Office of the Public Safety Auditor

Omaha, Nebraska

▪▪▪▪▪ Quarterly Report

For The Quarter Ending

September 30, 2004

▪Tristan Bonn Public Safety Auditor

Report Issued: November 2, 2004

Mission of the Public Safety Auditor The Public Safety Auditor’s mission is to provide an independent review and to promote public awareness of the citizen complaint process; thereby, increasing greater police and fire accountability by the Omaha Police and Fire Departments.

Guiding Principles The operating philosophy of the Office of the Public Safety Auditor consists of the following guiding principles under which this Office strives to reach its goals: - to provide equal, fair, and impartial access to the services of the

Public Safety Auditor; without regard to age, race, gender, creed, color, nationality, or station in life;

- to treat all individuals, regardless of their attitude or demeanor,

with the same courtesy, tolerance, sensitivity, and dignity any person would expect if placed in a similar situation;

- to provide quality, timely, objective, and responsive services to

those persons who request the assistance of this Office. Contact Information:

Office of the Public Safety Auditor Suite 530

1905 Harney St. Omaha, NE 68102

Phone: (402) 546-1704 Fax: (402) 996-8361

Email: tbonn@ci.omaha.ne.us.

The Auditor’s Reports are also available off the Auditor’s website. The links to the Auditor’s website are found at www.opd.ci.omaha.ne.us or

www.ci.omaha.ne.us

ii

Public Safety Auditor Quarterly Report for the Quarter Ending September 30, 2004

Table of Contents:

Section Page Table of Contents………………………………………………………….. ii I. Auditor’s Overview ………………………………………………… 1 II. Review of the Omaha Police Department………………………3 A. Statistical Reports.………………………………………….3 (1) Complaint Tracking…………………………………3 (2) Review of OPD Internal Affairs Investigations…………………………………………9 (3) Statistical Tracking of Video Use ………………..11 B. New Recommendations…………………………………….12 (1) Identifying and Managing Conflicts of Interest.12 (2) Using Unmarked Vehicles for Traffic Stops……17 (3) Managing Policy Changes………………………….17 (4) Additional Trends……………………………………19 (5) Recommendation…………………………………….21 C. Customer Service Survey…………………………………..21 D. Status of Prior Recommendations………………………..22 E. Additional Updates…………………………………………..22 (1) Training Unit………………………………………….22 (2) In-Service Training…………………………………..22 (3) New Educational Requirements…………………..23 III. Review of the Omaha Fire Department………………………….24 A. Statistical Reports.…………………………………………..24 B. Additional Updates….……………………………………….25 IV. Review of the Work of the PSA Office…………………………….26 A. Overview of Auditor’s Office Activities…………………..26 B. Citizen Contacts………………………………………………27 C. Customer Service Survey…………………………………..29 D. Staff Training and Development………………………….29 V. Clarifications and Corrections…………………………………….31

iii

Appendix: A: Public Safety Auditor Ordinance B. Public Safety Auditor Brochure C. OPD Notification of Pending Complaint Form D. Citizen’s Commendation/Inquiry/Complaint Form - OPD (English and Spanish) and OFD (English and Spanish) E. Community Outreach List F. Interview Notification Form G. Customer Service Survey H. OPD Precinct Map I. Public Safety Auditor’s Recommendations Update List

1

I. Auditor�s Overview: Quarterly Report for the Quarter Ending September 30, 2004 The Public Safety Auditor is pleased to present its new look for the quarterly reports required under Omaha Mun. Code § 25-9(G). The new format is designed to allow readers to find specific numbers or recommendations within the report with greater ease than for the older reports. This new format also provides me with space to explain the workings of the office and to answer questions that citizens have posed to me about the auditing process. This Quarterly Report focuses on a series of long-standing issues. The recommendations in this report start with a relatively lengthy discussion of how the Omaha Police Department currently handles various conflict of interest issues, including traffic enforcement issues and the acceptance of gratuities. The discussion then focuses on the use of unmarked cars for traffic stops, the need for effective management of policy changes, and issues with property damage and traffic case investigations. Over the last three years, I have often been asked where I find information about departmental performance, particularly about trends and patterns of complaints about the police and fire departments.

There are, of course, formal complaints that are filed with those departments. These complaints generate internal investigations; as a result, I have an opportunity to review citizen and officer interviews. These materials provide me with quite detailed information about how officers on the street are interpreting the department�s current policies and procedures, and how citizens, in turn, interpret the officers� actions. Just this year alone, I have reviewed more than 500 officer and citizen interviews, and these interviews have been invaluable to the work of this office. While internal affairs interviews provide a wealth of information about the performance of the department, most citizen complaints and feedback does not reach the level of a formal internal affairs investigation. Complaints are often registered informally with the departments and with this office; such informal complaints or line investigations are generally handled by the officer�s sergeant and do not result in a file that I can audit or review. These informal complaints, however, often start with a call to this office by the involved citizen, and I am able to get a sense of the issues from those initial calls. Additionally, citizens contact this office to ask for advice and for help in solving their problems with the departments, even if they are not registering an

2

informal complaint. In the last three years, this office has recorded over 2200 citizen contacts, and many of these contacts have provided this office with information about how the department is operating. There are, of course, other means of gathering information about departmental performance. The local media regularly investigates and publishes reports of citizen encounters with Omaha Police Department officers. I speak at a number of local functions each quarter. The Auditor�s Office is also very pleased to have an informal citizen advisory group made up of the leaders of various Omaha organizations. These more informal sources also provide a window into how the department is performing and where modifications to current practices may be useful. The trends and patterns that my office reports and analyzes in these quarterly reports are founded in both the formal and informal sources of information that I receive. Usually, however, I do not include an issue in these quarterly reports until I have seen one or more formal complaints which raise the same type of issue that I have also heard from informal sources. I also raise these issues with the department when they occur in formal or informal complaints, and the department�s response also is a factor in my decision to include an issue in a report.

