19. 21. 24. Police Oversight | 2023 Annual Report3 Police Oversight in 2023 developed into both an eventful and exceptional year that resulted in critical changes. I joined the City of Boulder as Independent Police Monitor in August 2023, after the position was vacant since 2022. When I stepped into the role of Monitor, the Police Oversight Panel (Panel) was on moratorium and a new police oversight ordinance was being finalized. Passage by Boulder City Council of Ordinance 8609 on October 19, 2023 ended the Panel’s moratorium and provided necessary clarification. Almost immediately I began preparing for selection of the new Panel members, under the requirements of the new ordinance. Throughout my first months as Monitor I spent considerable time learning the process and procedures of the entire Boulder civilian oversight system in addition to Boulder Police Department (BPD) policies. The interim Monitor from the OIR Group, members of BPD, especially members of the Professional Standards Unit (PSU), Panel members and many City of Boulder employees generously shared their time and expertise to assist me. I observed police in action while participating in a ride-along, sat with dispatch employees, and walked with the unit assigned to cleanup unauthorized camp sites. In late September 2023 I participated in BPD’s first Force Review Panel where BPD senior staff and I comprehensively evaluated the department’s actions in a May 2023 fatal officer- involved shooting. We reviewed the incident beginning with the first call to 911 and concluded with the collection of evidence. In collaboration we discussed not only whether the fatal use of force was within policy, but reviewed the staffing, radio communications and tactics deployed and identified areas for additional training. As I became more familiar with protocol, I recognized areas for improvement within BPD and the oversight system. I recommended that PSU officers register every complaint quickly within their case tracking system. BPD agreed that beginning in January 2024, PSU would register complaints upon receipt, instead of after concluding a preliminary investigation.1 Implementing this change should improve data on complaints and increase transparency. This change likely will increase the overall number of cases registered in 2024 compared to previous years. BPD also implemented my recommendation that they document whether individuals who complain of misconduct have stable housing, which will be another metric to analyze complaint data for the year 2024. I additionally advised BPD that their policies and training should provide clear guidance for all members to undertake when they become aware of an allegation of police misconduct, so that the complaint can be registered and investigated in a timely manner. I also recognized that reporting from my office to the public could be improved. In late 1 Complaints can be incomplete and lack critical information to proceed with investigation (date/location of incident, names of involved parties/officer) and/or could be missing contact information for the complainant. > Letter from the Independent Police Monitor Police Oversight | 2023 Annual Report 4 2023, I began publishing monthly reports that identified newly classified and closed cases in advance of the monthly Panel meetings. This allows members of the public to access monthly Monitor reports, instead of them only being available by watching the monthly Panel meetings. These reports are available through the Police Oversight Website or through City of Boulder Central Records archives. On December 17, 2023 I responded on scene to a fatal officer-involved shooting. Although the Monitor previously was expected to respond to this type of scene, my response was the first instance when the Monitor actually appeared on scene. It was clear from this first instance of the Monitor’s appearance on scene that fresh protocols for on scene response would need to be developed in conjunction with the investigating entity, the Boulder County Investigative Team (BCIT). While reviewing a new case in the last days of 2023, I realized that BPD made significant changes to General Order 2032 that incorporated recommendations made by the Panel following a 2022 case review. Seeing the tangible results of civilian oversight manifested in recent BPD policy heartened me that Boulder’s system of police oversight provided a voice for the community to spark change within BPD. Enjoying new stability of the oversight system and seeing the positive impact provided a hopeful end to an eventful 2023. > Police Oversight Panel The City Council sanctioned an official moratorium of Panel duties outside of previously committed case reviews so that the Panel could focus on the drafting of revisions to the police oversight ordinances. Revisions were needed to clarify the qualifications and vetting of potential Panel members. Review of the ordinance also provided an opportunity to expand the authority of both the Panel and the Monitor regarding their ability to review critical incidents, conduct audits and issue policy recommendations. A working group with representation from the Panel, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), BPD and the City Attorney’s Office was led by consultant Farah Muscadin to update the ordinances. This diverse group met weekly over the summer and invited public comment of their draft proposal during community meetings in September 2023. In 2023 the Panel reviewed 20 case reviews. See Appendix V: Case Summaries for details. During the Panel’s moratorium, they ceased voting on cases for case review. Cases classified during that period were not eligible for review by the Panel. 2 G.O.203 – Investigative Responsibility and Case Assignments. General Orders (G.O.) are abbreviated throughout this report (i.e., General Order 120 abbreviated to G.O.120). Serious Misconduct Misconduct Investigations SM2022-005 MI2022-025 MI2022-036 MI2023-003 MI2023-009 SM2022-006 MI2022-026 MI2022-037 MI2023-006 MI2023-010 SM2022-007 MI2022-031 MI2022-038 MI2023-007 MI2023-011 SM2023-001 MI2022-035 MI2022-039 MI2023-008 MI2023-012 Police Oversight | 2023 Annual Report5 Bwembya Chikolwa Dr. 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. 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. Maria-Soledad Diaz Born in Chile, Soledad studied Social Sciences and Law at Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, and Professional Photography at Universidad del Pacifico. She has dedicated her professional life to serving underprivileged communities and has focused her work in equity, social justice and anti-violence work. Currently, Soledad is the Public Policy and Community Impact Director for Violence Free Colorado, Chair of the Community Advisory Board for Downtown Boulder Partnership and is committed through her work in all its different ways and forms, to strengthen our sense of community and become a part of each other’s solutions. Madelyn S. Woodley Madelyn Strong Woodley is a Boulder County resident originally from Rosemark Tennessee. She is founder of ECAACE aka the Executive Committee for African American Cultural Events-Boulder County. The organization creates & promotes events geared to educate the community about the African American culture, at its finest. Its cornerstone rests within five pillars; Education, Tribute, Celebration, Solidarity and Service. As chairperson of the NAACP Freedom Fund Committee, she spearheaded the 2023 Celebration with a performance by the Nashville African American Wind Symphony, to a full house at CU’s Macky Auditorium. A free event/gift for the Boulder County Community. She is a Retired FedEx Corporate Executive and Division Head, worldwide within the Legal and Regulatory Affairs division. She brings a wealth of knowledge and experience to the City of Longmont and Boulder County Communities. Her law enforcement related background has proven beneficial in her most recent role as a member of the Boulder Police Oversight Task Implementation Team and most recently Panel. As a lifetime member and executive committee member of the NAACP in Boulder County, the core of Madelyn’s service endeavors is focused on making valuable contributions that will positively impact her community. She is a board member as well as a Governance committee member of the Longmont Community Foundation. As a charter member of the Longmont Multicultural Action Committee, Madelyn’s dedicated service can be realized through her volunteerism and community work of the aforementioned organizations and many others. As a third term board member of the Longmont Housing & Human Services Advisory Board, her involvement promotes the well-being of her Community. Her mantra is “Failure is not an option.” Current Panel Members Police Oversight | 2023 Annual Report 6 Mylene Vialard Mylene identifies as a White Woman who is bi-lingual in French and English. Mylene has been a Boulder resident for the last 15 years where she has also raised her daughter in the BVSD school system. Over the past two years, Mylene has been an active member of the Boulder chapter of Showing Up for Racial Justice (BSURJ) where she has been delving into the intricacies of life, culture and policies in Boulder through the lens of engaged antiracism, conversations about racial justice and building relationships with accountability partners such as NAACP, Right Relationship Boulder, and other organizations in Boulder County and Denver. As a single mother, a freelance translator, and a concerned member of the community, Mylene feels it is her duty to be more involved in ensuring that all voices in Boulder are heard and included. She has worked for years as a cultural and language ambassador for francophone countries, but also for other countries around the world. Most recently, she has shifted her attention to a deeper level of civic and local engagement and is looking forward to bringing her experience to the Panel. Jason Savela Jason Savela identifies as a white man and been a criminal defense lawyer in Boulder for 20 years. He stays up to date on newer police tactic trainings and does not feel he sees it deployed regularly enough. He believes that change will take time and effort and wants to be an active part of that change. Jason feels he has a positive relationship with Boulder prosecutors, judges, public defenders, and some officers. He wants to work with the Panel and other players to find outcomes that are just and will foster better relationships between officers and community members. Jason’s continued education over the last 10 or so years has primarily been about communication, connection, and empathy. He feels he is better able to work on this type of Panel with these skills. Jason has lived and practiced law in the Boulder area for 20 years. Jason has practiced law all over Colorado, with over 3 years as a Public Defender in Colorado Springs and 2 years in Adams County, including handling and trying cases in Hugo, Durango, Georgetown, Ft. Collins, Holyoke, Meeker, Greeley and Denver. Lizzie Friend Lizzie Friend was previously the Director of Performance Management and Strategy for the Denver Sheriff Department, a position she held until 2022. She now works for the Denver Department of Public Health and Environment, where she oversees data analytics and informatics, epidemiology, and communicable disease intervention teams. She is passionate about using data to improve government services, increase equity in our communities, and reduce harm. She lives in South Boulder and is raising two kids in BVSD schools. Arlette “AB” Barlow A mother of four, Arlette Barlow is a mainstay of Boulder. She serves on the Board at the Dairy Arts Center and on the Board of Trustees at Watershed School where her twin daughters attend middle school. Raised in Europe, the US and before Boulder, New Orleans, she gained a unique perspective on the human condition and sees humanity—in all its struggles and triumphs—as being more similar than different. A ceramicist of 30 years, she recently placed her work in The New Local, a burgeoning center for female artists in Boulder. A transformation coach, she helps people play for their big dreams and facilitates their path to greater belonging in this world. Her biggest joy is guiding people on their journeys of connection. She believes this connection can be strengthened at the community level and is most excited about bringing this worldview to the Boulder Panel. Police Oversight | 2023 Annual Report7 Bill de la Cruz Bill de la Cruz is a facilitator, trainer and developer of community engagement conversations with a variety of constituents. Bill has worked with police departments, first responders, educators in K-12 and higher education, municipalities, healthcare workers, attorneys, nonprofits and human resource agencies in Boulder County and around the state and country. His work is grounded in conversations about ways to enhance and evolve systemic policies, practices and protocols to lead to improved outcomes. Additionally, he supports individuals and groups to resolve conflict and build sustainable skills to transform conflict into learning and growth opportunities. In his work as a consultant, Bill works with organizations and individuals to understand and break through the impacts of bias, judgments and stereotypes in how we see and interact with each other. Abigail Franke Abigail Franke is a law student at the University of Colorado Boulder pursuing her J.D. with a certificate in Racial Justice and Civil Rights. She is the Diversity Equity and Inclusion Executive Editor of the Colorado Law Review vol. 96. Currently she is working in the field of indigent criminal defense and plans to work for the Colorado Public Defender’s Office after earning her J.D. Abigail was raised in South Texas before receiving her BA in English from Wake Forest University in Winston- Salem North Carolina and has witnessed a myriad of policing practices. While she is relatively new to the area she hopes that she is able to effectively advocate for better policing practices in Boulder which will serve the Boulder community as a whole. Luna Rosal Luna is descended from Filipino farmers and Mormon pioneers, growing up at the base of the Uintah Mountains in Utah. They came to Boulder to study Religion and Environmental Justice in Naropa University’s Interdisciplinary Studies program. They also work for the university under the office for Mission, Culture, and Inclusive Community as a Restorative Community officer and office assistant. A queer and multicultural Pinay, their passions include poetry, dancing, and developing structures that will help us remember our basic togetherness. Their work is grounded in the philosophies of Gloria Anzaldúa, Laozi, and Adrienne Maree Brown, to name a few. Luna looks forward to serving on the Panel with an open heart and fierce compassion. Police Oversight | 2023 Annual Report 8 Enabling Legislation Ordinance 8609 was adopted by the Boulder City Council on October 19, 2023. The ordinance amended Title 2, Chapter 11 of the Boulder Revised Code, establishing the Office of the Independent Monitor and the Panel and replaced the former Ordinance 8430. The new ordinance clarified the roles and responsibilities of the Monitor, Panel and the Chief of Police. The Monitor is tasked 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 Panel provides community involvement in police oversight and to ensure that historically excluded communities have a voice in police oversight. The ordinance re-establishes the Panel as 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 roles of the Panel include not only the review of completed internal complaint investigations, making recommendations on disposition and discipline for those complaints, but also authorizes the Panel to make policy and training recommendations to BPD. The Panel may also identify analyses that they would like the Monitor to conduct. 