2009 annual report - columbus division of police 2009 annual report.pdf · 2 columbus division of...

Columbus Division of Police

Internal Affairs Bureau

Annual Report 2009

Commander Richard L. Crosby #5018

2

Columbus Division of Police Internal Affairs Bureau 2009 Annual Report

Columbus Division of Police 750 E. Long St.

Columbus, Ohio 43203

Complaint Line Main Office Fax 614-645-4880 614-645-4745 614-645-4079

Commander Richard L. Crosby #5018

Lt. Terry Ellis, 1st Shift 4 Intake Duty Sergeants Lt. Randall Smith, 2nd Shift 23 Investigative Sergeants Lt. William Caskey, 3rd Shift 2 Support Staff Lt. Larry Champlin, Admin

Mission:

Investigate allegations of misconduct by Division Personnel.

Vision:

The Internal Affairs Bureau is committed to preserving the integrity of the Division of Police, and maintaining the respect and confidence of the public. The guiding principle by which this will be accomplished will be our unremitting efforts to provide fair, thorough and complete investigations. Investigators will perform their duties without personal bias, impartiality will be fundamental, and investigations will withstand the test of scrutiny. The professionalism of our personnel and objectivity of their investigations will inspire confidence in our abilities, encourage open communication with the public, and promote an atmosphere of equal treatment for all.

3

Goals Accomplished:

• Completion of citizen complaint investigations within contractual timelines • Update and modify standard operating procedure manual (SOP) • Update and improve existing equipment

Key Components to Successful Operation:

• Centralized complaint system; responsibility for system rests in Internal Affairs • Single point of contact for citizens with questions, concerns and complaints • 24/7 coverage by investigators • Consistency in investigative format and approach • Independence from employee’s chain of command

• Internal case review for quality assurance • Impartial investigations • Well-trained investigators • Recommendation of findings from investigators • Professional intake process and record of calls

• Support staff for multitude of tasks related to record keeping function and transcripts

• Case priority and evaluation system

• Technology and equipment available for evidence collection and case preparation • Written standard procedures • Community and media contacts to explain process and operations • Customer Service orientation

Statistics:

• Calls / Correspondence to Intake Process in 2009: 2,699 � Note: IAB does not track the total number of follow-up

contacts made after the initial call / correspondence

• Citizen Complaints Received in 2009: 647 • Internal Investigations Sent to the Chain of Command in 2009: 32

4

CITIZEN COMPLAINT DATA

• Total Citizen Complaints Received 2009

1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter Year

184 157 189 117 647

• Total Citizen Complaints Received 2008


185 179 210 165 739

• Total Allegations in All Citizen Complaints 2009


374 281 332 164 1,151

• Total Allegations in All Citizen Complaints 2008


318 349 392 264 1,323

• Most Frequent Type of Nature of Allegations in Citizen Complaints

o 2009 # % � Rude/Discourteous 287 24.9% � Actions Taken/Not Taken 207 17.9% � Force 130 11.3% � Investigative Actions 91 7.9%

o 2008 # % � Rude/Discourteous 310 23.4% � Actions Taken/Not Taken 210 15.9% � Force 160 12.1% � Investigative Actions 139 10.5%

� These Four categories account for approximately 62% of complaint allegations received in 2009.

• Completion Times for Citizen Complaint Investigations

ο 2009 Number of Citizen Complaints Completed 552 Number of Citizen Complaints Completed in 90 Days 550 Percent of Investigation Completed in 90 Days 99.63%

ο 2008

Number of Citizen Complaints Completed 695 Number of Citizen Complaints Completed in 90 Days 695

Percent of Investigation Completed in 90 Days 100%

5

• New Calls/Correspondence Received From Citizens by the Division’s Intake Process and Complaint Line in 2009


674 715 738 572 2,699

• New Calls/Correspondence Received From Citizens by the Division’s

Intake Process and Complaint Line in 2008


802 883 984 758 3,427

• Calls/Correspondence Not Alleging Employee Misconduct in 2009


475 556 551 459 2,041

• Calls/Correspondence Not Alleging Employee Misconduct in 2008


627 699 769 578 2,673

• The Complaint Line is answered from 6:00am until 10:00pm by Internal Affairs Duty Sergeants. The Patrol Administrative Sergeant is responsible for answering the complaint line from 10:00pm until 6:00am.