As always, this office welcomes feedback. If you have comments on our new design or the contents of this Report, please be sure to let us know. - Tristan Bonn Public Safety Auditor

3

▪▪▪▪▪

II. Review of the Omaha Police Department A. Statistical Reports: The following tables represent the Auditor�s compilation of information received from OPD Internal Affairs (�IA�). IA only tracks the number of formal complaint investigations it closes. IA does not track informal complaints or other citizen matters which do not generate an IA investigation. IA does, however, send the formal complaint forms that it receives (as well as the results of on-going investigations) over to the Auditor�s Office. The Auditor reviews these files for purpose of complaint audits (see section II.A.2 for a description of the PSA audit process). The Auditor�s Office also reviews the files to track a variety of characteristics, such as precinct of the alleged incidents, nature of the allegations, result of the investigations, and years of service of the subject officers. (1) Complaint Tracking ■ Formal Complaint Numbers Table 1 lists the number of complaint forms which the Public

Safety Auditor received from IA in the past three months. Table 1: Total Number of Formal Complaints Filed Month Total Complaints

Filed July 19 August 22 September 13 Total 54 Of the total complaints, a portion of the complainants decided not to proceed with the full internal affairs process. When that happens, the complaints are not investigated or decided. IA then informs the Auditor�s Office that it will not be going forward with the investigation. Table 2 records the number of these complaints reported to the Auditor�s Office as �Did Not Formalize� or �DNF� Table 2: Complaints Which Were Not Formalized (�DNF�) Month DNF�d

Complaints June 1 July 8 August 9 September 3 Total 21 Under current union contract and OPD policy, Internal Affairs has no more than 45 days to

4

complete its investigation, unless one of the approved reasons for extension of that time applies. Table 3 lists the number of investigations that, Internal Affairs completed in this quarter. Table 3: Internal Affairs Investigations Completed Month Investigations

Completed June 1 July 9 August 10 September 6 Total 26 Table 4 documents the precincts in which the incident which generated the formal complaints occurred, for all 26 of the IA investigations completed this quarter. Table 4: Precincts Where Alleged Incidents Occurred Precinct No. of

Incidents Northeast 13 Northwest 6 Southeast 3 Southwest 2 Out of Area 1 Other 1 Total 26

■ Complainant Information Tables 5 and 6 describe characteristics of the complainants, as documented in completed IA files: Table 5: Precincts Where Complainants Reside Precinct No. of

Complainants Northeast 8 Northwest 10 Southeast 1 Southwest 4 Out of Area 2 Not Documented

2

Total 27* * Please note that one case involved two complainants. Table 6: Race/Ethnicity of Complainants By Gender Race / Ethnicity

Male Female

White 4 4 Black or African American

11 7

Hispanic or Latino

0 1

Native American

0 0

Asian 0 0 Totals 15 12

5

■ Sworn and Non- Sworn Personnel Information Tables 7, 8, 9, and 10 describe the general characteristics of the 39 sworn and 2 non-sworn personnel whose actions were the subject of the completed investigations for this quarter. (Sworn personnel are police officers; non-sworn personnel are civilians who work within the police department, usually within the detention facility.) This information is collected by the Auditor�s Office from the IA investigative files. When the specific information required for these tables is not found within the IA file, such a result is recorded in these tables as a case which is �unreported.� Table 7: Assignment of Sworn and Non-Sworn Personnel Assignment Sworn Non-

Sworn Patrol - NE Precinct

19 0

Patrol - NW Precinct

11 0

Patrol - SE Precinct

4 0

Patrol - SW Precinct

1 0

Criminal Investigations Division

1 0

Detention 0 2 Administrative/ Command

1 0

Other 2 0

Totals 39 2 Table 8: Years of Service of Sworn and Non-Sworn Personnel Years of Service

Sworn Non-Sworn

Under 1 year

1 0

1-3 years 6 0 4-6 years 18 1 7-10 years 3 0 11-15 years

4 0

16-20 years

4 1

20+ years 2 0 Unreported 1 Totals 39 2 Table 9: Race/Ethnicity of Sworn Personnel Who Were The Subject of a Complaint, By Gender Race/Ethnicity Male Female White 28 5 Black or African American

4 0

Hispanic 1 0 Asian 0 0 Native American 0 0 Other 0 0 Unreported 1 0 Totals 33 5

6

Table 10: Race/Ethnicity of Non-Sworn Personnel Who Were The Subject of A Complaint, By Gender Race/Ethnicity Male Female White 1 1 Black or African American