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 is also authorized to 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. In accordance with the new ordinance, the Chief of Police is required to respond in writing to recommendations made by the Panel or the Monitor. The ordinance created an opportunity for Panel members and the Chief of Police to meet along with the City Manager in the event of serious disagreement over disposition. Changes were made to the selection process for new Panel members that transferred the appointment responsibility from the City Council to the City Manager. The ordinance specified the qualifications of potential Panel members and identified mandatory inaugural and annual training responsibilities for panelists. Importantly, this ordinance granted both the Monitor and the Panel the authority to review critical incidents, including officer involved shootings, officer-involved fatalities and incidents of serious bodily injury. > Processes and Procedures Police Oversight | 2023 Annual Report9 Panel Member Training Appropriate training is critical for members of the Panel. In 2023, Panel members received multiple training modules from various instructors. On March 5, 2023, Panel members, including alternates, received three hours of orientation training that included the following modules: Boulder City Government Overview, presented by the City Attorney’s Office (CAO); Police Oversight Panel Responsibilities, taught by the Co-Chairs at the time; Police and Human Resources Policy, presented by the City of Boulder Equity Officer and BPD PSU Sergeant; and Legal Issues, taught by the CAO. These trainings were intended to provide Panel members with the fundamental understanding of their responsibilities and obligations not only in regard to service on the Panel, but also as representatives of the City of Boulder in their role as public officials. The second training session on March 18, 2023 included four hours of training on the Boulder Police Oversight Panel’s Role in the Complaint and Disciplinary Process, presented by the consultant OIR Group; and BPD Professional Standards Unit, taught by a PSU Sergeant. Both seated members of the Panel and alternates attended this training. Together these modules provided Panel members with a deeper understanding of the intricacies and process of the Boulder police oversight system. In addition, they learned details of their role and expectations of case review. Another training session occurred on April 22, 2023 and included two hours of training on the History of Civilian Police Oversight, presented by consultant Farah Muscadin; and Principles of Accountability, taught by the OIR Group. Both of these trainings shared deeper history, evolution and principles of different models of police oversight. Training was interrupted during the Panel’s moratorium. On November 6, 2023, following the passage of the new ordinance, the Panel received training on Ordinance 8609 from consultant Farah Muscadin. Two members of the Panel, Mylene Vialard and Soledad Diaz, and the Monitor attended the annual National Association for the Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) conference on November 12-16, 2023, in Chicago, Illinois. They had the opportunity to learn and connect with other members of oversight bodies and agencies. Police Oversight | 2023 Annual Report 10 Case Investigation Procedures The diagram below demonstrates the route a case follows as it is preliminarily investigated by the PSU classified by the Monitor, investigated by PSU, and reviewed by the Monitor, and optional Panel review. The Chief of Police makes the final disciplinary determination after receiving recommendations from the BPD command staff, the Monitor, and the Panel. What is a Misconduct Investigation? The BPD employs a wide range of personnel including sworn law enforcement officers, dispatchers, support staff, animal control officers and code enforcement officers. BPD members are required to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations and to comply with BPD’s own written Rules and General Orders.3 When allegations are registered that a BPD member violated existing law or policy, the BPD PSU conducts a Misconduct Investigation and if the member is found to have violated law or policy, employment discipline can be imposed. Discipline can range from informal coaching/counselling all the way to termination of employment, depending on the seriousness of the violation. Certain violations can result in additional measures, including notification to the District Attorney or the Colorado Peace Officer Standards & Training board. BPD sworn officers must also comply with specific laws and rules concerning their unique law enforcement powers, including most prominently the ability to use force and make arrests. Accordingly, even if there has been no alleged misconduct, BPD automatically conducts Force Review Investigations when an officer used deadly force (whether or not a death actually resulted), when a person died while in BPD custody (regardless of how the death occurred), or in other Critical Incidents4 to determine if laws and policy were followed. 3 See Appendices I and II for BPD Rules and Mission, Vision and Values statements. https://public.powerdms.com/Boulder/tree/documents/2265710 4 Critical incident means a line-of-duty discharge of a firearm in an enforcement action, whether or not a person was injured, the use of less lethal weapons or defensive tactics that result in the death or grave injury of a person, the death or grave injury of a person as a result of other police actions, or the death of an in- custody person when the circumstances of the death are unknown or questionable. Complaint and Disciplinary Process Under Monitor- Panel Model Monitor classifies and routes complaint/monitors ongoing investigation BPD's Professional Standards Unit conducts investigation BPD Chief of Police receives recommendations from BPD Command Sta, Monitor and Oversight Panel before making final determination Police Oversight Panel reviews complaint and investigative case files/makes recommendations Fig. 1 Police Oversight | 2023 Annual Report11 It is important to note that a Misconduct Investigation is not a criminal investigation into an officer’s actions. The Misconduct Investigation is an internal employment and agency process and is therefore governed by a lower standard of proof—preponderance of the evidence. Any investigation into whether the officer’s actions violated criminal law is conducted by a separate law enforcement agency in conjunction with the Boulder County District Attorney’s Office. This means that even if the District Attorney concludes that there is insufficient evidence to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the Misconduct Investigation could still find that a preponderance of the evidence shows an officer violated law or BPD policy and is therefore subject to administrative discipline. Unlike a criminal trial, law enforcement personnel can be compelled by BPD to provide information during a Misconduct Investigation, including sitting for an interview with PSU. BPD members have certain procedural rights, including the ability to have a representative present during an interview, the ability to review evidence in advance of their interview and to receive detailed notice of the misconduct allegations they face. While in a criminal trial a defendant can be found guilty or not guilty, the following dispositions are possible for allegations of misconduct: 5 a. Exonerated: The incident occurred, but a preponderance of the evidence shows that member actions were lawful, proper, and/or a justified departure from policy. b. Not Sustained: An allegation is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. c. Unfounded: The preponderance of the evidence shows that member did not commit the alleged act and/or the member was not involved in the incident. This disposition classification may also be used for false allegations or complaints with no basis. d. Sustained: A preponderance of the evidence supports the allegation that the employee committed an act of misconduct. e. Employee Unidentified: The investigation could not identify the member who committed the alleged misconduct. f. Administratively Closed: May be used, with the approval of the Chief of Police and the Office of the Independent Monitor, where the complainant voluntarily wishes to withdraw the complaint, declines to cooperate, or cannot be located, and/or the member named in the complaint is no longer employed by the Boulder Police Department. g. No Finding: Cases that are, with the approval of the Chief of Police and the Monitor, handled in an alternative manner or cases in which a subject member resigns, and the department, with the approval of the Monitor, elects not to continue the investigation. 5 Boulder Police Department G.O.120 Police Oversight | 2023 Annual Report 12 Case Review Process 6 To promote both the efficient and thorough review of cases, the Panel decided to create smaller ad-hoc case review groups composed of no less than three Panel members to conduct the full case file reviews. Prior to selecting a case file for review, the entire Panel receives a redacted summary of each case that includes a synopsis of the complaint and investigation. At the Panel’s regular monthly meetings, the Panel members vote on each case to determine which cases they will conduct a full case file review. The Panel members then volunteer for which case reviews they would like to be assigned to review. Upon completion of the investigation, the Monitor provides the case review group members with the entire case file to review and schedules the case review discussion in coordination with the case review group. During the review discussion, the case review group collectively examines the evidence and relevant policy and decides on their recommendation to the Chief of Police on the case disposition (Sustain, Exonerate, Not Sustain, Unfound, Administratively Close). If they sustain an allegation(s), the case review group then applies the BPD’s disciplinary matrix to determine a disciplinary recommendation. The case review group communicates their recommendations and any additional observations to the Monitor, who then drafts a finding letter to the Chief of Police based on the Panel’s conclusions and recommendations. The Monitor then provides the draft finding letter to the case review group. The case review group reviews the finding letter, determines if they want to make any adjustments to the drafting of the letter, and then approves the letter. The Monitor forwards the finding letter to the BPD on behalf of the case review group. Quarterly Meetings with the Chief The Panel met in 2023 for a quarterly Meeting with the Chief of BPD on one occasion, April 26, 2023, when Deputy Chief Redfearn attended on behalf of Chief Herold. The meeting was open to the public virtually. Mid-year Meetings with the Chief were paused when the Panel was on moratorium. Another meeting was scheduled for December 6, 2023, but was cancelled due to Chief Herold’s inability to attend due to a health issue. These Meetings with the Chief resumed in 2024 and provide the Panel the opportunity to directly ask questions of the Chief of Police on topics relevant at the time of the meeting. The Panel has the opportunity to learn more about upcoming BPD initiatives, processes and trends. Meeting times and directions for how members of the public can observe the meeting will be posted in advance on the Panel’s website: https://bouldercolorado.gov/police-oversight-panel. 6 See Appendix III for additional details about the Panel’s case review process. Police Oversight | 2023 Annual Report13 Panel Subcommittees In the Police Oversight Panel’s by-laws, the Panel established the following subcommittees. During the Panel’s moratorium the subcommittees effectively ceased meeting. 2023 Governance Committee, Hadasa Villalobos (chair) and Daniel Leonard The Governance Committee is responsible for evaluating and presenting any potential amendments to the Panel for approval. Additionally, the Governance Committee is responsible for ensuring compliance of the Panel to these Bylaws and Ordinance 8609. The Governance Committee will work with the Monitor to lead the creation and implementation of training and development of the Panel to effectively carry out its duties and responsibilities. The Panel will further develop their own agendas, duties, and responsibilities in this section through the Governance Committee. Due to the passage of Ordinance 8609, the Governance Committee intends to update the Panel bylaws accordingly and finish drafting sections of the bylaws that were uncompleted. 2023 Community Engagement and Communications Committee, Victor King (co-chair), Mylene Vialard (co-chair), Soledad Diaz (co-chair) The Community Outreach and Communications Committee will work with the Monitor to develop and lead the Panel’s communications and engagement with the community. The Panel will further develop their own agendas, duties, and responsibilities in this section through the Community Outreach and Communications Committee. This committee will work with the City of Boulder’s Communications and Engagement Department to facilitate the release of any public statements by the Panel. The Community Outreach and Communications Committee helped host multiple engagement sessions for the community to share their thoughts about the proposed ordinance in-person on June 21 and September 20, 2023, and a virtual meeting on September 18, 2023. 2023 Legacy Review Committee, Bwembya Chikolwa (chair), Hadasa Vilallobos, Jason Savela, Lizzie Friend This committee will consider whether to actively reinforce or to reimagine policies with reflective hindsight, noting that the historical definition of the word legacy signifies items that are handed down from one period of time to another, and are specifically designed to take the time and space to dialogue, process, and put forward remedies to cauterize the intergenerational trauma that still exists from overt racism and covert white supremacy that continues to be perpetrated within and by many systems. The Panel acknowledges and respects that it cannot go back and change the decisions or outcome of a prior investigation, but the Panel can and should embrace opportunities to provide ethical and multicultural insight into past practices that actively hold the potential of harm to negatively impact Boulder community members today. The Legacy Review Committee can request data captured or maintained by BPD and City to conduct analysis and review of past or current trends to make policy recommendations. Any research or insights will be presented to the Panel in a public meeting for recommended policy changes. January 1 – December 31, 2023 Thirty-seven complaints were classified in 2023 involving 136 separate allegations. Thirty- five complaints were classified as Misconduct and two complaints were classified as Serious Misconduct. Of the 136 allegations, 20 were Sustained, representing a sustained rate of 14.7%. • Rule 1 – Compliance with Values, Rules and General Orders 79 allegations; 40 Exonerated; 18 Not Sustained; 12 Sustained; 8 Unfounded; 1 No Finding • Rule 2 – Conformance with Laws 4 allegations; 1 Exonerated; 1 Not Sustained; 2 Sustained • Rule 3 - Truthfulness 1 allegation; 1 Sustained • Rule 4 – Respect for Others 13 allegations; 5 Exonerated; 3 Not Sustained; 1 Sustained; 4 Unfounded • Rule 5 – Police Authority and Public Trust 21 Allegations; 18 Exonerated; 1 Not Sustained; 2 Exonerated • Rule 6 – Use of Force 13 Allegations; 12 Exonerated; 1 Not Sustained • Rule 8 - Conduct 5 Allegations; 4 Sustained; 1 Unfounded 1 24 20 15 76 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 NO FINDING NOT SUSTAINED SUSTAINED UNFOUNDED EXONERATED Allegation Dispositions Community Member(s) 89% Internal (BPD/District Aorney) 11% Origin Of Complaint Community Member(s)Internal (BPD/District Aorney) 5 13 21 13 1 4 79 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Rule 8 - Conduct Rule 6 - Use of Force Rule 5 - Police Authority and Pub lic Trust Rule 4 - Respect for Others Rule 3 - Truthfulness Rule 2 - Conformance with Laws Rule 1 - Compliance with Values Allegations By Rule 11 367 25 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Female Ocers Male Ocers Complaints By Gender Female Complainants Male Complainants Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5 > Complaint Data Police Oversight | 2023 Annual Report15 Of the 136 allegations of misconduct in 2023 cases, there were 16 allegations (below) where the Panel and/or Monitor disposition recommendations differed from the BPD Chief’s final disposition decisions. Effectively, the Panel and/or Monitor agreed with final BPD dispositions on 88% of the allegation. In a separate case, SM2023-001, the Panel was in agreement with BPD’s Sustained findings, but the Panel recommended an 8-Day Suspension when BPD suspended the officer for 7 days. Asian Complainant Black Complainants Hispanic Complainants White Complainants White Ocer 1 2 7 55 Black Ocer 2 6 Hispanic Ocer 4 Asian Ocer 2 1 2 7 55 2 6 4 2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Complaints By Race White Ocer Black Ocer Hispanic Ocer Asian Ocer Fig. 6 Case Number Panel BPD Chief Monitor MI2023-003 Sustained Exonerated Sustained Sustained Exonerated Not Sustained Sustained Exonerated Sustained Sustained Exonerated Sustained Sustained Exonerated Not Sustained MI2023-004 Not Sustained Exonerated Not Sustained Exonerated Not Sustained Exonerated Not Sustained Exonerated MI2023-012 Not Sustained Exonerated MI2023-013 Exonerated Not Sustained MI2023-021 Exonerated Not Sustained MI2023-022 Exonerated Unfounded MI2023-028 Exonerated Not Sustained MI2023-034 Not Sustained Sustained Sustained Not Sustained Community Inquiries In 2023, 6 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. Police Oversight | 2023 Annual Report 16 See Appendix V for more detail about case summaries. > How to File a Complaint Members of the public can file complaints against members of the Boulder Police Department through multiple avenues: • On-line complaint form. • Independent Police Monitor, 303-413-7859, dauns@bouldercolorado.gov • Boulder Police Professional Standards Unit, 303-441-3312, PSU@bouldercolorado.gov • PoliceOversightPanel@bouldercolorado.gov Complaints can also be registered in the lobby of the Boulder Police Department or Penfield Tate II Municipal building. Anonymous complaints are permitted. The more information provided, the better – especially the date, time and location of the incident. Complaints can be filed without knowledge of the identity of the officer(s). > Looking Ahead: Goals for 2024/25 • Develop a public dashboard to track the status of complaints • In conjunction with BPD, developing a tracking mechanism for recommendations made to BPD by the Monitor or Panel • Develop updated protocol with the Boulder County Critical Investigative Response Team to ensure access by the Monitor to the scene of critical incidents • Develop relationships with key stakeholders and improved community engagement • Update the Panel bylaws • Create a comprehensive complaint review guide that includes protocol for the review of critical incidents > Challenges Increasing complaints are consuming resources and impacting other important areas of work including community engagement and data analysis. > Case Summaries Police Oversight | 2023 Annual Report17 Appendix I: Boulder Police Department Mission, Vision and Values VISION STATEMENT The Boulder Police Department strives to be a premier law enforcement agency and a model of excellence in policing by creating partnerships, building trust, reducing crime and improving the quality of life in our community. MISSION STATEMENT Partnering with the Community to Provide Service and Safety VALUES 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. 