� First shift Personnel answered/handled 1,775 contacts � Second shift Personnel answered /handled 738 contacts � Third shift Personnel and Patrol Administrative Sergeants

answered/handled 186 contacts

• Calls that do not involve allegations of misconduct may be referred if the citizen requests a follow up. A log of these contacts is kept to document the nature of the contact and the outcome.

• Contacts with citizens and all other correspondence are included in the above figures.

6

• Dispositions of Allegations in Completed Citizen Complaints 2009

• Definitions Used: o Sustained – There is sufficient evidence to support the allegation and

that a rule violation occurred. o Not sustained – There is insufficient evidence to either prove or

disprove the allegation.

o Unfounded – There is no evidence to support that the alleged conduct did occur.

o Exonerated – The evidence indicates the alleged conduct did occur

but the actions taken by the employee(s) were lawful and no misconduct was substantiated.

o Policy / Procedure – The alleged conduct did occur but involved the

proper and non-discretionary use of an approved Division policy or procedure, or was the result of the employee following the explicit and lawful order from a supervisor.

o Cancelled for Cause – a) It is obvious the alleged misconduct could

not have possibly occurred; b) the complainant, who has been identified as a chronic complainer, or who appears to have a mental deficiency, failed to provide any credible or plausible evidence of misconduct and further investigation is not warranted; c) it is clear the subject of the complaint is not a Division employee.

o Withdrawn – Complainant withdrew the complaint.

o Unable to Resolve – a) The investigation could not be properly

investigated due to a lack of specific and necessary information that is not available due to the lack of cooperation by the complaint; b) The investigation could not be completed because the involved employee was not available for a necessary and critical interview.

o Information Only - The complaint does not fit the definition of a

complaint or the circumstances described do not merit an Internal Affairs investigation.

7

Dispositions of Allegations in Completed Citizen Complaints

January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009

(2008 % in parenthesis)

Policy / Procedure

0.61%

(1%)

Info Only5.73%

(5%)

Withdrawn

2.26%

(3%)

Misconduct Not Based on Org

Complaint - Exon

* Does not appear on chart

0.09%

(.3%)

Not Sustained

15.73%(17%)

Exonerated14.68%

(21%)

Pending Dispositions

11.38%

(Not Recorded

in 2008)


Complaint - Not Sust

* Does not appear on chart

0.09%

(.2)


Complaint - Sust

2.69%(1.5%)

Sustained

8.08%

(7%)

Cancelled for Cause

0.43%(1%)

Unable to Resolve

1.04%

(2%)

Unfounded per Article 8.12

2.35%

(2%)

Unfounded

34.84%

(39%)

Disposition 1st

Quarter 2nd

Quarter 3rd

Quarter 4th

Quarter Year to Date

Cancelled for Cause 3 1 1 0 5

Exonerated 61 43 58 7 169

Information Only 19 18 24 5 66

Misconduct not based on Original Complaint – Exonerated

0 0 1 0 1

Misconduct not based on Original Complaint – Not Sustained

1 0 0 0 1

Misconduct not based on Original Complaint – Sustained

13 6 11 1 31

Not Sustained 59 57 61 4 181

Policy / Procedure 2 2 3 0 7

Sustained 41 21 22 9 93

Unable to Resolve 1 5 5 1 12

Unfounded on Merit 140 114 121 26 401

Unfounded per Article 8.12 13 4 7 3 27

Withdrawn 16 4 5 1 26

Pending 5 6 13 107 131

8

• False Complaints

o The City Prosecutor makes the final decision to pursue criminal charges for filing a false complaint. Only cases involving clear-cut false allegations supported by evidence are recommended for prosecution. False allegations made against Columbus police officers have ranged from rudeness to assault. The sentences handed down have included probation, fines, community service and jail time.