0 0

Hispanic 0 0 Asian 0 0 Native American 0 0 Other 0 0 Total 1 1 ■ Allegations Investigated Complaints often contain multiple issues to be investigated and decided. The purpose of an IA investigation is to determine whether OPD�s internal policies and procedures have been violated. The IA investigation, therefore, looks at the factual allegations within the complaint (and the circumstances surrounding the incident from which the complaint arose) which might describe a violation of departmental policy or procedure. The 26 formal complaints investigated this quarter contained the following number and type of allegations of policy or procedure violations:

Table 11: Number of Allegations Made By Type Allegation # Improper Procedure 46 Excessive Force 16 Verbal Abuse 17 Criminal Act 1 Unprofessional Conduct

2

Failed to Take Report 2 False Arrest 3 False Report 4 Intimidation 6 Harassment 1 Incomplete Report 2 Total 100 ■ IA Investigations Results At the end of an IA investigation, OPD makes a finding for each allegation. There are six possible outcomes: An allegation could be Sustained, which means that there is sufficient evidence to believe that the allegation is true. The only complaints which may move forward to a formal disciplinary process for the involved sworn or non-sworn personnel are the ones with one or more sustained allegations. A finding of Unfounded means that the investigation has shown sufficient evidence to conclude

7

that the factual basis for the allegation is false. A finding of Exonerated, on the other hand, means that the investigation reveals that the subject personnel took the actions which were alleged by the complainant, but that the actions were proper under departmental policy. Not Sustained findings mean that there is not enough evidence to prove or disprove the allegation. (The evidentiary standard for disciplinary cases before the Omaha Personnel Board is that of a preponderance of the evidence. Cases in which the available evidence is not sufficient to show a violation of departmental policy or procedure by a preponderance of the evidence are not the proper subjects for disciplinary action). Findings of Policy Failure means that the incident may or may not have happened, but that the investigation has disclosed faulty practices, policies and/or procedures. A finding of Court Issue means that the allegation is one which will be resolved by a court in that particular case. If the Auditor�s Office could not identify any finding for an allegation, that fact was noted in the category of �No Finding.� Table 12 indicates the overall number of allegations within

each category of finding for the investigations completed in this quarter. Tables 13a through 13d examine each specific category of allegation and describes the finding outcomes for that category. Table 12: Findings Finding No. of

Allegations Unfounded 13 Exonerated 25 Not Sustained 48 Sustained 8 Policy Failure 1 Court Issue 3 No Finding 2 Total 100 Table 13a: Findings for Allegations of Improper Procedure, Excessive Force, and Verbal Abuse Finding Improper

Procedure Excessive Force

Verbal Abuse

Unfounded 5 5 2 Exonerated 19 2 - Not Sustained

13 9 14

Sustained 7 0 1 Policy Failure

1 0 0

Court Issue

0 0 0

No Finding 1 - - Totals 46 16 17

8

Table 13b: Findings for Allegations of Criminal Act, Unprofessional Conduct, and Failure To Take a Report Finding Crim.

Act Unprof. Conduct

Fail. - Report

Unfounded 1 0 0 Exonerated 0 1 2 Not Sustained

0 1 0

Sustained 0 0 0 Policy Failure

0 0 0

Court Issue

0 0 0

No Finding - - - Totals 1 2 2 Table 13c: Findings for Allegations of False Arrest, and False Report Finding False

Arrest False Report

Unfounded 0 0 Exonerated 0 0 Not Sustained

0 4

Sustained 0 0 Policy Failure

0 0

No Finding 0 0 Court Issue

3 0

No Finding - - Totals 3 4

Table 13d: Findings for Allegations of Discrimination, Harassment and Incomplete Reports Finding Intim. Harass. Incompl.

Report Unfounded 0 0 0 Exonerated 0 1 0 Not Sustained

5 0 2

Sustained 0 0 0 Policy Failure

0 0 0

Court Issue

O O O

No Finding 1 - - Totals 5 1 2 IA investigative files are reviewed by command staff at OPD. If, in a complaint with a sustained allegation, there is agreement by the Chief that there is sufficient evidence of a violation of departmental policy or procedure, the Chief then makes a decision upon the appropriate level of discipline. Discipline, for purposes of citizen complaints, can range from an informal counseling or a job performance interview to suspensions and termination of employment. Table 14 tracks the number of times that disciplinary action was taken this quarter, and the type of discipline imposed by the Chief.

9

Table 14: Disciplinary Action Taken Action Imposed Verbal Counseling

1

Job Performance Interview

0

Reprimand 4 Suspension 0 Termination 0 Total 5 (2) Review of OPD Internal Affairs Investigations One of the Auditor�s primary duties is to audit police investigations of civilian complaints against police officers to �determine if the investigation was complete, thorough, objective and fair.� Omaha Mun.Ord. §25-9(D)(1). This audit process currently allows the Auditor to review ongoing IA investigations on the 20th, 30th, 40th and closing day of the investigation. One of the critical stages in any investigation are the interviews of the witnesses. IA interviews are conducted with complainants, civilian witnesses, officer witnesses, and the officers who are the subject of the complaints Table 15 lists the number of

interviews conducted by the Internal Affairs department. Table 15: Internal Affairs Interviews Conducted Month Interviews July 54 August 74 September 99 Total 227 The Auditor reviews most of these interviews after the interview using the transcripts of the interviews prepared by the department. The Auditor can also attend interviews, in addition to receiving transcripts as part of the file. In order to attend an interview, however, IA personnel must provide the Auditor with advance notification of the date and time of the interview. At times, this notification process can be difficult to achieve in a timely manner because the interviews can be scheduled quickly to fit the witnesses� work schedules. For this quarter, the rate of timely notifications was at about the 65% level. Table 16 lists the number of times that the Auditor�s office was notified prior to an IA interview. Table 17 tracks the number of interviews attended by the Auditor.