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. We Value: • Public Trust • Accountability to the Law • The Rights of all People • Courage and Selfless Honor • Personal and Organizational Integrity • Excellent Service • Respect for our Community and One Another • Our Employees and their Service to our Community > Appendix Police Oversight | 2023 Annual Report 18 Appendix II: Boulder Police Department Rules 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. 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. 3. Truthfulness Members are truthful in matters associated with or related to department business or responsibilities, except as recognized for legitimate investigative purposes. 4. Respect for Others Members treat others with fairness and respect. 5. Police Authority and Public Trust Members are entrusted to effectively, helpfully, 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. 6. Use of Force Members only use a level of force that is lawful and reasonable under given circumstances. 7. Adherence to Orders Members obey lawful orders and directives. 8. Conduct Members use reasonable judgment and refrain from conduct which reflects unfavorably on the department. This type of conduct includes that which: a. causes embarrassment to the department or its members, or compromises the department’s reputation; b. reflects discredit upon the individual as a member of the department; or c. tends to impair the operation, effectiveness, credibility, or efficiency of the department or its members. 9. Cooperation in Investigations Members assist and cooperate with any department-authorized investigation. 10. Security of Police Information Members treat the official business of the department as confidential. Members do not: a. access, disseminate, or remove any official report or record for other than authorized purposes; b. 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 c. communicate any information which may endanger the safety or well being of others or jeopardize the operation of the department. Police Oversight | 2023 Annual Report19 Appendix III: Police Oversight Panel Case Review Process Redacted Screening Process When the Monitor provides the initial case summaries to the Panel, all names and personal identifiers are redacted. This is a preliminary measure intentionally designed to ensure contemplative thought regarding the substantive nature of the complaint as well as prevention of any potential for name recognition or power differential dynamics that may trigger a positive and/or negative bias associated with any of the parties. Case Review Voting During their open monthly Panel meeting, if a quorum of the Panel is present, the Panel will vote on whether to move forward with a full case file review. An affirmative vote of the majority of the panelists present at the meeting results in a complaint being assigned for review by at least three panelists. If further discussion is needed pertaining to the deliberation or voting process that contains sensitive information, a motion will be made, seconded, and approved by a majority of present panelists for a closed session, at a future time. The Monitor will inform the complainant of the Panel’s determination of whether to conduct a full case file review. Identification Restoration Once complaints are accepted or rejected for further review, their identifiers will be restored within a closed session, so panelists can gauge and/or inform fellow panelists whether a conflict of interest exists as defined in Title 2, Chapter 7 of the Boulder Revised Code. If a conflict of interest is present with any parties listed in the complaint, panelists will recuse themselves. Unaccepted Case Reviews Complaints that are not accepted for further review by the Panel will be logged internally by the Monitor within 72 hours and have their case number and rule violation recorded in subsequent public reporting. The Monitor will capture the vote tally for a complaint’s rejection to maintain public transparency. Rejection factors have yet to be developed by the Panel. Preparing for Full Case File Review of Complaints The Monitor informs the panelists that a case is ready for review and requests that panelists volunteer to join a full case file review. No full case file review of a complaint shall be completed with fewer than three panelists. If three panelists do not volunteer, the co-chairs and/or Monitor appoint panelists to case reviews. The Monitor assists in the production of all confidential case file materials to committee members in accordance with Ordinance 8609. Disposition and Recommendations The Panel’s recommended disposition and disciplinary recommendations will include an analysis of the complaint’s validity, the PSU review, and a recommendation of appropriate next steps of corrective and/or disciplinary actions. The Monitor documents the Panel’s analysis and recommendations and transmits them to the Chief of Police after the Panel’s case review group approves the language. If the Panel determines that an investigation is incomplete, the Panel shall direct the Monitor to recommend additional investigation by the Professional Standards Unit, in accordance with Ordinance 8609. Police Oversight | 2023 Annual Report 20 Communication of Final Decision The Monitor will notify the complainant of the outcome via email, phone call, or postal mail if the complainant provided their contact information and preference. A summary of the Panel’s findings and recommendations will be included in the Panel’s annual public report to the city manager and Chief of Police, in accordance with Ordinance 8609. Corrective Action Provision If the Panel’s review of a case file leads the Panel to conclude that an allegation should be sustained, the Panel will recommend corrective action consistent with the department’s disciplinary matrix and may also include recommendations for changes to systems or training. The disciplinary recommendations by the Panel’s case review committees include all options in the BPD’s disciplinary matrix, including suspension and/or termination of employment. In some instances, an egregious violation may also have legal implications, subjecting the police officer and/or BPD to civil or criminal penalties, fines or other sanctions such as mandatory reporting to Internal Affairs, the Federal Bureau of Investigations, and/ or the Department of Justice. Police Oversight | 2023 Annual Report21 Appendix IV: Boulder Police Department Disciplinary Matrix General Order 120 Appendix B. Corrective and Disciplinary Action Matrix Respect for Community and One Another Corrective Action A B C D E F Rule 4 Respect for Others X X X Rule 7 Adherence to Orders Minor Impact*X X Significant Impact*X X X X Perform Required Duty Minor Impact*X X Significant Impact*X X X X Rule 8 Conduct Minor Impact*X X Significant Impact* or Repeated Minor X X X X X Uniform, equipment, grooming, and appearance X X Rule 1 Compliance with Rules, Values, and General Orders Minor Impact*X X Significant Impact*X X X X Attendance (court, required training, etc.)X X The Rights of All People Corrective Action A B C D E F Sexual Harassment X X X X X Pursuit Violation Minor X X X Egregious or Repeated X X X X Rule 6 Use of Force Unnecessary X X Excessive X X X X X In-Custody Care X X X X X Integrity Corrective Action A B C D E F Rule 5 Police Authority and Public Trust Minor Impact*X X Significant Impact*X X X X Rule 10 Security of Police Information Minor Impact*X X Significant Impact*X X X X GO 101 Civil Rights, Racial Profiling, Biased Policing X X X X X Protection of Public or Private Property Corrective Action A B C D E F Lost Property Negligence X X Reckless X X X X X Damage to Property Negligence X X Reckless X X X X X Intentional Destruction of Property X X X X *Impact includes the potential impact See the Corrective Action key and application direction on the next page. Public Trust/Accountability to the Law Corrective Action A B C D E F Rule 3 Truthfulness X X Rule 9 Cooperation in Investigations X X X X X Rule 2 Conformance with Laws (Misdemeanor or Felony)X X X X Rule 2 Conformance with Laws (Minor Traffic/Pos)X X Tampering with Evidence X X Corruption X X Police Oversight | 2023 Annual Report23 Corrective and Disciplinary Action A B C D E F **Training/ re-education through supervisory counseling Written reprimand or mediation Transfer, demotion, and/ or 1- to 2-day suspension Transfer, demotion, and/ or 3- to 5-day suspension Transfer, demotion, and/or 6- to a 10-day suspension Termination or suspension beyond ten days **Training/re-education may be mandated in addition to corrective or disciplinary action. Second and subsequent similar violations within 24 months can be enhanced to the next highest category. Mitigating and aggravating circumstances should be considered before imposing corrective or disciplinary action. 24 Appendix V. Case Summaries Case Appendix The following Case Appendix captures the outcome of each case that either the Independent Police Monitor or the Police Oversight Panel reviewed in 2023, including cases classified in 2022. SM2022-005  Origin Community Member, Internal Race/Ethnicity White/Not Hispanic or Latino Summary During 2020, Officer 1, who was serving as Officer 2’s training officer, engaged Officer 2 in conversation about whether she was single, Officer 2’s appearance, the state of Officer 1’s marriage, and sex acts Officer 1 wanted to have with Officer 2. Following completion of Officer 2’s training, Officer 1 had additional inappropriate interactions with Officer 2.   Allegations Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders/General Order 138 Training and Career Development  Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders/Integrity Value  Officer 1: Rule 4 (Respect for Others)  Officer 1: Rule 8 (Conduct that Reflects Unfavorably on the Department)  Panel Disposition Recommendations Officer 1: Sustained/Termination  Officer 1: Sustained/Termination  Officer 1: Sustained/Termination  Officer 1: Sustained/Termination  BPD Chief Outcome Officer 1: Sustained/Termination  Officer 1: Sustained/termination  Officer 1: Sustained/Termination  Officer 1: Sustained/Termination  (Officer 1 resigned 2/16/23) Panel Policy Recommendations The BPOP recommended that: 1. The city revise and update its Non-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment Policy (last revised on October 15, 2014) to include provisions regarding mandated reporters (of sexual harassment allegations); 2. The city revise and update its Non-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment Policy to include how departments and/or the city will respond to allegations of sex harassment and descriptions of the investigative process and retribution protections; and   3. The BPD assign multiple training officers to each new officer  Policy Response 1. The BPD is currently developing an internal sexual harassment policy to meet Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) accreditation. The BPD will share the draft with the BPOP.  2. The city’s equity manager referred the BPOP’s recommendations regarding city policy to the city’s HR Department.  3. The BPD’s police officer training program (PTO) already mandates three different PTO officers train new officers.  25 SM2022-006 Origin Internal Race/Ethnicity White/Not Hispanic or Latino Summary In 2022 and possibly earlier, Officer 1, a sergeant and police training sergeant: 1) sexually harassed Officer 2 by making two comments to her on different dates of a sexual nature (suggesting that the Officer 2 tell others that the sergeant was good in bed because of rumors they were involved and making a reference to Officer 2 not having had sex); 2) had a sexual relationship with Officer 2 that he did not report; and 3) had a sexual relationship with Officer 4 that he did not report and while Officer 4 was receiving on-the-job training as part of the PTO program.  Allegations Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/Boulder Non-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment Policy Officer 1: Rule 4 (Respect for Others) Officer 1: Rule 8 (Conduct) Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/Boulder Nepotism Policy Officer 1: Rule 4 (Respect for Others) Officer 1: Rule 8 (Conduct)  Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/Boulder Nepotism Policy Officer 1: Rule 4 (Respect for Others) Rule 8 (Conduct)  Panel Recommendations Officer 1: For all allegations, sustained/termination/do not rehire  BPD Chief Outcome Officer 1: For all allegations, sustained/termination (Officer 1 resigned 10/28/22)  Panel Policy Recommendations 1. The department should retrain its employees on issues involving sex, dating, gender, sex/gender identity and sex/gender preferences in a way that is consistent with Boulder’s values, policies, and 2023 workplace best practices.    2. The department should establish a fully anonymous tip line for officers to report their concerns, their negative encounters, or any issues with the way their gender, sex, or private relationships are discussed in the workplace.    3. G.O. 138 Training and Career Development, Training Conduct Acknowledgement Form should permit trainees with whom a trainer or PTO attempts to establish a personal relationship to notify Training or PTO leadership anonymously.   4. The city should update its Nepotism Policy, which the city last revised on August 31, 2009, and clarify its definition of “supervise” (see section V.A), i.e., rank and/or direct chain-of-command, who is an “employee affected” (see section V.B), and clarify whether subordinate employees are required to make notifications regarding a supervisor-subordinate relationship.    Policy Response 1: This is a valid point and as the BPD looks at its required training calendar for the remainder of the year, the BPD will see how best to integrate such training in its in-service training.  26 2. The department can look into this and also look into what existing systems are in place throughout the city and human resources.  If there are existing ways to make anonymous complaints, we will ensure that these are shared internally with employees as they may not be well-known.  3. The BPD is in the process of attaining its Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement (CALEA) accreditation and is revising all of its policies.  The BPD will evaluate its current PTO policy to see if it can integrate this recommendation, assuming it meets CALEA standards.  4. The City Attorney’s office is examining the Nepotism Policy.  SM2022-007 Origin Community Member Race/Ethnicity White Summary Two individuals called 911 regarding an intoxicated man harassing people in front of a 7-Eleven and liquor store. Officer 1 drove past the man, who chased after officer 1’s patrol car. When officer 1 parked, the man had removed his shirt and confronted the officer, yelling at him. Officer 1, drew and aimed his Taser at the man, and asked the man to relax and sit down and warned the man that if the man stepped towards Officer 1, Officer 1 would fire his Taser at the man. The man took a step towards Officer 1 and Officer 1 fired his Taser at the man. The projectile struck the man but was ineffective; Officer 1 fired a second round and the man fell to the ground. Back-up officers handcuffed the man. The man filed a complaint and in addition to complaining about the arrest and use of force, complained that officers did not explain the reason for the arrest, the accuracy of the incident report, and did not provide him with Miranda warnings. Allegations Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/Customer Service Value— did not provide explanation for stop and subsequent arrest Officer 1: Rule 6 (UOF)/General Order 225 UOF Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/GO 200 Discretion, Arrest Standards, and Enforcement Action; arrest without probable cause Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/GO 240 In-car Cameras, Body Worn Cameras, and Personal Recording Devices—turned off BWC for conversation with Officer 2 Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules and General Orders)/GO 201 Report Writing— did not prepare an accurate incident report Officer 2: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/Customer Service Value−did not provide explanation for arrest -Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/GO 240 In- car Cameras, Body Worn Cameras, and Personal Recording Devices— muted and angled BWC for conversation with Officer 1 27 MI2022-025 Origin Community Member Race/Ethnicity Not Disclosed/Unknown Officer 2: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/GO 405 Investigative Process—did not provide Miranda warnings Officer 3: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders/GO Investigative Process— did not provide Miranda warning Panel Recommendations Officer 1: Exonerated Exonerated (2-1) Exonerated (2-1) Sustained Not Sustained (2-1) Officer 2: Exonerated Sustained Exonerated Officer 3: Exonerated BPD Chief Outcome Officer 1: Exonerated Exonerated Exonerated Not Sustained Not Sustained Officer 2: Exonerated Not Sustained Exonerated Officer 3: Exonerated Panel Policy Recommendations Because Officer 1 may have avoided using his Taser had he more effectively communicated with the man and used additional de- escalation tactics, the BPD should revisit its customer service and de- escalation training to improve officers’ interactions with individuals, especially those whom they perceive to be intoxicated, on drugs, and/or appear to be having a mental health episode Policy Response The BPD will conduct a tactical review of the incident, which will include a refresher on body-worn camera policy and integrating communications assessment and tactics (ICAT) 28 Summary Two individuals (boyfriend and girlfriend) who live together argued and had a physical confrontation. Both independently called police. Separately responding units located the boyfriend and the girlfriend at different locations. The boyfriend reported that his girlfriend bit him, tried to stab him, and used pepper spray against him. The girlfriend reported that her boyfriend hit her in the head and put her in a chokehold, causing her to lose consciousness for 12 minutes. (Dispatch had informed officer 1 that the girlfriend had a knife in her purse.) Officer 1, who located the girlfriend, ran after her from behind (she did not respond to his calls), grabbed her arm and wrist, took the purse, and forced her to sit on the ground. Officer 1 recovered from the girlfriend a paring knife and a can of mace. The boyfriend had visible injuries. Officers separately interviewed the two individuals and officer 2 determined to arrest the girlfriend. Allegations Officer 1: Rule 6 (Use of Force)/General Order 225 Use of Force Officer 2: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/General Order 313 Domestic Violence Response—did not make an arrest Panel Recommendations Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 2: Exonerated BPD Chief Outcome Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 2: Exonerated Panel Policy Recommendations 1. The Crisis Intervention Response Team should be available to respond with BPD officers seven days a week, 24 hours per day, and that the BPD work with city government to make this best practice a reality, and 2. BPD should consult with domestic violence experts and other police departments’ domestic violence policies to ensure that BPD General Order 313 Domestic Violence Response, last reviewed on January 19, 2016, reflects current best practices. Policy Response 1. BPOP should work with Boulder’s equity manager. • HHS/CIRT supervisor is assessing call volume to ascertain resource need and possible budget request. 