� In 2009, IAB filed 3 criminal charges against persons filing a false

complaint. � In 2008, IAB filed 3 criminal charges against persons filing a false

complaint. • Bias-Based Profiling Complaints

2008 2009

Number of investigations 9 12

Total allegations in investigations 13 18

• 2009 saw a slight increase in the number of complaint investigations alleging racial or bias-based profiling from the year before. The change reflects a 38% increase in bias-based allegations for this time period.

o According to the complainants, this type of allegation is generally made

because of a feeling the complainant had about the incident and/or the reasons an officer had to stop the complainant. Rarely do complainants provide information that the officer said or did anything that indicated a bias during the stop. In addition to that, when the officer or complainant describes a legitimate violation or reason for stopping the complainant, being able to prove there was any other reason for the stop, such as a bias-based intent on the officer’s part, would require knowing what was going on in the officer’s mind, a difficult task.

o The Division closely monitors these allegations and tracks them by precinct and by officer to see if a pattern begins to develop.

• Recommendation of Finding/Disposition

• The Internal Affairs investigator no longer recommends findings with regard to their investigation. The focus officer’s chain of command is responsible for reviewing the investigation, analyzing all of the evidence and then making a recommendation as to the disposition of the allegations.

9

• Unable to Resolve

• This disposition has two different definitions, as noted on page 6. This disposition was added in March of 2004 due to a recurring issue with a lack of complainant cooperation in a number of investigations.

o There are times when the only contact we are able to make with the complainant is the initial complaint made to the Intake Sergeant. Since the complaint line is tape-recorded, often there is enough information to follow up on and to question the involved personnel. However, there are times when identifying the involved personnel cannot be done without the complainant’s assistance, or the statement first given by the complainant may not contain enough information to formulate allegations or a plausible set of circumstances for the investigator to put the evidence together into discernible facts. When these scenarios occur, the chain may recommend a disposition of Unable to Resolve because evidence or facts necessary to make a finding is unavailable.

• Complaints that are cancelled and reclassified as Information Only

• The Division of Police has had a long-standing policy that the Citizen Complaint system will not be used to investigate the guilt or innocence of a person charged with a violation. The court system is the proper venue for citizens who want to challenge the charges.

o There are instances where citizens and others complain to the Division about off duty conduct by Division personnel that is not criminal, but rather civil in nature, such as child visitation disputes or neighborhood disturbances. The Division of Police recognizes that many of these situations should be adjudicated or resolved by outside agencies or courts. Individuals are generally not permitted to use the citizen complaint system to investigate off duty situations involving civil matters that do not have a nexus to the employee’s job duties.

o Additionally, some citizens demand the Division of Police accept their complaint even when the information they have provided does not rise to the level of misconduct. In these situations, the complaint is taken and the information is reviewed by the Internal Affairs chain of command to determine if an investigation should proceed or if the complaint should be cancelled and reclassified as “Information Only”. If the Deputy Chief of the involved officer approves of reclassifying the complaint, the information is kept in our files as “Information Only” and an investigation is not conducted. This resolution is used infrequently and in accordance with Division policy. Through this policy, the citizen complaint system is protected from abuse and helps to ensure the Internal Affairs Bureau operates in the most efficient and effective manner possible.

10

• Complaints involving allegations of force

• A consistent approach to allegations involving the use of force by officers is material to making our investigations as thorough as possible. Allegations about force are investigated to determine if the alleged force did or did not occur; and if it did, whether the Response to Resistance, or force used by the officers was within Division policy and rules. The Internal Affairs investigator reviews the investigation initially completed by the supervisor at the scene of the arrest or incident. The Internal Affairs investigator then conducts any necessary follow ups and gathers new information as necessary to answer any questions the complaint allegations may have raised. It is not unusual for the complainant in a situation involving force to refuse to answer questions from the supervisor at the scene. However, after a little time has passed and the situation is over, the complainant(s) may decide to give an interview to the Internal Affairs investigator and clarify their allegations, or at times, rescind their allegations. This helps to get all the information necessary to make an informed decision on the complaint and any Response to Resistance the officers may have used.