10

Table 16: Prior Notifications for IA Interviews Month Notifications July 35 (including 8

same day and 6 one-day notices)

August 47 (including 7 same day notices and 5 one-day notices)

September 67 (including 13 same day and 19 one-day notices)

Total 149 (including

28 same day and 30 one-day notices)

Table 17: Number of Interviews Attended By The Auditor Month Interviews

Attended July 2 August 3 September 5 Total 10 Once an investigation is complete, the Auditor makes a final judgment on the sufficiency of the investigation, using the specific criteria provided in the ordinance. For purposes of this evaluation, the Auditor looks at the following:

Fair - were all witnesses treated in the same manner during the investigative process? Complete - was all pertinent evidence contained in the file and was the Auditor notified and copied (or given a timely opportunity to view) all of the evidence? Thorough - were all of the possible policy and procedure violations identified and investigated? Objective - was the investigation, and particularly the interviews, conducted free of bias? Under the current union contract with the city, the department must work under a 45 working-day limit; the officer must have a decision on whether discipline is going to be imposed within that time period or no discipline can be imposed. This means that the IA investigation must close within that time period and an internal review of the evidence conducted before the expiration of the 45 working-days. In order for the Auditor to have input into this decision-making process, the Auditor must be able to receive all of the file by about the 35th day of the investigative process. Table 18 lists the Auditor�s determinations on the investigations closed in this quarter.

11

Table 18: Investigations Evaluated Criteria Completed

Investigations Fair - Yes 13 Fair - No 13 Complete - Yes 13 Complete - No 13 Thorough - Yes 13 Thorough - No 13 Objective - Yes 13 Objective - No 13 Totals: After reviewing the investigations for fairness, completeness, etc., the Auditor reviews the Chief�s decisions in each of the 26 cases to determine whether the findings made by the Chief are supported by the evidence or whether the Standard Operating Procedure is properly applied. If the Auditor disagrees with the Chief�s findings, the Auditor so reports the number of cases in which she disagrees here in this report and then submits a confidential detailed analysis of her decision to the Auditing Committee. This quarter, the Auditor disagreed with the Chief�s findings in four investigations.

(3) Statistical Tracking of Video Use The Auditor�s Office is currently tracking the number of complaint investigations which have made use of the cruiser video systems or other video evidence (such as detention videos). See Table 19. The Department is currently not repairing the video equipment installed in cruisers as a cost savings measure. Instead, the department intends to replace the current video system with a digital camera system. The Auditor�s Office is tracking camera information so that it can evaluate the effectiveness of the current system and monitor the Department�s transition to the digital system. Table 19: Cruiser and Other Videos # of Cases

With Cruiser or Detention Video

Without Video

26 2 24

12

B. New Recommendations (1) Identifying and Managing Conflict of Interest Issues As is true for other types of government work, policing presents the City�s employees with a large range of situations where conflicts of interest could develop. The City already has a comprehensive policy in place to provide guidance to City employees on what constitutes a potential conflict of interest and what actions are expected of an employee with a potential conflict. This policy extends to all City employees: �All City employees should avoid any activity which could be perceived as, or develop into, a conflict of interest.� City Personnel Policy #6-00 (approved by City Council on 4/4/00). �All decisions made by City employees should be made objectively, considering the City�s best interests, and must be free from any competing personal interest.� (emphasis added). The City�s policy notes that conflicts of interest �can result in either favoring the interest of a particular citizen (over another citizen�s interest or the interest of the City) or disfavoring the

interest of citizen(s).� In determining whether a potential interaction poses a conflict of interest problem, the policy recommends answering this question: �Could anything happen as a result of [this City] action that I am about to take that will be to my benefit, the benefit of my family or any personal business associates, or that could reasonably be perceived as such?� If the answer is yes, then the employee is expected to report to his or her supervisor and allow the supervisor to take appropriate action. ■ Initial Efforts By OPD To Identify and Manage Conflicts: In the first year of this office�s existence, there was a publicly reported case of an officer who was involved in an off-duty car accident with an older couple. The older couple was pulling into traffic and the officer swerved to avoid them, damaging his own vehicle but not damaging the couple�s car. There was an independent witness who verified these facts and indicated that the officer was traveling fast. Because there was no contact between the vehicles, no officer was called to the scene and no report filed at the time of the incident. After the incident and without further independent investigation, the officer, with the