2. The BPD’s domestic violence procedure is consistent with best practices but, as part of the BPD’s CALEA accreditation, BPD will be re- evaluating policies and including any innovative updates. MI2022-026 Origin Community Member Race/Ethnicity White/Not Hispanic or Latino Summary Officer 1 is the landlord of a building that is not located in Boulder. During a discussion about parties and property damage, a tenant and his father claimed that the landlord identified himself as a BPD officer and stated that he was going to have his friends or people drive by the property and check out the building, i.e., making an implicit threat. 29 Officer 1 admitted that he had told the tenant at an unspecified time that he was a BPD officer but denied that he ever mentioned in this conversation that he or his friends would drive by the property and check out the building. The tenant is a college student; his father made the complaint. The PSU sergeant interviewed both and the father wanted to withdraw his complaint after Officer 1 returned the security deposit and the PSU sergeant spoke with the officer (at the complainant's request). Allegations Officer 1: Rule 5 (Police Authority and Public Trust) Panel Recommendations Officer 1: Not Sustained BPD Chief Outcome Officer 1: Not Sustained Panel Policy Recommendations BPD counsel Officer 1 that, in his role as landlord, Officer 1 refrain from discussing, with any renter or the renter’s friends or relatives, Officer 1’s job as a police officer. Policy Response The BPD will counsel Officer 1 as recommended. MI2022-031 Origin Community Member Race/Ethnicity White/Not Hispanic or Latino Summary This complaint stems from a divorce and custody battle and the complainant's purported violation of a permanent civil court protection order, restraining him, with exceptions, from contacting his sons. The mother asked police to enforce the court order. Officer 1 met with the mother, who provided Officer 1 with legal documents. Officer 1 went to the father’s address, where he found one of the parents’ two children, aged 14. Officer 1 spoke with the son and asked to look at the son’s telephone, which showed impermissible contact between father and son. Officer 1 did not force the son(s) to go to their mother’s. Officer 2 subsequently arrested the father for violating the order of protection. The father complained that Officer 1 improperly questioned the 14-year- old son and searched the son's telephone. He also alleged that the detective who arrested him knowingly used improperly seized evidence to obtain the arrest warrant to make an arrest the complainant viewed as unjustified. Allegations Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/General Order 232-6 Juvenile Enforcement Procedures, Interrogation of Juveniles Authority and Public Trust) Officer 1: Rule 5 (Police Authority and Public Trust) Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/General Order 232-7(B) Juvenile Enforcement Procedures, Obtaining Consent to Search from Juveniles Officer 2: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/General Order 405 Investigative Process Panel Recommendations Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 1: Exonerated 30 Officer 1: Sustained/Supervisory Counseling Officer 2: Not Sustained BPD Chief Outcome Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 1: Sustained/Verbal Counseling Officer 2: Exonerated Panel Policy Recommendations Policy Response MI2022-035 Origin Community Member Race/Ethnicity White/Not Hispanic or Latino Summary Officers received a call of a stolen vehicle. They contacted the reporting party, who was tracking the vehicle via the vehicle’s GPS. The officers observed what they believed to be the vehicle and followed the vehicle. After consulting with a supervisor, the officers initiated a high-risk felony stop of the vehicle, which involved drawing their firearms. Minutes into the stop, the officers realized that they had stopped the wrong vehicle. Moments later, the officers erroneously matched the VIN of the stolen vehicle to the vehicle they had stopped; one officer grabbed the complainant to prevent her from reaching into her vehicle. Allegations Officer 1: Rule 5 (Police Authority and Public Trust) Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/General Order 225 Use of Force Officer 2: Rule 5 (Police Authority and Public Trust) Officer 2: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/General Order 225 Use of Force Officer 3: Rule 5 (Police Authority and Public Trust) Officer 3: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/General Order 225 Use of Force Officer 3: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/General Order 225 Use of Force Officer 4: Rule 5 (Police Authority and Public Trust) Officer 4: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/General Order 225 Use of Force Officer 5: Rule 5 (Police Authority and Public Trust) Officer 5: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/General Order 225 Use of Force 31 Officer 6: Rule 5 (Police Authority and Public Trust) Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/General Order 240 In-Car Cameras, Body Worn Cameras, and Personal Recording Devices Panel and IPM Recommendations BPD Chief Outcome Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 2: Exonerated Officer 2: Exonerated Officer 3: Exonerated Officer 3: Exonerated Officer 3: Exonerated Officer 4: Exonerated Officer 4: Exonerated Officer 5: Exonerated Officer 5: Exonerated Officer 6: Exonerated Officer 6: Sustained/Written Reprimand Panel Policy Recommendations 1. All involved officers receive training in the detection and identification of stolen vehicles and that the training team conduct a tactical review of the incident to identify all missteps. 2. The BPD should review its use of consumer GPS data as evidence.  Police Oversight Panel: Officer 1: Sustained/Written Reprimand Officer 1: Sustained/Written Reprimand Officer 2: Sustained/Written Reprimand Officer 2: Sustained/Written Reprimand Officer 3: Sustained/Verbal Counseling Officer 3: Exonerated Officer 3: Exonerated Officer 4: Sustained/Verbal Counseling Officer 4: Exonerated Officer 5: Exonerated Officer 5: Exonerated Officer 6: Not Sustained Officer 6: Sustained/Written Reprimand Independent Police Monitor: Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 2: Exonerated Officer 2: Exonerated Officer 3: Exonerated Officer 3: Exonerated Officer 3: Exonerated Officer 4: Exonerated Officer 4: Exonerated Officer 5: Exonerated Officer 5: Exonerated Officer 6: Exonerated Officer 6: Sustained/Written Reprimand 32 IPM Policy Recommendations 3. The BPD Department should revisit its requirements regarding running license plates as a pre-requisite to a high-risk felony stop.  1. The training team conduct a tactical review of this incident to identify areas of improvement, and include those topics in the department-wide training, both immediately and in the future. 2. The BPD should conduct department-wide training regarding identification of vehicles, safe vehicle stops, and communication with the public.   3. The BPD counsel the involved officers on communication with community members, including offering an apology when one is warranted.  4. The BPD should consider extending formal apology to the driver for her experience in its closing correspondence with the driver. Policy Response 1. The training team will conduct a tactical review of this incident and conduct the department-wide training the IPM recommended (see IPM recommendation 2).   2. With respect to the BPOP’s recommendations regarding use of GPS data, the BPD will ensure it is adhering to best practices 3. The BPD will conduct additional training with the involved officers on ways to better communicate with upset community members. 4. With respect to the BPOP recommendation regarding running license plates prior to conducting high-risk vehicle stops, the BPD will ensure it is following best practices in this area. 5. The BPD issued an apology to the driver in its letter informing the driver of the outcome of the investigation.   MI2022-036 Origin Community Member Race/Ethnicity White/Not Hispanic or Latino Summary In the early morning hours of December 6, the complainant called BPD to report that her boyfriend had taken pills. Officers 1, 2, 3, and 4 (and others) and Boulder Fire Department paramedics responded to the apartment complex to conduct a welfare check. During the contact, the complainant refused to allow officers to enter a bedroom where the boyfriend was laying. Officers escorted the complainant from the apartment. Once in the hallway, the complainant became argumentative and attempted to kick an officer. She was handcuffed and issued a citation. Allegations Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/General Order 225 Use of Force Officer 2: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/General Order 225 Use of Force Officer 3: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/General Order 225 Use of Force 33 MI2022-037 Origin Community Member Race/Ethnicity White/Not Hispanic or Latino Summary On two separate dates, officers responded to calls for service regarding a landlord / tenant dispute. In the first incident, the tenant – the complainant - alleged that officers issued the wrong citation to the landlord for trespassing. In the second incident, the tenant alleged that the officers did not issue the landlord a criminal summons for trespassing and that one officer was discourteous. Allegations Officer 1: Rule 5 (Police Authority and Public Trust) Officer 2: Rule 5 (Police Authority and Public Trust) Officer 3: Rule 4 (Respect for Others) Officer 3: Rule 5 (Police Authority and Public Trust) Officer 4: Rule 5 (Police Authority and Public Trust) Officer 5: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules Officer 6: Rule 5 (Police Authority and Public Trust) Panel Recommendations Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 2: Not Sustained Officer 3: Sustained/Verbal Counseling Officer 3: Exonerated Officer 4: Exonerated Officer 4: Rule 4 (Respect for Others) Panel Recommendations Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 2: Exonerated Officer 3: Exonerated Officer 4: Not Sustained BPD Chief Outcome Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 2: Exonerated Officer 3: Exonerated Officer 4: Not Sustained Panel Policy Recommendations Policy Response 34 Officer 5: Not Sustained Officer 6: Not Sustained BPD Chief Outcome Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 2: Exonerated Officer 3: Sustained/Verbal Counseling Officer 3: Exonerated Officer 4: Exonerated Officer 5: Exonerated Officer 6: Exonerated Panel Policy Recommendations Policy Response MI2022-038 Origin Community Member Race/Ethnicity White/Not Hispanic or Latino Summary Officer 2 responded to a traffic crash that reportedly stemmed from a road-rage incident where the offending vehicle fled the scene but was identified. A few days later Officer 1 apprehended the Subaru for a minor traffic violation; it was determined that the Subaru was involved in the previous hit-and-run crash. The Subaru driver was issued two summons. He later complained that both incidents were ruses engineered by the officers and that the summons were issued without basis. Allegations Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/G.O.200; Improper vehicle stop. Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/G.O.200; Improper detention of driver and retention of driver’s license. Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/Customer Service Value; Did not accurately relay information pertaining to driver’s addresses. Officer 2: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/Customer Service Value; Did not accurately relay information pertaining to issuance of warrant for [previous crash] and driver’s addresses. Officer 2: Rule 5 (Police Authority and Public Trust) - directed a private vehicle to follow a driver. Officer 2: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/G.O.200; Improper issuance of a Summons. Panel Recommendations Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 1: Exonerated 35 Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 2: Not Sustained Officer 2: Unfounded Officer 2: Exonerated BPD Chief Outcome Panel Policy Recommendations Policy Response MI2022-039 Origin Community Member Race/Ethnicity Not Disclosed/Unknown Summary On October 24, 2020, police found a man bludgeoned to death in a park. The next day, police arrested the suspect and charged him with the man’s murder. On December 15, 2020, the Boulder County District Attorney’s office advised the BPD that it was assuming the primary responsibility for communicating with the deceased’s mother. The criminal case is still pending. The deceased’s mother filed a complaint on December 8, 2022, stating that Officer 1 did not conduct an adequate investigation regarding the defendant’s motive and did not provide her with complete and updated information during the course of the investigation. She expressed dissatisfaction with Officer 1’s former supervisor (Officer 2), who she said did not appropriately respond to her complaints. On May 24, 2021, she submi tted, via the BPD’s website, a “contact the chief” email regarding Officer 1, complained about Officer 1’s lack of communication, requested that the department reassign the case to a different detective, and asked to meet with the chief. The mother did not receive a written response. Allegations Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/General Order 405 Investigative Process-did not conduct an adequate investigation Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/Customer Service Value-did not provide to an individual complete and updated information and/or meet with an individual as requested Officer 2: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/Customer Service Value-did not appropriately respond to an individual’s complaints about Officer 1 Officer 3: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/Customer Service Value-did not respond to and/or failed to ensure that the department respond to an individual’s “contact the chief” email regarding the department’s homicide investigation Panel Recommendations Officer 1: Exonerated 36 Officer 2: Not Sustained Officer 2: Not Sustained Officer 3: Not Sustained BPD Chief Outcome Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 2: Not Sustained Officer 2: Not Sustained Officer 3: Not Sustained (City Manager’s Disposition) Panel Policy Recommendations 1. In cases involving the family members of homicide victims or other serious crimes, the detective unit should establish a communications plan, provide a point-of-contact to the family, and advise the family should that point-of-contact change. The unit should document, in its case management system, its communications with family members of homicide victims and victims of other serious crimes. 2. BPD should designate one or more individuals to respond to and/or coordinate responses to “contact the chief” emails and establish a database to track to whom “contact the chief” emails are routed and document, within the database what, if any, response the department has provided. Policy Response 1. The BPD will notify families of a new point-of-contact in homicide and other serious cases where the DA or other entity assumes authority. The Professional Standards Unit will ensure the investigative commander adds a notification system into the unit’s protocol. The city manager recommends that the BPD review existing policies regarding communications with victims and/or their family members for active and closed cases to ensure the city is providing appropriate information. 