• Demographics and other Citizen Complaint Statistics

• Method of Filing

Telephone 505

In Person 106

U.S. Mail 17

E-Mail/Internet 13

Internal Memo 1

Other 5

• Filing Location

IAB Office / Other Office 449

Police Headquarters 167

Other 29

Safety Directors Office 2

• Complainant Sex

Male 313

Female 330

Unknown 4

11

• Complainant Ethnicity

Unknown 175

Black 261

White 196

Hispanic 3

Asian 1

Other 11

• Complainant Status

• Focus Employee

• Complainant Cooperation after Filing the Complaint

Cooperation with Investigator 70.5%

No Cooperation with Investigator 25%

Pending 4.5%

• Focus Employee Statistics Compared to Division Demographics

MW FW MB FB MA FA MI FI MO FO Not

Tracked

Complaints Against

500 61 76 14 4 0 0 0 3 6 200

� Note – Complaint allegations resulting in an Exonerated or a Policy/Procedure finding are no longer tracked by gender and ethnicity

MW FW MB FB MA FA MI FI MO FO

Division Demographics

1509 328 190 111 13 2 2 0 10 7

Directly Involved in Incident 540

Not Directly Involved in Incident 18

Witnessed Incident 32

Did Not Witness Incident 50

Other 7

Police Officer 794

Non-Sworn Employee 24

Sergeant 33

Section 1.01 Unidentified 6

Non-Police Personnel 4

Lieutenant 1

Reserve Officer 2

12

• Precinct of Occurrence for Citizen Complaints

� As noted earlier in this report, there was a slight decrease in the number of complaints received in 2009 as compared to 2008. The decrease was approximately 12.44%.

Zone Precinct 2008 2009

1 2 38 44

1 7 35 39

1 18 54 37

2 9 61 70

2 13 38 16

2 14 51 48

3 8 30 30

3 10 27 25

3 15 19 16

3 19 24 27

4 1 13 10

4 3 14 16

4 4 31 41

4 16 50 45

4 17 13 12

5 5 21 30

5 6 21 40

5 11 45 32

5 12 38 22

Foreign - 7 12

HQ - 4 11

Unknown - 10 10

Radio - 30 14

Impound Lot - 1 0

13

RESPONSE TO RESISTANCE/AGRESSION, INCIDENTS AND USE OF MACE INCIDENTS

• In early 2002, the Division of Police started a new system of documenting the use of force by officers and stopped referring to those situations as a “Use of Force”. Now, all actions taken by officers in response to the actions of the subject/suspect are recorded as a “Response to Resistance/Aggression” and classified as different levels of responses, based on a use of force continuum. The levels are as follows:

o Level 0: Officer presence, verbal and non-verbal commands, search, handcuffing, use of flash bangs, sparking for compliance and multiple baton rounds as diversions.

o Level 1: Empty-hand control, pressure points, grounding techniques, and joint manipulations

o Level 2: Use of chemical spray o Level 3: Use of electronic device (TASER) o Level 4: Hard empty hand control (strike/punch/kick) o Level 5: Use of impact weapon o Level 6: Police K-9 bite o Level 7: Less lethal weapons (beanbag/multiple baton rounds/stingballs) o Level 8: Deadly force

• Internal Affairs is responsible for filing and entering the information regarding Level 2 through Level 8 responses. The database in Internal Affairs labels Level 3-8 responses as “Use of Force” incidents. Level 2 is labeled as a “Use of Mace” incident. The Training Academy tracks Level 0 and 1 responses.

• Response to Resistance

2008 2009

Response Used Total Incidents # of Officers Involved

Total Incidents # of Officers Involved

Striking with Hands or Feet 148 232 127 175

Pushing/Causing Collision 50 88 56 74

Striking with a Weapon 16 28 9 12

Use of Firearm 15 20 17 30

Canine Bite 5 5 6 6

Use of TASER 328 415 316 364

Use of Mace 355 393 291 317

• Total Level 2-8 Response to Resistance Incidents

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

910 920 988 917 822

NOTE: A response to resistance incident may involve more than one employee and/or multiple uses of force.