13

assistance of another police officer, filed a report and days later ticketed this couple for �Failure to Yield.� The elderly gentleman was ill and simply paid the ticket, although he had never had a ticket before. Later, the officer tried to collect his damages from the elderly couple. When the couple balked at the handling of this incident, they complained. At the time, remarkably, there was no conflict of interest policy that prohibited officers from becoming involved in investigating their own cases. As the result of this case, such a prohibition was adopted. ■ Subsequent Cases of Conflict of Interest In spite of this recently adopted prohibition against being involved in the investigation of a case where an officer is a witness or a suspect, there have been several incidents where officers have pulled over citizens in unmarked vehicles. The most common way that this problem appears in complaints has been where an officer pulls over a citizen, off-duty, out-of-uniform, in his personal vehicle for a traffic offense in which the officer was somehow involved. This should clearly be a violation under the newly adopted conflict prohibition. Unfortunately, based on recent actions taken by the department in these types of cases, it is not clear that management agrees. As a result,

there is obviously still not enough clarity, specificity, understanding or training on the conflict policy if the department still has managers, supervisors, and officers who continue to believe that they can enforce traffic violations when they themselves are part of the incident. The Auditor is also deeply concerned about recent public allegations concerning the off-duty behavior of a high-ranking departmental officer earlier in this year. According to the allegations published in bankruptcy proceedings, this officer used his position within the police department to seize property from individuals engaged in a dispute involving his off-duty employer, and that the seizures were made without the benefit of a court order or other lawful reason. This officer also may have authorized other OPD officers to become involved in these actions. If this situation occurred as described, it presents a classic, and blatant, case of conflict of interest -- where an officer has unequivocally used his police powers unlawfully to benefit his private employer (and, thus, therefore also himself). While the full facts of this situation have not yet been decided or made public, what has been publicly revealed at this point paints a picture of a department who did not understand how to spot and stop a very serious

14

conflict of interest at its highest levels. Additionally, the Auditor has repeatedly heard the �defense� to a conflict problem that the officers involved in traffic disputes were entitled to take police action because he or she is always �on-duty.� Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether the on-duty claim is correct, this argument does not in any way excuse an action taken with a conflict of interest. Actions which create a conflict of interest can occur on duty or off-duty. As the City�s Personnel Policy #6-00 repeatedly illustrates, the greatest potential for a government employee facing a conflict of interest occurs when the employee is on-duty and performing his or her normal job. The policing situations which generate the most public complaint about conflict of interest tend to start as off-duty events, such as when an officer driving his personal vehicle and in casual clothes decides to exercise police powers after he is involved in a traffic accident or other dispute. It does not matter for purposes of a conflict analysis, however, whether the officer is on-duty or off-duty. The question in both situations is the same: would the officer be in a position to use his or her policing powers to further a personal cause, create a personal benefit,

or appear to have created such a benefit? If the answer to that question is �yes,� then that officer has a conflict of interest. Any investigation or decision to be made about an incident should therefore be given to an impartial decision-maker. Notice that the question is not whether a traffic stop should be made or ticket issued. The point of identifying a conflict of interest is to assure that an impartial decision-maker is in charge of exercising the city�s prosecutorial authority, rather than the officer with a personal interest in the outcome. So, if an officer is a victim of a car accident or an inconsiderate driver, the officer cannot use his police powers to address the situation. He or she must act like other citizens and call the incident in, wait for the police to arrive and to conduct the appropriate investigation. Likewise, responding officers must treat the officer as a witness or suspect just like any other citizen or these responding officers risk a conflict-of-interest violation, as well. Again, it is not just the individual involved in the incident who must identify the potential for conflict; so, too, must all members of the organization. This is a critical component of self-policing.

15

■ Special Areas of Conflict of Interest: Gratuities The topic of gratuities, particularly the provision of meals or other free food, has come up on a number of occasions, usually by way of comment as opposed to any formal complaint. Although the Auditor has heard these comments over the years, there has been no concrete evidence that suggested police officers accepted free or discounted meals from local restaurants while they were on their on-duty meal break. Recently, however, a department-wide email and bulletin board posting inviting officers to do just that, come in to the soliciting restaurant on-duty, in uniform for a free or discounted meal, was openly published through out the department. This is a clear violation of department�s Standard Operating Procedure, which states, in part: RECEIVING OR ACCEPTING ANY FEE, REWARD OR GIFT, OF ANY KIND FOR SERVICES RENDERED, OR PRETENDING TO BE RENDERED:

No officer or employee of the Police Department shall expect or accept extra compensation in any form from any person, outside the Police Department, for

services rendered as part of his official duties, unless same is approved by the Chief of Police. No officer or employee shall solicit or accept any form of compensation or gift for the performance of, or failure to perform, an act or service which is part of his official duties. This includes but is not limited to accepting or soliciting free or reduced rate meals at restaurants/food establishments, or the free or reduced admission into theatres/sporting events. (Italics added).