2. The city manager agrees that the BPD must strengthen the manner in which “Contact the Chief” correspondence is routed and tracked for responsiveness as it is an active invitation to the community that sets forth expectations for response. SM2023-001 Origin Community Member Race/Ethnicity White/Not Hispanic or Latino Summary This complaint stemmed from an ongoing dispute between upstairs and downstairs neighbors in an apartment building. The downstairs neighbor told 911 that there was a violent domestic argument in the upstairs apartment. Officer 1 was among several officers who responded. The upstairs neighbor was with his son. He said he had been yelling at someone on the phone. The next day, the downstairs neighbor called again about screaming and cursing upstairs. Officer 1 responded alone. The upstairs neighbor was with his son and admitted 37 to yelling at someone over the telephone. He said he was stressed out and told Officer 1 about the downstairs neighbor previously threatening him with knives and said that the night before, the downstairs neighbor complained about his kid’s noisy toys and said, “You’re lucky I don’t shoot you guys,” and spit in his face. Officer 1 did not ask follow-up questions. Later that day, Officer 1 was assigned to the upstairs neighbor’s 911 call about the downstairs neighbor and did not document his response. This complaint, which the downstairs neighbor filed, was classified as serious misconduct based on Officer 1’s disciplinary history. Allegations Officer 1 : Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/GO 203 Investigative Responsibility and Case Assignment—did not conduct an adequate investigation Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/GO 201 Report Writing—did not document response to an incident to which the officer was assigned Panel Recommendations Officer 1: Sustained/8 day- suspension Officer 1: Sustained/8 day- suspension BPD Chief Outcome Officer 1: Sustained/7 day-suspension and performance improvement plan Officer 1: Sustained/7-day suspension and performance improvement plan Panel Policy Recommendations 1. BPD enhance training to ensure officers are on alert for individuals at risk, or who may present a risk to others, due to mental health issues and take steps to connect these individuals at risk of eviction with social services. 2. BPD requires officers to activate body-worn cameras during interactions members of the public initiate (not just those officer initiate) for the purpose of enforcing the law or violating possible violations of law. Policy Response 1. Will require the officer to attend the next available Crisis Intervention Training (CIT) class. PSU will also coordinate with CIRT to provide refresher briefing training to officers. In addition, the BPD will explore expanding training provided by community resource representatives on matters such as housing issues. 2. The BPD will consider this language prior to revising GO 240/In-Car Cameras, Body Worn Cameras, and Personal Recording Devices SM2023-002 Origin External Agency Race/Ethnicity White/Not Hispanic or Latino Summary A BPD Police Trainee did not attend an afternoon class. When the Adams County Police Academy/Flatiron Regional Training Center staff investigated and interviewed Trainee 1, he twice lied. First, he said he was ill and attended the class except for having to use the bathroom twice and going to his truck to get nausea medication. When pressed, he said he stayed in his truck for 45 minutes during the afternoon because he did not feel well. After leaving the interview, he returned 15 minutes later and 38 told the staff that he did in fact go to his truck that afternoon and stayed in his truck all afternoon, except when he had to use the bathroom. He could not explain why he did not tell the truth earlier. During the interview, he also admitted that he had, as rumored, watched YouTube and other website videos in class in violation of academy rules and was watching videos in the bathroom when he had been assigned to cleaning chores. The academy dismissed Trainee 1 from the academy; he resigned from the BPD several weeks later. Allegations Trainee 1: Rule 3 (Truthfulness)−did not provide truthful information to Adams County Police Academy/Flatiron Regional Training Center staff Trainee 1: Rule 8 (Conduct)−did not provide truthful information to Adams County Police Academy/Flatiron Regional Training Center staff Trainee 1: Rule 8 (Conduct)−did not attend class on the afternoon of April 3, 2023 Trainee 1: Rule 8 (Conduct)−watched non-class related video(s) during class(es) Trainee 1: Rule 8 (Conduct)−watched video(s) on his cellular telephone when he was tasked to conduct cleaning chores IPM Recommendations Trainee 1: Sustained/Do Not Rehire Trainee 1: Sustained/Do Not Rehire Trainee 1: Sustained/Do Not Rehire Trainee 1: Sustained/Do Not Rehire Trainee 1: Sustained/Do Not Rehire BPD Chief Outcome Trainee 1: Sustained/Do Not Rehire Trainee 1: Sustained/Do Not Rehire Trainee 1: Sustained/Do Not Rehire Trainee 1: Sustained/Do Not Rehire Trainee 1: Sustained/Do Not Rehire Panel Policy Recommendations Policy Response MI2023-001 Origin Community Member Race/Ethnicity White/Not Hispanic or Latino Summary A motorist observed several BPD vehicles driving emergent (lights and/or sirens activated). The motorist reported he was nearly struck by the BPD vehicle driven by Officer 1. Allegations Officer 1: Rule 2 (Conformance with Laws) Panel Recommendations N/A BPD Chief Outcome Officer 1: Exonerated Panel Policy Recommendations Policy Response 39 MI2023-002 Origin Community Member Race/Ethnicity White/Not Hispanic or Latino Summary On New Year’s Eve, a bar/restaurant manager called police to evict an intoxicated patron who refused to leave. The manager wanted police to bar the patron from returning. After the patron again refused to leave, Officers 1 and 2 grabbed hold of her arms and forcibly walked her out of the bar. Once outside, she screamed that Officers 1 and 2 had abused her and she refused to provide ID, preventing officers from completing a notice of trespass. Because she refused to provide ID, the officers arrested and handcuffed her. Officer 1 patted her down and Officer 3 removed the woman’s cell phone from her left-side pants pocket. The woman accused Officer 3 of molesting her. Although the woman subsequently complained to Officer 4, a sergeant, that Officers 1 and 2 had used excessive force, as part of Officer 4’s investigation of the UOF, Officer 4 interviewed the officers. Allegations Officer 1: Rule 6 (Use of Force)/General Order 225 Use of Force Officer 2: Rule 6 (Use of Force)/General Order 225 Use of Force Officer 3: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/General Order 130 Criminal Process-searched an individual’s pants pocket (search incident to arrest) Officer 3: Rule 2 (Conformance with Laws)/Unlawful Sexual Contact— grabbed an individual’s vagina Officer 4: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders/General Order 225- 14 UOF—interviewed officers who were the subjects of a use of force complaint IPM Recommendations Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 2: Exonerated Officer 3: Not Sustained Officer 3: Not Sustained Officer 4: Sustained/Verbal Counseling BPD Chief Outcome Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 2: Exonerated Officer 3: Not Sustained Officer 3: Not Sustained Officer 4: Sustained/Verbal Counseling Panel Policy Recommendations Policy Response 40 MI2023-003 Origin Community Members Race/Ethnicity White/Not Hispanic or Latino Summary On January 19, 2023, Officers 4-6 met with the former BPD legal counsel. Following the meeting, Former Officer 4, then an interim commander, sent an email to all members of the BPOA Listserv, which includes all sworn members of the BPD, excluding the BPD Chief of Police. The email stated in part that a union representative would be speaking on the BPOA’s behalf at the evening’s city council meeting at which item 3A of the consent agenda item’s was “consideration of a motion to approve Selection Committee recommendations for members of the Police Oversight Panel…” The email also stated that Former Officer 4 appreciated the recipients’ attendance at the meeting to support the BPOA and that “attending the meeting does not fall into the definition of official duties…. If you are on duty and would like to stop by the meeting, you may do so in uniform.” While on-duty, Officers 1-3 and Accident Report Specialist (ARS) attended the city council meeting in BPD uniforms. Allegations Officer 1: -Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/GO 150 Employee Speech, Expression and Social Media—participated in political communication (endorsing/supporting a political initiative or cause) during work hours, when representing the department, and/or when identified as a department member) Officer 2: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/GO 150 Employee Speech, Expression and Social Media—participated in political communication (endorsing/supporting a political initiative or cause) during work hours, when representing the department, and/or when identified as a department member Officer 2: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)— attended a City Council Meeting while on duty and assigned to Watch 2 Officer 3: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/GO 150 Employee Speech, Expression and Social Media—participated in political communication (endorsing/supporting a political initiative or cause) during work hours, when representing the department, and/or when identified as a department member Officer 3: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)— attended a City Council Meeting while on duty and assigned to Traffic ARS: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/GO 150 Employee Speech, Expression and Social Media—participated in political communication (endorsing/supporting a political initiative or cause) during work hours, when representing the department, and/or when identified as a department member 41 ARS: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)— attended a City Council Meeting while on duty and assigned to Traffic Officer 4: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/Integrity Value— authorized on-duty department employees to attend a City Council Hearing Officer 5: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/Integrity Value— authorized on-duty department employees to attend a City Council Hearing Officer 6: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/Integrity Value— authorized on-duty department employees to attend a City Council Hearing Panel Recommendations Officer 1: Sustained/One-year Letter of Reprimand Officer 2: Sustained (2-1)/One-year Letter of Reprimand Officer 2: Exonerated Officer 3: Sustained/one-year letter of reprimand Officer 3: Exonerated (2-1) ARS: Sustained/one-year letter of reprimand ARS: Exonerated (2-1) Officer 4: Sustained/one-year letter of reprimand (but for resignation) Officer 5: Not Sustained Officer 6: Not Sustained IPM Recommendations Officer 1: Sustained/Verbal Counseling Officer 2: Not Sustained Officer 2: Exonerated Officer 3: Sustained/Verbal Counseling Officer 3: Exonerated ARS: Sustained/Verbal Counseling ARS: Exonerated Officer 4: Not Sustained Officer 5: Not Sustained Officer 6: Not Sustained BPD Chief Outcome Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 2: Exonerated 42 Officer 2: Exonerated Officer 3: Exonerated Officer 3: Exonerated ARS: Exonerated ARS: Exonerated Officer 4: Not Sustained Officer 5: Not Sustained Officer 6: Not Sustained Panel and IPM Policy Recommendations Panel Recommendations: 1. The BPD develop and/or enhance policies to ensure that when identified as BPD employees, employees do not again engage in unauthorized political activity or support any political initiative. In these policies, the BPD should provide clear examples of what constitutes acceptable community engagement. 2. Subordinate officers should not isolate the chief from these types of decisions; the chief and her executive staff should be the ones providing direction to BPD employees when political events of this nature occur IPM Recommendations: 1. The BPD establish a policy regarding the types of community, political, and legislative meetings its officers are permitted to attend on-duty (at taxpayer expense). 2. In the absence of such a policy, the Chief, in consultation with the City Attorney, should be responsible for determining when members, identified as being affiliated with BPD, can support a political initiative 3. The City Attorney, in conjunction with the BPD, conduct agency-wide training with respect to the meaning and application of GO 150 provisions, which should make clear that outward support of political positions, e.g., standing in support of a statement requesting that a legislative body take action, constitutes political communication or support of a political initiative. 4. The BPD should revise G.O. 150 to define political activity and political communication Policy Response 1. Agreed to have the BPD’s legal advisor work with its chief of staff to review all department and city policies to clarify on-duty officer restrictions, including relevant chain-of-command notifications, while protecting BPOA member rights and adhering to city values and expectations. The legal advisor and the BPD chief of staff will work collectively with the IPM, the panel, and BPOA representatives in revising related policies and procedures. 2. Agreed that the BPD’s legal advisor will facilitate department-wide training on these policy and procedure revisions. 43 MI2023-004 Origin Community Member Race/Ethnicity White/Not Hispanic or Latino Summary A woman called 911 to report that her son had shoved her and locked her out of the house where she was visiting and he was living with his two four-year-old daughters. Officers 1 and 2 stood by while the mother used her key to enter the home and get her belongings. The mother would not describe the physical encounter but did describe events that made it seem like her son had jeopardized the safety of his children in his car the night before. The son (the complainant), is a licensed professional counselor, who worked as a co-responder with the Denver PD (DPD). The officers broke the plane of the front door with their feet and called out to see if the son would speak with them. He eventually responded, told Officer 2 to shut the door, and closed the door in Officer 2’s face. The officers subsequently learned that the children were not with the son the night before in the car and left. Officer 1 reported the incident to the man’s ex-wife, with whom she had previously interacted, the DPD, the man’s employer, and, after speaking to a member of the CIRT, filed a complaint with the CO Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA). Allegations Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/GO 130 Criminal Process—entered an individual’s home Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/GO 201 Report Writing—prepared an inaccurate report Officer 1: Rule 5 (Police Authority and Public Trust)—reported details of a police encounter involving an individual with the mother of the individual’s children Officer 1: Rule 5 (Police Authority and Public Trust)—made a report regarding an individual to the DPD, with which the individual worked Officer 1: Rule 5 (Police Authority and Public Trust)—made a report regarding an individual to the individual’s employer Officer 1: Rule 5 (Police Authority and Public Trust)—filed a complaint regarding an individual, a licensed professional counselor, with DORA Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/GO 101 Unbiased Policing--gender Officer 2: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/GO 130 Criminal Process—entered an individual’s home Panel Recommendations Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 1: Not Sustained Officer 1: Not Sustained Officer 1: Not Sustained Officer 1: Not Sustained Officer 1: Not Sustained Officer 1: Not Sustained Officer 2: Exonerated 44 BPD Chief Outcome Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 1: Not Sustained Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 1: Not Sustained Officer 2: Exonerated IPM Recommendations Officer 1 be counseled to obtain supervisory and/or legal advisor approval before making notifications to employers, regulatory agencies, etc. BPD Response Agreed to provide such supervisory counseling. MI2023-005 Origin Community Member Race/Ethnicity White/Not Hispanic or Latino Summary Officers responded to the RTD because a security guard wanted the complainant to vacate the premises and be trespassed from the property. The complainant made numerous complaints about their treatment by the BPD officers and the RTD security guard. Allegations Sergeant 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders) G.O.101 Unbiased Policing - took action because of the complainant’s socioeconomic status and/or cultural group Sergeant 1: Rule 5 (Police Authority and Public Trust) –improperly asked the complainant to remove his hands from his pockets Sergeant 1: Rule 5 (Police Authority and Public Trust) –improperly directed the complainant to leave RTD property for trespassing Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders) G.O.101 Unbiased Policing - took action because of the complainant’s socioeconomic status and/or cultural group Officer 1: Rule 5 (Police Authority and Public Trust) – improperly directed the complainant to leave RTD property for trespassing Panel Recommendations N/A BPD Chief Outcome Sergeant 1: Not Sustained Sergeant 1: Exonerated Sergeant 1: Exonerated Officer 1: Not Sustained Officer 1: Exonerated Panel Policy Recommendations Policy Response MI2023-006 Origin Community Member 45 Race/Ethnicity White/Not Hispanic or Latino Summary Two women engaged in an argument in a grocery store parking lot. The first woman’s brother and the second woman’s boyfriend subsequently became involved in the conflict. The boyfriend called 911 and alleged that a black male (brother) had threatened him with a gun in a grocery store parking lot. BPD officers identified the described vehicle and occupants and conducted a high-risk traffic stop. Officers 1 and 2 approached the suspect vehicle, with handguns drawn and pointed. Officer 2 issued instructions. Officer 