14

• Statistics regarding location of Use of Mace incidents

• Precinct of Occurrence

• Suspect Sex



1 2 9 11

1 7 18 17

1 18 18 15

2 9 36 28

2 13 13 16

2 14 12 17

3 8 19 5

3 10 11 16

3 15 0 2

3 19 17 10

4 1 7 5

4 3 1 3

4 4 50 19

4 16 57 66

4 17 6 0

5 5 26 17

5 6 20 22

5 11 26 17

5 12 9 4

Foreign - 0 1

2008 2009

Male 180 139

Female 62 43

Unknown or Crowd / Group 113 109

2008 2009

Unknown 118 115

Black 147 116

White 84 54

Hispanic 4 5

Asian 1 1

Other 1 0

15

• Statistics regarding the location of Level 3-8 Response to Resistance Incidents

• Precinct of Occurrence


1 2 53 48

1 7 19 29

1 18 19 22

2 9 25 47

2 13 31 24

2 14 21 22

3 8 52 26

3 10 22 27

3 15 10 4

3 19 28 24

4 1 12 9

4 3 8 7

4 4 35 26

4 16 19 15

4 17 7 5

5 5 37 26

5 6 24 28

5 11 35 52

5 12 40 36

Foreign - 3 4

Headquarters - 2 3

• Suspect Sex


2008 2009

Male 473 444

Female 29 38

Animal 0 2

2008 2009

Black 305 318

White 171 144

Hispanic 15 14

Asian 0 1

Unknown 4 3

Other 7 2

Animal 0 2

16

• Total Discharge of Firearms Incidents (Does not include Uses of Deadly Force) 2009

• Total Discharge of Firearms Incidents (Does not include Uses of Deadly Force) 2008

• Discharge of Firearm Incidents by Type 2009

• Discharge of Firearm Incidents by Type 2008

ADDITIIONAL RECORDS MAINTAINED IN INTERNAL AFFAIRS

• “Information Only” Incidents 2009

1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter Year to Date

226 244 279 205 954

• “Information Only” Incidents 2008


246 215 213 125 799

• Strip Search Incidents 2009


4 7 1 2 14

• Strip Search Incidents 2008


0 2 3 1 6


17 25 15 35 92


22 23 18 31 94

Type of Discharge


Accidental Discharge 2 2 1 2 7 Animal (Defense of Self/Other) 6 8 7 1 22 Animal (Humane Destruction) 9 15 7 32 63

Type of Discharge


Accidental Discharge 5 2 3 2 12 Animal (Defense of Self/Other) 6 8 8 2 24 Animal (Humane Destruction) 11 13 7 27 58

17

• Injury to Prisoner Incidents 2009


62 81 86 76 305

• Injury to Prisoner Incidents 2008


59 65 59 43 226

• Internal Complaints 2009


97 90 82 86 355

• Number of Pending Allegations for 2009


2 2 4 12 20

• Number of Allegations in Completed Internal Complaints 2009


180 118 94 105 497

• Internal Complaints 2008


97 74 104 77 352

• Number of Allegations in Completed Internal Complaints 2008


128 117 126 82 453

STAFF ISSUES

• The Internal Affairs Bureau has been approved for two Office Assistant II’s, and three Office Assistant I’s. The only Office Assistant I position that was actually filled in our Bureau was abolished in 2008 and the employee filling that position was transferred to Burglary.

INTERNAL AFFAIRS TRAINING

• Sergeants new to the bureau in 2009 received training from the commander, their lieutenant and experienced sergeants already in the bureau.

• The Internal Affairs Bureau developed a training form to ensure new sergeants are adequately trained in the more important aspects of their assignment. This form covers a wide range of duties normally required of I.A.B. personnel. New sergeants are required to observe or perform each and every phase of the items noted.

18

EMPLOYEE ACTION REVIEW SYSTEM

Internal Affairs assisted this Committee by providing statistical data and investigative information.

MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES

• Internal Affairs Bureau Database

o Statistical numbers retrieved from the Internal Affairs Bureau database can change daily with new entries and updates to old entries. Therefore, percentages are sometimes used in this report which provide the most accurate set of statistics and information we have at the time of the report.

• Internal Affairs sent 584 investigations to the chain of command for their review and findings in 2009.

GOALS FOR 2010 Our efforts to preserve the integrity of the Division of Police, and produce fair, impartial and professional investigations we will be accomplished by the following:

• Timely completion of investigations.

• Obtain additional outside training to maintain a highly trained group of investigators who use the current “best practices” in Internal Affairs investigations.

• To provide the chains of command with information they can use to help their personnel avoid behaviors that lead to citizen complaints.

• Enhance our ability to expedite investigations by using state of the art equipment.

2009 annual report - columbus division of police 2009 annual report.pdf · 2 columbus division of...

Documents