When this Office inquired of the department regarding the enforcement of the above cited SOP (Standard Operating Procedure), the department confirmed that this SOP is not and has not been enforced for years. In addition, there was some discussion about how difficult it is to distinguish when discounts, free meals, or other gratuities are violations. This Office reviewed the various Police Department and City Personnel policies on the same and found them to be practical and straightforward. The overall prohibition against receiving gratuities is to avoid an actual or perceived quid pro quo. That is, the trading of a public power (or benefit) for a personal benefit. Examples of this are seen in all types of city business � a

16

purchasing contractor for the city could not receive gifts from a vendor, for instance. For the police, however, the public service is generally security or the presence of officers. The department currently has a bright line rule established in its policy. Bright line rules are useful because thy are easy to apply -- in this case, officers are told that they are to completely avoid free or reduced rate meals or tickets. It makes a great deal of sense to have a simple, strong rule about these issues. In the case of giving free or reduced meals to officers in uniform or on-duty, such activity looks like buying their presence, their protection. There is a long and troubled history in the annals of U.S. policing about this form of �shakedown� or buying protection, which is why many departments flatly prohibit any conduct which may appear to constitute such a problem. In addition, there is a question of fairness. Other citizens and businesses that do not provide free meals may not have the same opportunities as those that do. Will they then receive less service? These issues make it quite natural that the department would have adopted a bright line rule about such conduct. Bright line rules are useful because they do not require the department to evaluate every

situation individually to determine whether there is the potential for conflict. The down side to such a test is that the rule must usually be set so that it outlaws all impermissible conduct and, in the process, manages to outlaw permissible behavior as well. Not all offers of benefits pose a conflict of interest for City employees, of course. The test is whether there is a personal benefit given for a public service or benefit. Offers made by local businesses which provide discounts to employees if they buy tickets or merchandise, for example, are generally not situations where conflicts arise because the offer does not generally confer a public benefit on the company. The employees spend their personal funds at the businesses and, usually, there is no other advantage to the business other than an additional sale. If, however, there is a benefit to the business which should be considered to be a public benefit (such as the presence of officers at a site which helps the business with security), the department is free to change its policies so that it evaluates each offer to determine which are acceptable and which should not be allowed rather than relying on a policy which makes all such offers off-limits. What cannot happen, however, is what has occurred here: the department has an explicit policy

17

on meals and other benefits in its written policies and procedures, and then ignores that policy. This sends a clear, and destructive, message to the members of the department that the written policies and procedures do not need to be obeyed. If the Chief thinks the policy should be other than as written, then change the policy to reflect the standards which should be enforced. (2) Using Unmarked Vehicles For Traffic Stops The Auditor�s Office has also received formal and informal complaints about the department�s willingness to allow officers in unmarked vehicles to conduct traffic stops. Some of these cases occur when the officer is on duty, but in an unmarked vehicle unaccompanied by a marked cruiser. The unmarked vehicle then is the vehicle which follows the civilian car to be stopped. In other cases, the officer has been off-duty and in casual clothes, albeit still with a badge in his or her possession. In both situations, however, the potential for public confusion is quite apparent and the danger to both the officer and the citizen is

quite real. Is the stranger with no readily identifiable markings on his car pulling up behind a citizen�s car actually an officer or a criminal? The safety issue for the officer is also obvious. Here is an officer trying to make a traffic stop without a well-equipped police cruiser or the tools found on his uniform belt. It is also not surprising in these circumstances that citizens would sometimes take actions to elude the officer or to otherwise defend themselves. In fact, in instances where this has occurred, citizens have reported that they thought the person, later identified as a police officer, was a stalker, carjacker, or worse. This leads to the second obvious problem; the public has no good notice that this person behind them is a police officer. The fear and danger to both citizen and officer when attempting an arrest such as this is obvious. The Auditor notes that some departments in other parts of the country have prohibited this type of stop altogether, or have required a marked cruiser to conduct the actual stop, or have the ability to identify the car as an official vehicle with a siren. (3) Managing Policy Changes: Another area where the department lacks sufficient processes by which to affect

18

changes reported by the Auditor, citizens, or other sources is in identifying the need for and implementing effective policy changes. If there were a body or standing work group, like a Risk Management Team, policy changes may occur more smoothly. A case in point: on February 14, 2003, the department issued a new General Order on Traffic Enforcement, specifically on obtaining �Permission to Search Vehicle� cards. This recommendation came from then-Chief of Police, Don Carey. Interim Chief Pepin reported to this Office that the original General Order had been drafted by some members of the command staff. The Order, dated February 14, 2003, caused a great deal of upset among the rank and file, including an article in �The Shield� imploring officers to ignore the order. (See �The Shield,� Volume XXVII, pg. 12). There were many problems with both the statement and application of the law in this original order. On March 10, 2003, the Auditor�s Office published a lengthy �Separate Recommendation Report� outlining the applicable legal principles and suggesting model policy changes based on research conducted by the IACP (International Association of Chiefs of Police). This report was distributed to the Auditing Committee and publicly.

Amid the controversy surrounding this proposed policy change, Chief Don Carey convened a working group to include command staff, rank and file, training, and members from the City Attorney�s Office to draft a new policy � a move the Auditor�s Office applauded. The Chief also invited the Auditor�s Office to participate in the working group. The Auditor�s Office, by ordinance, is to report on the effectiveness of department policies, and is not designed to create specific policies for the subject agencies. Although this Office has and will suggest model policies to subject agencies when the research completed by this office identifies such a model, the actual policy making (including the time consuming drafting, implementing, training, and supervising which must accompany policy implementation) must be done by the subject departments. Given that the Auditor�s Office would be responsible for evaluating the effectiveness of any policy which was produced by the working group, the Auditor declined to participate in the working group. The Auditor did, however, agree to review the working group�s final draft for comment. This Office did review the proposed policy change and suggested several further changes to bring the document into compliance with current law.