3 pointed a rifle at the vehicle and issued commands. Officer 4 pointed his handgun at the suspect vehicle and instructed that only a single officer should provide instructions to the subjects of the vehicle. Officer 5 pointed a rifle at the vehicle and briefly officers 6 and 7 also briefly pointed their handguns towards the vehicle. The driver (sister) and her brother, (the passenger) exited the vehicle and were handcuffed without incident. The brother denied ever having a gun or mentioning he had a gun. His sister reported that her brother did not have a gun but offered that he told the other man that he had a gun and threatened to shoot the other man. No gun was recovered. The brother was arrested for menacing and for an outstanding warrant. Evidence demonstrated that BPD dispatched received clarifying information from the boyfriend that he had not actually seen a weapon displayed. This information was not broadcast to the responding officers. Allegations Officer 1: Rule 5 (Police Authority and Public Trust) – conducted a high- risk traffic stop Officer 1: Rule 6 (Use of Force)/G.O.225-Use of Force – pointed a firearm at the suspect vehicle Officer 2: Rule 5 (Police Authority and Public Trust) – conducted a high- risk traffic stop Officer 2: Rule 6 (Use of Force)/G.O.225-Use of Force – pointed a firearm at the suspect vehicle Officer 3: Rule 5 (Police Authority and Public Trust) – conducted a high- risk traffic stop Officer 3: Rule 6 (Use of Force)/G.O.225-Use of Force – pointed a firearm at the suspect vehicle Officer 4: Rule 5 (Police Authority and Public Trust) – conducted a high- risk traffic stop Officer 4: Rule 6 (Use of Force)/G.O.225-Use of Force – pointed a firearm at the suspect vehicle Officer 5: Rule 5 (Police Authority and Public Trust) – conducted a high- risk traffic stop Officer 5: Rule 6 (Use of Force)/G.O.225-Use of Force – pointed a firearm at the suspect vehicle 46 Officer 6: Rule 5 (Police Authority and Public Trust) – conducted a high- risk traffic stop Officer 6: Rule 6 (Use of Force)/G.O.225-Use of Force – pointed a firearm at the suspect vehicle Officer 7: Rule 5 (Police Authority and Public Trust) – conducted a high- risk traffic stop Officer 7: Rule 6 (Use of Force)/G.O.225-Use of Force – pointed a firearm at the suspect vehicle Panel Recommendations Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 2: Exonerated Officer 2: Exonerated Officer 3: Exonerated Officer 3: Exonerated Officer 4: Exonerated Officer 4: Exonerated Officer 5: Exonerated Officer 5: Exonerated Officer 6: Exonerated Officer 6: Exonerated Officer 7: Exonerated Officer 7: Exonerated BPD Chief Outcome Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 2: Exonerated Officer 2: Exonerated Officer 3: Exonerated Officer 3: Exonerated Officer 4: Exonerated Officer 4: Exonerated Officer 5: Exonerated Officer 5: Exonerated Officer 6: Exonerated Officer 6: Exonerated Officer 7: Exonerated Officer 7: Exonerated 47 Panel Policy Recommendations 1. BPD dispatch supervisor review the matter and counsel the dispatchers on the need to broadcast critical information to responding officers. 2. BPD ensure that BWC compliance is enforced at all of levels of supervision, and cautioned against expanding the mute option beyond what is permitted in G.O.240-1(C)(1). 3. Acknowledging that BPD cannot control the potential racism of 911 callers, ensure that BPD members do not perpetuate or amplify racism when they respond. 4. Critically review how it addresses and trains its members to respond to high-risk traffic stops, to align with BPD’s stated commitment to de- escalation, dignity, respect and the sanctity of all human life. Policy Response 1. Dispatch was counselled. 2. The involved officers were counselled. 3. BPD Chief Herold, “I acknowledge that the Oversight Panel’s concern that the information provided by the 9-1-1 caller from the victim of the menacing was ‘Accepted non-critically.’ When dealing with a serious, ever evolving call involving a report of a weapon (in this case a gun), the dispatcher must provide the most accurate information in the fastest manner possible to ensure the responding officers, the reported parties involved, and the community at large face the least amount of risk. It was only with the benefit of hindsight, which is true in many cases, that some of the information provided by the caller turned out to be inaccurate.” 4. BPD Chief Herold, “In terms of the Oversight Panel recommendation to assess what they perceive as outdated high risk stop tactics, we as a department do, and will continue, to assess the tactics we teach to our officers.” MI2023-007 Origin Community Member Race/Ethnicity White/Not Hispanic or Latino Summary According to the complainant, who provided a license plate to the BPD, an off-duty officer, over the course of years, violated traffic regulations en route to work at the BPD. In his interview, Sergeant 1 -admitted to violating various traffic laws and said that he had started strictly complying with all traffic regulations since the complaint was filed (on February 17, 2023). Allegations Sergeant 1: Rule 2 (Conformance with Law)/Traffic Regulations Panel Recommendations Sergeant 1: Sustained/Supervisory Counselling BPD Chief Outcome Sergeant 1: Sustained/Supervisory Counselling Panel Policy Recommendations 1. The Panel expressed concern that by repeatedly and knowingly violating traffic regulations, Sergeant 1 set a bad example for the officers whom he is responsible for training and managing. The Panel recommended that a deputy chief or the chief conduct the supervisory counseling Policy Response 1. The Chief met with Sergeant 1. 48 MI2023-008 Origin Community Member Race/Ethnicity Asian/Not Hispanic or Latino Summary An argument between a man and woman in Central Park ended with both calling 911. The woman reported that the man assaulted her with a knife. The man reported that the woman attempted to assault him with a knife. Officer 2 met the woman, who had a cut on her thumb. She described the alleged assailant, and officer 1 stopped an individual (a friend of the woman) who matched the description. The woman told police that that individual was not the assailant and officer 1 released that individual. Officer 2 and other officers interviewed both the man and the woman and watched video the woman recorded. Collectively, witness accounts and the video showed that the woman was the aggressor and had accidently cut herself with her own knife, which police recovered. Officer 2 arrested the woman and took her to the hospital where she got stitches. The woman filed a complaint and alleged that police improperly conducted an investigative stop of her friend, failed to arrest the alleged assailant, and that Officer 2 did not identify himself to her. Allegations Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/G.O. 305 Field Interviews, Pat-Down and Consent Searches— questioned and/or detailed an individual Officer 2: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/G.O. 13 Criminal Process—did not arrest an individual Officer 2: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/G.O. 200-5 Discretion, Arrest Standards and Enforcement Action, Information Provided—did not provide identifying information (a business card) to an individual Panel Recommendations Officer 1: Exonerated (unanimous) Officer 2: Exonerated (unanimous) Officer 2: Exonerated (unanimous) BPD Chief Outcome Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 2: Exonerated Officer 3: Exonerated Panel Policy Recommendations Policy Response MI2023-009 Origin Community Member Race/Ethnicity Black/Not Hispanic or Latino Summary A woman called 911 at 6:13 pm to report that she found two children (three and one) alone on the sidewalk. The one-year old was naked. It was approximately 31 degrees and the caller took the children to a nearby 7- 49 Eleven where the staff gave the one-year old a shirt. Officers 1-3 responded. Officer 2 held the three-year old’s hand and walked with the child to his home, about a block away. The three-year-old opened the door and officers 2 and 1 followed him inside. The mother emerged from a back room; she was unaware that her children had left. Officer 2 got a pair of pants for the one-year-old and walked to get him. The mother asked Officer 1 whether she could go get the one-year-old. Officer 1 said no; Officer 2 was coming back. Officer 2 returned with the one-year-old and Officer 3. Officer 1 issued the mother a summons for child abuse and in explaining why the police needed to document the encounter, Officer 1 commented on the state of the apartment. The mother objected to the officers entering her home, said Officer 1 treated her disrespectfully by commenting on the state of the apartment, and Officer 1 did not allow her to leave the apartment. Allegations Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/GO 130 Criminal Process—entered an individual’s home Officer 1: Rule 4 (Respect for Others)—commented on the state of an individual’s apartment Officer 1: Rule 5 (Police Authority and Public Trust)—detained an individual Officer 2: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/GO 130 Criminal Process—entered an individual’s home Officer 3: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/GO 130 Criminal Process—entered an individual’s home Panel Recommendations Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 2: Exonerated Officer 3: Exonerated BPD Chief Outcome Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 2: Exonerated Officer 3: Exonerated Panel Policy Recommendations Policy Response 50 MI2023-010 Origin Community Member Race/Ethnicity Black/Not Hispanic or Latino Summary Officers 1 and 2 were assigned to investigate an alleged effort to cash a forged $70k check, ostensibly drawn from a company’s account. The check was made out to a named payee and the check indicated that someone presented the check to a credit union teller on February 22, 2023, at 2:45 pm, to be deposited into the payee’s account. The officers obtained a photograph of the payee, who was a 46-year-old black man. The officers contacted a credit union security official and provided him with the transaction details, including the payee’s description. The security official sent the officers a video, which depicted the complainant (CW), not the payee, a 37- year-old black man, who submitted a check for deposit to a teller at 2:44 pm. The officers identified the CW and questioned him at his workplace the next day. The CW said he had deposited a check at the credit union the previous day and showed the officers records from his telephone. The officers left and met with the credit union manager. They realized that the security official sent them the incorrect video; the actual suspect was at the bank from 1:30-2:40 pm. Officer 1 called the CW, explained what happened, and apologized. Allegations Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/G.O. 101 Unbiased Policing—race Officer 1: Rule 5 (Police Authority and Public Trust)—pretended to be a customer when contacting the complainant Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/G.O. 305 Field Interviews, Pat-Down and Consent Searches— questioned and/or detained the complainant Officer 2: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/G.O. 101 Unbiased Policing—race Officer 2: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/G.O. 305 Field Interviews, Pat-Down and Consent Searches— questioned and/or detained the complainant Officer 2: Rule 1(Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/G.O. 305 Field Interviews, Pat-Down and Consent Searches—searched the complainant’s wallet Panel Recommendations Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 2: Exonerated Officer 2: Exonerated BPD Chief Outcome Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 2: Exonerated Officer 2: Exonerated 51 Panel Policy Recommendations 1. The BPD should train its officers, when requesting private security footage, to obtain a broad time span rather than a narrow one, enabling BPD to make identification decisions rather than relying on private security personnel. 2. BPD should contact the security official and inform him of the error he made. 3. BPD should consider extending an apology to the complainant in its final correspondence. Policy Response 1. The BPD will conduct a tactical review of current practices. 2. The BPD has no legal authority to advise private sector employees to be thorough in reviewing video, though the credit union’s management and security team were made aware of this error and provided the correct footage, clearing the complaint. 3. Officer 1 apologized to the complainant; the BPD’s closing letter to the complainant will indicate that the BPD regrets that this situation happened. MI2023-011 Origin Community Member Race/Ethnicity White/Not Hispanic or Latino Summary Officers responded to a 911 call from a woman in a parking lot alleging that someone was trying to block in her car and had struck her with his car. The parties and a witness provided conflicting information about whether the parking lot owner struck the woman with his car; she denied injuries. The situation resolved with the woman agreeing to leave the parking lot and not park there again. The responding officer did not document the interaction in a police report, but the incident was captured on body-worn camera. Allegations Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules and General Orders)/G.O. 203 Investigation Responsibility and Case Assignments Panel Recommendations Officer 1: Sustained/One-year Letter of Reprimand BPD Chief Outcome Officer 1: Sustained/One-year Letter of Reprimand Panel Policy Recommendations 1. Officer 1 receive additional training on maintaining a neutral, open- minded demeanor during investigations to uphold the integrity and customer service value of the BPD 2. When the department receives complaints of misconduct while the criminal investigation is ongoing, that supervisors identify a strategy for completing the investigation, including determining the accused officer(s)’ further communication with the complainant and/or whether the case should be reassigned within the department. Policy Response 1. BPD Chief: “These deficiencies have already been discussed at length with Officer [1] and also that he has taken full responsibility for his actions and has been working diligently to do better.” 2. This will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. There are clearly some circumstances in which an officer/detective against whom an allegation 52 has been made should be completely removed from an ongoing criminal investigation involving the complainant. This would usually apply if the allegation were one of serious misconduct. In other circumstances, an officer/detective might still be utilized to conduct follow-up, but a different officer selected to communicate with the complainant if that is a friction point. MI2023-012 Origin Community Member Race/Ethnicity White/Not Hispanic or Latino Summary Officers 1 and 2 saw a man using a car with expired license plates put trash in an apartment complex’ dumpster. When he pulled out into the street, the officers stopped him. The man got out of the car and walked towards the officers, claimed he had not been driving the car, and refused to provide his name, driver’s license, and insurance, and asked to speak with a supervisor. The driver put his hands in and out of his pockets and started to walk away. Officer 1 frisked him and the officers handcuffed him, detained him, and sat him down on the curb while they waited for Sergeant 1. Though the driver said he was not going to answer questions, he and the officers continued to speak. At one point, when the driver again refused to identify himself, Officer 2 asked whether they would have to play “hangman.” When Sergeant 1 arrived, he told the driver that he could identify himself or be taken to jail and fingerprinted, then released. The man consented to Officer 1 removing his driver’s license from the driver’s wallet. Officer 1 issued the driver a summons and then the officers released the driver. Allegations Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/GO 305 Field Interviews, Pat-Down and Consent Searches—frisked an individual Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/GO 305 Field Interviews, Pat-Down and Consent Searches—detained an individual Officer 1: Rule 6 (Use of Force)—Used force against an individual Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/GO 130 Criminal Process-questioned an individual Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/GO 305 Field Interviews, Pat-Down and Consent Searches—searched an individual’s wallet Officer 2: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/GO 305 Field Interviews, Pat-Down and Consent Searches—detailed an individual Officer 2: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/GO 130 Criminal Process—questioned an individual Officer 2: Rule 4 (Respect for Others)—referenced the game hangman 53 Sergeant 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/GO 305 Field Interviews, Pat-Down and Consent Searches— detained an individual Panel Recommendations Officer 1: Not Sustained Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 2: Exonerated Officer 2: Exonerated Officer 2: Exonerated Officer 3: Exonerated BPD Chief Outcome Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 2: Exonerated Officer 2: Exonerated Officer 2: Exonerated Officer 3: Exonerated Panel Policy Recommendations 1. The BPD counsel Officer 2 and other officers to avoid referencing the game “hangman” because of society’s current understanding of its racial connotations. Policy Response 1. The PSU counseled Officer 2 to avoid using the term “hangman” when communicating with the public and officer 2 was receptive to the counseling. MI2023-013 Origin Community Member Race/Ethnicity Black/Not Hispanic or Latino Summary An individual visiting friends in