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.”