19

Those changes were outlined in a memo that was sent to then Acting Interim Chief Pepin as well as the City Attorney�s Office. The City Attorney�s Office concurred with this Office�s corrections to the policy as drafted by the working group. While some changes were adopted in the final order, the most important change was not implemented. The current policy states: �An adult front seat passenger, not wearing a vehicle restraint is required to provide identification.� (See, General Order 7-03 Supplement #2, Section I (B) paragraph three). A review of the current seat belt law provides no authority for this statement whatsoever. Moreover, the City Attorney�s representative agreed that there was no legal support for this statement. And, yet, this erroneous statement of the law found its way into the final General Order. The Auditor�s Office has suggested to the department three times since that this General Order be corrected as it is an incorrect statement of the law. The change has still not been made. The problem with a delay in correcting such an erroneous statement is that the mistake is compounded by the passage of time. New recruits will come along and apply this incorrect standard as they learn the

department�s policies and practices. Officers and organizations become set in their ways and it becomes ever more difficult to remove an authority once it becomes ingrained in the practices of the department. But it must be corrected and now officers must be retrained so that any personnel who have been ordering production of ID under these circumstances can learn of the corrected procedure. This is just a single example of how and why it is so important to have an effective policy review and implementation system in place within the department. Unfortunately, nothing of the like exists today and the department should forthwith convene a Risk Management Team, as suggested in past reports. (4) Additional Trends ■ Investigation of Property Damage Complaints Another frequent pattern of complaint revolves around police investigations, both traffic and criminal, but primarily property damage complaints. In many instances, there is a sense from officers within the department that these investigations are more civil in nature. Often citizens complain that OPD treats vandalism, theft of property, damage to vehicles, employee

20

theft, credit card or identity theft, and traffic accidents as though they are matters for insurance companies. While the criminal incident may result in an insurance claim, it is still fundamentally a criminal investigation and should be conducted thoroughly per SOP, ordinance, and statute. Citizens often complain that when they have questions about their investigation, they either get the sense from the officer that the case is not being treated seriously, their questions are not being answered, the investigation is not complete, the proper and full reporting is not occurring, or if they call the precinct for follow up after the incident, they either get the run around or no response at all. A particularly frustrating example of the abovementioned pattern was a case where a citizen reported that her car had been stolen while she was in an establishment. The particular business had video cameras outside the building. The complainant was upset that although she reported this fact to the police, they did not attempt to retrieve the cameras. Shortly after her car was reported stolen, a friend called to say that she thought she spotted the car in a parking lot near the airport. The complainant again called the police department, but they reported they did not find the vehicle. The next day, the complainant went to the parking lot where she did find her vehicle.

Unfortunately, when she did find the vehicle, it had been stripped down. In addition, the vehicle had been ticketed for a parking violation. She was particularly upset that the parking violation did not trigger identification of the vehicle as stolen. The complainant again called the police while she still was at the lot. The responding officer, who she reported was very nice, suggested she protest or appeal the parking ticket citing the circumstances surrounding the violation. The complainant reported she did appeal the ticket, but the appeal was denied. Not surprisingly, by the time she reported this incident to the Auditor�s Office, she was exasperated and did not want to go forward with any other complaints or appeals. However, she did want someone to know how poorly she felt her case had been handled. Managing investigations to a level of satisfaction that inspires confidence in the community is critical to instilling a level of professionalism in that department. If the department does not enjoy such a reputation in its community, then it is incumbent upon that department to find out why the community is dissatisfied and attempt to address those concerns. The level of feedback about the community�s dissatisfaction about investigations is high as reflected in numerous reports. Yet, the department has not made any meaningful changes or

21

taken any efforts to address this concern. This is another area where serious reflection on citizen feedback, corrective action, and communication with the community could greatly enhance police/community relations. ■ Investigation of Traffic Issues There are two frequent complaints involving traffic issues: enforcement and investigations. First, there is the complaint that the department under enforces aggressive driving, like speeding, running red lights, following too closely etc. Second, there is the complaint in the East Omaha communities that the department over enforces on minor violations like improper display of plates, items dangling from the rear view mirror, throwing a cigarette out the window etc. The Auditor�s Office is currently working on a study of disparate treatment in enforcement which may shed some additional light on these issues. (5) Recommendation In a number of past reports, including this year�s first quarter report, the Auditor�s Office has recommended that the

department convene a work group or a Risk Management Team. The purpose of this team would be to bring a new, multi-disciplinary approach to problem solving within the department. Members could be drawn from command, rank and file, training, non-sworn, City Attorney�s Office, Mayor�s Office etc. The group could undertake in depth study of policy changes, make recommendations, undertake community surveys, feedback or dialogue in any form, on any number of issues as they arise in the department so that whatever action the department takes is more fully fleshed out, briefed, and commented on before implementation. The idea would be to produce a more balanced, well-researched, best practices approach to policing tactics, practices, policies, or strategies. While this is a fairly new approach in policing, many more departments across the country are and have moved to this model. If the department undertook the research, there would be plenty of models from around the country to examine. Each and every issue listed in this section of the Report could benefit from the review of such a Risk Management group. C. Customer Service Survey The Auditor gathers feedback from citizens who use the complaint process through the

22

use of a survey. The Auditor�s Office mails the survey form to any citizen who has been identified by Internal Affairs as having a �pending complaint.� This quarter, the office sent out 56 surveys and received 13 completed surveys about the OPD Internal Affairs. The results of those survey forms for this quarter are recorded in Appendix G to this report. A copy of the survey form is also included in Appendix G to this Report. D. Status of Prior Recommendations The prior recommendations made by the Auditor�s Office in previous reports, and the status of their implementation or other response by OPD, is tracked in Appendix I. E. Additional Updates Three important developments worth reporting occurred this past quarter at OPD.