an apartment complex called police regarding a physical altercation that took place between neighbors. The woman told officers that her upstairs neighbor had hit her with plastic flowers, cutting her finger. The man said his downstairs neighbor pulled out the plastic flowers from his garden, would not return them, they got into a tug-of-war, and the woman threatened him with and swung her cane at him. Four individuals witnessed the incident and one or more recorded it. While Officer 1 was speaking with the woman, Officers 2 and 3 did not ask for, view, or obtain the recordings because with the statements of independent witnesses they felt they did not “need it.” The witnesses indicated that the woman was the aggressor. The man did not want to 54 press charges and the officers did not issue a summons or make an arrest. The woman filed a complaint and stated that she felt she had been the victim of biased policing. Allegations Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/G.O. 203 Investigative Responsibility and Case Assignments— did not conduct an adequate investigation Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/G.O. 101 Unbiased Policing--race Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/G.O. 316--did not make medical treatment available to an individual Officer 1: Rule 4 (Respect)—stated to an individual that it might be a good idea for her to move out of Boulder Officer 2: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/G.O. 203 Investigative Responsibility and Case Assignments— did not conduct an adequate investigation Officer 2: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/G.O. 101 Unbiased Policing--race Officer 3: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/G.O. 203 Investigative Responsibility and Case Assignments— did not conduct an adequate investigation Officer 3: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/G.O. 101 Unbiased Policing--race IPM Recommendations Officer 1: Not Sustained Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 1: Unfounded Officer 2: Exonerated Officer 2: Sustained/verbal counseling Officer 2: Exonerated Officer 3: Sustained/verbal counseling Officer 3: Exonerated BPD Chief Outcome Officer 1: Not Sustained Officer 1: Not Sustained Officer 1: Unfounded Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 2: Sustained/verbal counseling Officer 2: Exonerated Officer 3: Sustained/verbal counseling Officer 3: Exonerated IPM Policy Recommendations N/A Policy Response 55 MI2023-014 Origin Community Member Race/Ethnicity White/Not Hispanic or Latino Summary Limited duty officer 1 was assigned to handle a 911 call regarding an upstairs-downstairs neighbor dispute. Officer 1 called and recorded his conversation with the 911 caller, who said that when she and her daughter descended from stairs from the third to the second floor, the second-floor resident yelled and cursed at her about noise, and shoved the caller. The caller told Officer 1 that she immediately reported what happened to a first-floor neighbor, who also has issues with the second- floor resident. Officer 1 said police would try to get in touch with both the second floor-resident and other neighbor. Instead, Officer 1, who wrote the incident report, assigned Officer 2, who was in training under officer 3’s supervision, to issue the second-floor resident a summons. Officer 2 wrote and issued resident 2 (the complainant) a summons without any additional investigation. Allegations Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/G.O. 405 Investigative Process—did not conduct an adequate investigation Officer 2: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/G.O. 405 Investigative Process—did not conduct an adequate investigation Officer 3: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/G.O. 405 Investigative Process—did not conduct an adequate investigation IPM Recommendations Officer 1: Sustained/Verbal Counseling Officer 2: Not Sustained Officer 3: Not Sustained BPD Chief Outcome Officer 1: Sustained/Verbal Counseling Officer 2: Not Sustained Officer 3: Not Sustained IPM Policy Recommendations BPD counsel Officer 3, who, as Officer 2’s PTO, should have exerted himself to ensure his trainee was taking proper action Policy Response Agreed to have a supervisor discuss the incident with both Officers 1 and 3 for process improvement; the police legal advisor will also provide both officers training on legal standards for citations/arrest MI2023-015 Origin Community Member Race/Ethnicity White/Not Hispanic or Latino Summary On September 6 and 10, 2022, police responded to calls that a woman entered an apartment upstairs from her and physically and verbally 56 confronted contractors renovating the apartment. The woman said that the work violated the homeowner’s association (HOA) rules. Police advised the resident she risked criminal charges if she persisted. On September 14, 2022, Officers 1-3 responded to a call about the woman blocking the contractors from descending the stairs and yelling at them. Officer 1 spoke with the woman, while Officers 2 and 3 spoke with the contractor. Officer 1 told her that the renovation was not a crime, the BPD does not enforce HOA rules, and she needed to leave the contractor alone. An hour later, the contractor reported that the woman threw stuff inside his van, and made comments about his wife. Officers 1-3 returned and Officer 1 issued the woman a summons for harassment. The woman complained that the officers were young and inexperienced and that Officer 1 issued the summons based on poor judgment and lies, due to ageism and sexism. Allegations Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/G.O. 101 Unbiased Policing-Age Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/G.O. 101 Unbiased Policing-Gender IPM Recommendations Officer 1: Rule 1: Exonerated Officer 1: Rule 1: Exonerated BPD Chief Outcome Officer 1: Rule 1: Exonerated Officer 1: Rule 1: Exonerated IPM Policy Recommendations 1. The chief should have the department counsel Officer 1 to take more care in selecting the appropriate charge, and/or consult with supervisors and/or legal counsel if unsure of the appropriate charge, and/or be able to articulate/detail the evidence that supports specific charge(s). This will be important on a going-forward basis-- particularly when it comes to proving cases in court--as Officer 1 issues summonses and makes custodial arrests. Policy Response 1. BPD will conduct a supervisory review of this case with Officer 1 to include selecting the correct sub-section of the harassment charge and the need to articulate the basis for the charge. A sergeant will monitor Officer 1’s progress in this area. MI2023-016 Origin Community Member Race/Ethnicity Unknown/Not Reported Summary A driver called 911 to complain about an officer’s on-duty driving. The driver subsequently specified that Officer 1 sped, cut around cars, brake- checked the driver, slammed on his brakes at a red light and had to back up, drove extremely slowly, and did not properly use his blinkers. The BPD’s automated vehicle locating (AVL) report, which the Traffic Unit confirmed was accurate, showed that Officer 1 sped on Canyon Boulevard. The investigation showed that he had no reason to do so. Allegations Officer 1: Rule 2 (Conformance with Law)/Traffic Regulations IPM Recommendations Officer 1: Sustained/Supervisory Counseling 57 BPD Chief Outcome Officer 1: Sustained/Supervisory Counseling IPM Policy Recommendations N/A Policy Response MI2023-017 Origin Community Member Race/Ethnicity White/Not Hispanic or Latino Summary On May 17, 2023, at 11:22 p.m., a woman called 911 to report that a man was knocking on the door of her home, would not stop trying to get in, and would not leave. The woman asked that the police please hurry. Dispatcher 1 told the woman that she did not have to ask that the police please hurry because the police were on their way. The woman’s sister then spoke with Dispatcher 1, provided a description of the suspect and other details. She reiterated that the occupants of the home were scared and asked how long it would take police to arrive. Dispatcher 1 told the sister that the officers were “in Boulder and will be there soon, but you live far….” When the sister protested, Dispatcher 1 threatened to disconnect the call because the sister was yelling at her. Police arrived at 11:32 p.m. The would-be intruder was a college student who lived down the block who was extremely intoxicated and/or drugged, who did not realize he was trying to get into the wrong house. Allegations Dispatcher 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/Customer Service Value Dispatcher 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/Dispatcher Protocol IPM Recommendations Dispatcher 1: Rule 1: Not Sustained Dispatcher 1: Rule 1: Not Sustained *IPM agreed with Chain of Command; did not offer recommendations BPD Chief Outcome Dispatcher 1: Rule 1: Not Sustained Dispatcher 1: Rule 1: Not Sustained IPM Policy Recommendations N/A Policy Response MI2023-018 Origin Community Member Race/Ethnicity Hispanic or Latino Summary Officers 1 and 2 responded to a call from a mother who alleged that her juvenile son threatened her via text message. The mother did not want her son in their home. When officers attempted to speak with the juvenile, he ignored their instructions to stop and brushed past them to enter the home. The officers grabbed the juvenile to prevent him from entering the home and all three landed on the top platform of the stairs. The mother complained about the force used on her juvenile son. 58 Allegations Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/G.O.225 Use of Force - used force against juvenile. Officer 2: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/G.O.225 Use of Force - used force against juvenile. IPM Recommendations Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 2: Exonerated BPD Chief Outcome Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 2: Exonerated IPM Policy Recommendations N/A Policy Response MI2024-019 Origin Community Member Race/Ethnicity White/Not Hispanic or Latino Summary Officer 1 prepared an incident report regarding a suspect threatening Complainant who complained to police about unleashed dogs in the park. Two days later, Complaint called police to report suspect was again inside park. Officer 2 responded and did not obtain any name or contact info for suspect and told Complainant he reached the best outcome by trying to mediate the complaint. Allegations Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules and General Orders) GO203 − Investigative Responsibility and Case Assignment; Did not conduct an adequate investigation. Officer 2: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules and General Orders) Customer Service Value; Did not respond to an email sent by Complainant. Officer 3: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules and General Orders) Customer Service Value; Told the Complainant that he could not take any action. Officer 3: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules and General Orders) GO240-2(B) – In-Car Cameras, Body Worn Cameras, and Personal Recording Devices; Did not activate his body worn camera during the phone call with the Complainant. IPM Recommendations Officer 1: Sustained/One-year Letter of Reprimand Officer 2: Sustained/Verbal Counseling Officer 3: Not Sustained Officer 3: Sustained/Verbal Counseling BPD Chief Outcome Officer 1: Sustained/One-year Letter of Reprimand Officer 2: Sustained/Verbal Counseling 59 Officer 3: Not Sustained Officer 3: Sustained/Verbal Counseling IPM Policy Recommendations N/A Policy Response MI2023-020 Origin Community Member Race/Ethnicity White/Not Hispanic or Latino Summary An individual made a right-hand turn against a redlight and drove through a crosswalk where pedestrians walked. Officer 1 pulled over the driver. Officer 1, who had a cadet riding with him, told the cadet (inside the officer’s car) that the driver was “a big jerk so he will be getting a hefty ticket.” Officer 1 issued the driver a ticket for failing to present evidence of insurance, reckless driving, and failure to yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk. The driver asked Officer 1 to call for a supervisor, which Officer 1 refused to do. Officer 1 dropped the summons into the lap of the driver’s passenger. The driver objected to the summons (community inquiry) and said that Officer 1 demanded to see the driver’s bank records, committed assault and battery, vehicular homicide, and threatened to shoot the driver. (BWC video showed that Officer 1 did not commit any of those alleged acts.) Allegations Officer 1: Rule 4 (Respect for Others) IPM Recommendations Officer 1: Not Sustained BPD Chief Outcome Officer 1: Not Sustained IPM Policy Recommendations BPD provide supervisory coaching to Officer 1 about not making inappropriate statements to cadets. Policy Response Agreed to provide supervisory coaching to Officer 1. MI2023-021 Origin Community Member Race/Ethnicity White/Not Hispanic or Latino Summary Officer 1 responded to a request for assistance from two urban park rangers because the complainant refused to provide identification for the issuance of a summons. Officer 1 advised that the complainant could be transported to jail for fingerprinting if he refused to identify himself. The complainant referred to the officer and rangers as “Nazis.” Officer 1 warned the complainant against escalating and advised that he could be handcuffed. The complainant provided his name and date of birth and began arguing over the summons. The complainant told them to go fuck themselves and tried to walk away. The complainant expressed his wish that the officers would take off their badges so he could beat their asses. Officer 1 grabbed and released the complainant’s arm and 60 yelled at him to sit down. The complainant refused and Officer 1 warned him that if he continued, he would be placed into handcuffs. The complainant refused to sit down and Officer 1 and a ranger forced him to the ground and handcuffed him. When the situation calmed, Officer 1 removed the handcuffs and the ranger served the summons to the complainant. Allegations Officer 1: Rule 6 Use of Force/General Order 225 Use of Force-- Used force against Complainant Officer 1: Rule 5 Police Authority and Public Trust- Detained and handcuffed Complainant 3) Rule 4 Respect for Others- Did not speak to Complainant respectfully and/or fairly IPM Recommendations Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 1: Not Sustained BPD Chief Outcome Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 1: Exonerated, Coaching to remind Officer 1 to depend on other officers if you believe the situation may escalate. IPM Policy Recommendations Policy Response MI2023-022 Origin Community Member Race/Ethnicity White/Not Hispanic or Latino Summary Photo Enforcement Officer 1 (PEO) parked her radar van with “Public Works” under the city of Boulder logo for enforcement. The complainant and her friend approached her van and began yelling and pounding on van windows and tampered with the van’s exterior camera. The complainant reported that she was enraged during this interaction and complained that the PEO failed to identify herself. Allegations PEO 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules and General Orders)/Customer Service Value – PEO did not identify herself upon request to complainant IPM Recommendations PEO 1: Unfounded BPD Chief Outcome PEO 1: Exonerated IPM Policy Recommendations Policy Response MI2023-023 Origin Community Member 61 Race/Ethnicity White/Not Hispanic or Latino Summary Officer 1 approached a group of individuals sitting and lying around the sidewalk where there were chairs and piles of camping equipment and other property and told them to move it. Officer 1 told them it’s a ”fucking mess.” Officer 1 had a dispute with the complainant about what, if any, law the individuals were breaking. Officer 1 returned to his car and before leaving, flipped the middle finger at the complainant. Allegations Officer 1: Rule 5 Police Authority and Public Trust—exceeded his authority, pursuant to Boulder Municipal Code § 5-3-5(b), when he directed that individuals move property that was on the sidewalk Officer 1: Rule 4 Respect for Others—spoke discourteously and gave the middle finger to one or more individuals IPM Recommendations Officer 1: Not Sustained Officer 1: Sustained/One-year Letter of Reprimand BPD Chief Outcome Officer 1: Not Sustained Officer 1: Sustained/One-year Letter of Reprimand IPM Policy Recommendations BPD provide supervisory counseling to Officer 1, review the body-worn camera footage with him, and discuss how he could have better communicated with the individuals sitting and lying around the sidewalk. Policy Response Agreed to provide the recommended supervisory counseling. MI2023-024 Origin Community Member Race/Ethnicity White/Not Hispanic or Latino Summary The Complainant was arrested and transported to the jail. The complainant alleged that Officer 1 would not allow her to retrieve her medication. Video footage of the incident and her transportation did not capture the Complainant asking for medication; at times she denied that she took medication. Allegations Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/General Order 204-7 Property and Evidence, Inventory Procedure for Members Submitting Items to P&E--denied Complainant access to her medication. IPM Recommendations Officer 1: Unfounded BPD Chief Outcome Officer 1: Unfounded IPM Policy Recommendations Policy Response MI2023-025 Origin Community Member Race/Ethnicity White/Not Hispanic or Latino Summary A man called 911 to report a group of individuals assaulted him and stole his cell phone stolen. Officer 1 responded and tried to question the caller. Officer 1 interviewed an independent witness who partially corroborated the man’s account (she saw two men kicking the 911 caller) and 62 questioned others at the scene of the assault. A bicyclist dropped the man’s phone on the ground, as he rode past, but the witness could not identify the bicyclist. The caller refused to answer more questions, walked away from Officer 1, and refused to speak with another officer who later encountered him. Police stopped the bicyclist and Officer 1 interviewed him. The bicyclist said he took the phone when the 911 caller and a second man confronted each other—the caller holding a stun gun (as described) and the second man holding a knife—because the bicyclist did not want to be recorded. Officer 1 did not make an arrest. The case was still open a month after the complaint was filed. Allegations Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/G.O. 203 Investigative Responsibility and Case Assignments— did not conduct an adequate investigation IPM Recommendations Officer 1: Exonerated BPD Chief Outcome Officer 1: Exonerated IPM Policy Recommendations Policy Response MI2023-026 Origin Community Member Race/Ethnicity White/Not Hispanic or Latino Summary A mall complex security guard called 911 regarding an unhoused man who would not leave. The guard wanted the individual cited for trespass. Officers 1 and 2 responded. The mall buildings and walkways had “no trespass” signs. The officers found the man, told him why they were there, and Officer 1 asked him to leave with his possessions and move on. The man started to gather his belongings, readying to leave. The officers then spoke to the security guard. As the officers walked to their vehicles, a woman approached them and questioned the officers about ordering the man to leave. They explained that the mall was private property. The woman asked for their names. Officer 1 initially pointed to her nameplate. When the woman said she could not read the nameplate, Officer 1 stated her name and badge number. When Officer 1 walked to her car, the woman spoke with Officer 2. Officer 2 tried to focus the conversation on the right of the private property owner to ask someone to leave. Officer 2 ended the conversation by telling the woman to have a good day. The woman filed a complaint objecting to the officers forcing the man to leave the shade on a hot day, Officer 1 not properly identifying herself, and Officer 2’s alleged rudeness. Allegations Officer 1: Rule 5 (Police Authority and Public Trust)—directed an individual leave private property Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/Customer Service Value— did not identify herself to an individual 63 Officer 2: Rule 4 (Respect for Others)/G.O. 130 Criminal Process—did not speak to an individual with fairness and respect IPM Recommendations Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 1: Unfounded Officer 2: Unfounded BPD Chief Outcome Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 1: Unfounded Officer 2: Unfounded IPM Policy Recommendations Policy Response MI2023-027 Origin Community Member Race/Ethnicity White/Not Hispanic or Latino Summary A neighbor called 911 to report a domestic violence incident involving yelling, screaming, and the presence of a seven-year-old child, whom the caller said was crying. The caller said the woman accused the man of destroying the apartment. The dispatcher could hear yelling; the call notes also indicated that there was a history domestic violence calls, and that the man had yelled, “I want you dead.” Officers 1 and 2 responded. A man opened the door, said he was alone, and appeared drunk. The man gave Officer 1 consent to enter the apartment; when Officer 2 followed him inside, the man told them to get out. The apartment was dark, in disarray (messy and broken property). The officers left but Officer 2 would not allow the man to close the door (stuck her foot in the door jam); Officer 1 told the man he could not close the door. Eventually, the man opened the door and told the officers they could enter. The man’s girlfriend and their child were in downstairs room. The two had argued, he was drunk, screamed, threw stuff everywhere in front of the child, and the woman had taken refuge downstairs. The man complained that Officer 1 has vendetta against him, barged in, and overcharged him. The man filed a complaint, more than 18 months after the incident, due to his upcoming trial. Allegations Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/G.O. 130 Criminal Process— entered an individual’s home Officer 2: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders)/G.O. 130 Criminal Process— entered an individual’s home IPM Recommendations Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 2: Exonerated BPD Chief Outcome Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 2: Exonerated IPM Policy Recommendations 64 Policy Response MI2023-028 Origin Community Member Race/Ethnicity White/Not Hispanic or Latino Summary During a camp cleanup operation, Officer 1 encountered the Complainant who refused to pack up her campsite or provide her name. Sergeant 1 arrived to assist, and the Complainant continued to refuse to cooperate. When they reached to grab her, the Complainant struggled against their attempts to control her, threw Sergeant 1 to the ground and fled. The Complainant returned and was apprehended by additional officers. While handcuffing her, Officer 2 referred to the Complainant as “bro” and Sergeant 1 used a male pronoun while instructing officers. The Complainant objected and shouted that she had been misgendered. Several officers on-scene used male pronouns in reference to the Complainant when they spoke among themselves. Allegations Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules and General Orders), G.O.101 – Unbiased Policing, Gender Identity – Displayed transphobia during his interaction with Complainant Officer 1: Rule 6 (Use of Force), G.O.225 – Use of Force – Used force on Complainant Sergeant 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules and General Orders), G.O.101 – Unbiased Policing, Gender Identity – Displayed transphobia during his interaction with Complainant Sergeant 1: Rule 4 (Respect for others), Misgendered Complainant Sergeant 1: Rule 6 (Use of Force) G.O.225 – Use of Force – Positioned his arm/hand around Complainant’s neck Sergeant 1: Rule 6 (Use of Force) G.O.225 – Use of Force – Used force and/or threatened Complainant with a taser Officer 2: Rule 4 (Respect for others) – Misgendered Complainant. IPM Recommendations Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 1: Exonerated Sergeant 1: Exonerated Sergeant 1: Not Sustained Sergeant 1: Not Sustained Sergeant 1: Exonerated Officer 2: Exonerated BPD Chief Outcome Officer 1: Exonerated Officer 1: Exonerated Sergeant 1: Exonerated Sergeant 1: Not Sustained Sergeant 1: Exonerated Sergeant 1: Exonerated 65 Officer 2: Exonerated IPM Policy Recommendations 1. BPD encouraged to proactively consider training opportunities to better help their officers navigate interactions with members of the public who are sensitive to gender identities and preferred pronoun usage. BPD requested to report on any actions planned or implemented to provide officers with training/support when interacting with trans or gender nonconforming members of the public. Policy Response 1. Interim Chief Redfearn, “Gender identity can be a challenge sometimes and can create barriers between community and officers no matter the intention of the officer. Thus, I do believe that BPD should have some training specifically to gender identity, pronouns, and how to properly ask someone what their preferred pronouns are. I will work with our LGBTQ liaisons and Out Boulder to see if there is an online training that we can push out via Power DMS or other means that can better equip our staff with tools and vernacular surrounding these issues.” MI2023-029 Origin Community Members Race/Ethnicity White – Unknown/Not Reported Summary Complaint alleged that a BPD detective conducted an insufficient investigation into allegations that her boyfriend battered his elderly mother and stole money from her accounts. He was arrested in October 2022 and charges were dropped in August 2023. They further alleged that the detective made false statements regarding the evidence. Allegations Detective 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules, and General Orders), GO405 Investigative Process – did not conduct an adequate investigation. Detective 1: Rule 5 (Police Authority and Public Trust) – provided false statements about the consistency of evidence. IPM Recommendations Detective 1: Unfounded Detective 1: Unfounded BPD Chief Outcome Detective 1: Unfounded Detective 1: Unfounded IPM Policy Recommendations 1. A supervisor in the BPD Detective Unit review this complaint with Detective 1 to discuss best investigative strategies in consideration of resource utilization, caseload management and G.O.405-3.C.3 guidelines. Policy Response 1. Commander of Detective 1 instructed to address the issues notes by the IPM. MI2023-030 Origin Community Member Race/Ethnicity White/Not Hispanic or Latino Summary Complaint alleged that Officer 1 did not conduct an adequate investigation into allegations that she electronically harassed her former employer, and that Officer 1 intimidated and retaliated against her. Additionally, she alleged that Officer 1 displayed violence against women, 66 MI2023-031 Origin Community Member Race/Ethnicity White/Not Hispanic or Latino Summary Complainant alleged that Officer 1 hung up the phone and made her wait three hours after calling to report a stolen bag. Complainant further alleged that Officer 1 called her Ms. [last name] to intentionally insult her, instead of using her first name. Complainant made additional complaints that were classified as community inquiries by the IPM. Allegations Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules and General Orders), Did not respond to the incident in a timely manner Rule 4 (Respect for Others) Hung up the telephone on complainant Rule 4 (Respect for Others) Intentionally insulted complainant by addressing her as “Ms. [last name]” IPM Recommendations Officer 1: Unfounded Officer 1: Unfounded Officer 1: Unfounded BPD Chief Outcome Officer 1: Unfounded Officer 1: Unfounded Officer 1: Unfounded IPM Policy Recommendations 1. BPD supervisors counsel Officer 1 to provide additional tools to prevent miscommunication during challenging interactions, including not using a cell phone while driving, and ensuring a complaint is registered when a member of the public complains alleges misconduct. 2. A supervisor of the Boulder Police and Fire Communications Center review the CAD report from this incident to determine whether the time used sexual innuendo and discriminated against her. The Complainant admitted multiple contacts towards her former employer and was issued a summons for harassment at the request of her former employer. Allegations Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules and General Orders), G.O.101 – Unbiased Policing, Gender - Displayed violence against women and/or used sexual innuendo and/or discriminated against Complainant Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules and General Orders), G.O.203 Investigative Responsibilities and Case Assignments – Did not conduct an adequate investigation Officer 1: Rule 4 (Respect for others) Intimidated Complainant Rule 5 (Police Authority and Public Trust) Retaliated against Complainant IPM Recommendations Officer 1: Unfounded Officer 1: Unfounded Officer 1: Unfounded BPD Chief Outcome Officer 1: Unfounded Officer 1: Unfounded Officer 1: Unfounded IPM Policy Recommendations Policy Response 67 pending 1st Assignment (01:56:26.8) was appropriate for this incident, given the staffing and volume of incidents during that time. Policy Response 1. Informed Officer 1 of the IPM concerns. 2. Informed the appropriate supervisor of the IPM concerns. MI2023-032 Origin Community Member Race/Ethnicity White/Not Hispanic or Latino Summary The Complaint alleged that Officer 1 hung up the phone. Allegations Officer 1: Rule 4 (Respect for others) Hung up the telephone on Complainant. IPM Recommendations Officer 1: Unfounded BPD Chief Outcome Officer 1: Unfounded IPM Policy Recommendations 1. BPD supervisors counsel Officer 1 to provide additional tools to prevent miscommunication during challenging interactions, and to ensure a complaint is registered when a member of the public complains alleges misconduct. Policy Response 1. Informed Officer 1’s Supervisor of the IPM concerns to be used for coaching MI2023-033 Origin Internal Race/Ethnicity White/Not Hispanic or Latino Summary A BPD officer alleged that during a physical training exercise, another BPD officer's reckless actions caused injury to her neck. She further alleged that the officer has not apologized or otherwise taken responsibility. Allegations Officer 1: Rule 4 (Respect for Others), acted recklessly towards another BPD Officer during a Defensive Tactics training session and/or did not take responsibility for the resulting injury. IPM Recommendations Officer 1: Not Sustained BPD Chief Outcome Officer 1: Not Sustained IPM Policy Recommendations 1. Recommend that Officer 1’s direct supervisor(s) pay close attention to any Use of Force incidents he is involved with in the future. Policy Response Concurred with this assessment and instructed Officer 1’s chain of command to do so. MI2023-034 Origin Internal Race/Ethnicity White/Not Hispanic or Latino 68 Summary Officer 1 was assigned to investigate allegations of domestic violence. Officer 1 called the victim and tried to track down the suspect based on upcoming court dates. Upon review of the investigation, Sergeant 1 determined that Officer 1’s investigation and documentation in the incident report were insufficient. Additional officers were assigned to complete the investigation; they relocated the victim and were able to contact the suspect and secure additional charges. Allegations Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules and General Orders)/G.O.313-Domestic Violence Response; Failed to conduct a domestic violence investigation as mandated in G.O.313-2. Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules and General Orders)/G.O.313-Domestic Violence Response; Failed to provide a victim rights pamphlet as mandated in G.O.313-2. Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules and General Orders); Failed to comply with lethality assessment protocol. Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules and General Orders); Failed to attempt to locate the suspect. Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules and General Orders)/G.O.313-Domestic Violence Response; Failed to identify the appropriate charges. Panel Recommendations Officer 1: Not Sustained Officer 1: Sustained Officer 1: Sustained/Verbal Counseling Officer 1: Unfounded Officer 1: Not Sustained BPD Chief Outcome Officer 1: Sustained/Verbal Counseling Officer 1: Not Sustained Officer 1: Sustained/Verbal Counseling Officer 1: Unfounded Officer 1: Not Sustained Panel Policy Recommendations Compare G.O.313 and the Domestic Violence training to ensure consistency and clarity for officers about what actions are mandated when officers respond to domestic violence incidents. Recommendation that BPD work with Axon to improve its ability to document investigative actions in Axon Records. Policy Response G.O.313 will be examined during CALEA accreditation process, and the concerns shared by the Panel should be examined to see if we need to make additional changes. The Panel’s feedback was shared with the BPD team working to improve Axon Records functionality. 69 MI2023-035 Origin Internal Race/Ethnicity White/Not Hispanic or Latino Summary Officers arrested a man based on a warrant. They discovered a hobble (leg restraint device) that appeared to be BPD-issued. The arrestee indicated that Officer 1 gave him the hobble. During review of BWC involving prior police interactions with the arrestee, Officer 1 was heard saying, “You’re holding up fucking traffic.” Allegations Officer 1: Rule 1 (Compliance with Values, Rules and General Orders), G.O.105 - Uniforms, Equipment and Appearance Standards; Did not maintain possession of her BPD-issued hobble. Officer 1: Rule 8 (Conduct) - Directed profanity at pedestrians. Panel Recommendations Officer 1: Not Sustained Officer 1: Unfounded BPD Chief Outcome Officer 1: Not Sustained Officer 1: Unfounded IPM Policy Recommendations 1. Recommended that the Department audit their inventory procedures for Department-issued equipment and report back to the Panel on the process and any updates. Policy Response 1. (Interim Chief Redfearn) “I echo the panel’s concerns about equipment tracking and we have been discussing our internal processes to ensure we have a better understanding of what has been issued and to whom. In this case, the police equipment referenced is a soft leg restraint or hobble. These are not serialized and have no specific method of tracking the equipment. Like other things we issue such as tourniquets, Narcan, and spit socks, there is not currently a way to track these items. Items that are checked out daily by officers like less-lethal weapons, AEDs, and computers are all serialized and are inventoried and tracked. Other equipment that is issued to an officer including Tasers, Firearms, and BWC’s are all tracked and a list is maintained by the issuing section. In 2023, we changed our inspection process to ensure that supervisors are more frequently conducting inspections of officers' issued gear. As we are going through accreditation, General Order 151, Inspections, Audits, and Departmental Reporting is being re-written to be consistent with the accreditation standards. Once that is complete, we will let the POP know. Additionally, we are in the process of finding a more robust electronic inventory management system where supervisors can better track equipment that is issued. We will also inform the POP when this is completed.”