(1) Training Unit:

The OPD Training Unit moved into its new location at 4343 North 52nd Street, Omaha Home for Boys Campus, Herd Building. This location is better suited than the last for training in nearly every way. It is much

larger and it is contained in one building and doesn�t compete with other activities in the area. Additional facilities are available for use on the campus. The new facility also houses the new driving simulator as well and the shoot/no shoot simulator training program. The new location and equipment go a long way to improve the overall training picture for the department. Finally, the department appears to be placing the kind of importance on training which it deserves. Congratulations to the Training Unit for all of their work in making the move possible. Already more classes and in service trainings are underway. (2) In-Service Training: In addition to a new training facility, the new union contract contains a provision requiring 16 hours of in-service training the first year and an increase of 8 hours per year thereafter. This, too, is a very big step for this department. Generally speaking, departments across the country with top training programs will invest up to 100 hours per year per employee in-service training. In-service training is the department�s best tool to insure everyone in the organization is learning and upgrading the same skills based on the department�s

23

needs and changes in the law. It is often the only time a department meets as a whole to discuss tactics, strategies, practices, policies etc. It is difficult, in fact, to imagine how the department has been managing an organization of this size without a regular, mandatory training plan. In the past, OPD has had no mandatory in-service training. It has been the source of numerous recommendations and the cause of a multitude of complaints. By finally making a training commitment, the department will reap benefits well into the future. The department can expect higher job performance and satisfaction as well as increased customer service and reduced complaint rates. (3) New Educational Requirements: Lastly, the City Personnel Board recently approved a new educational requirement for OPD captains and lieutenants. A plan to phase in associate�s then bachelor�s degrees as prerequisites for applying for those positions was adopted. A similar plan is contemplated for the Fire Department. Again, the added emphasis on education, with the attendant critical thinking training, will greatly improve the overall professionalism of both departments. As these

organizations and leadership positions become more and more complicated, the additional training is a necessity to maintain quality leadership. Congratulations to all in each department and the administration who were involved in these critical changes.

24

III. Review Of The Omaha Fire Department A. Statistical Report: For the quarter ending September 30, 2004, the Omaha Fire Department had only two citizen complaints filed with its internal affairs unit. See Table 20. Table 20: Number of Formal Complaints Filed Month Complaints Filed July 1 August 0 September 1 Total 2 Of these two Complaints, one complainant decided not to proceed with the full process, and that complaint was not investigated. Complaints in this category are recorded as �Did Not Formalize� or �DNF� complaints and are listed in Table 21 Table 21: Complaints Which Were Not Formalized Month DNF�d

Complaints July 1 August 0 September 0 Total 1

With only one formalized complaint filed in September, it is not surprising that the department has not yet completed that investigation, and that there are no completed investigative files to be audited this quarter. See Table 22. Table 22: OFD Internal Affairs Investigations Completed Month Investigations

Completed July 0 August 0 September 0 Total 0 Without completed investigations to audit, the only information left to report about the Fire Department this quarter consists of information related to the department�s obligation to notify this office about impending interviews Table 23 lists the number of interviews conducted by the Internal Affairs section of the Fire Department on citizen complaints. Table 24 tracks the number of times that the Auditor was notified in advance of the time of the interview. Table 25 lists the number of interviews actually attended by the Auditor.

25

Table: 23: OFD Interviews Conducted Month Interviews July 1 August 0 September 1 Total 2 Table: 24: OFD Prior Notifications Month Notifications July 1 August 0 September 1 Total 2 Table 25: Numbers of OFD Interviews Attended Month Interviews

Attended July 0 August 0 September 0 Total 0 B. Additional Updates: The Omaha Fire Department has adopted all of the prior recommendations of the Auditor�s Office and has no outstanding policy issues to address from prior quarterly reports.

The Auditor�s Office also understands that the Department is currently considering how it should clarify the city�s enforcement of the Fire Code with regard to fireworks. The Auditor has previously tendered a Special Report to the Public Safety Committee and to other involved governmental agencies, such as the Mayor�s office. This Special Report discussed the need to establish an even-handed and logical strategy for fireworks enforcement in this city. (The final version of this research and the Auditor�s recommendations will also be available online at the Auditor�s web site). The Auditor applauds the Fire Department�s willingness to tackle this problem and to bring clarity to an issue which has prompted a significant number of complaints of inequitable enforcement each summer.

26

IV. Review of the Work of the PSA Office: A. Overview of the Auditor�s Office Activities: For the fourth summer in a row, the Auditor�s Office detected a mid-year jump in the overall complaint and contact rate reported for the police department. While the number of completed investigations, 26, remains slightly above average, overall contacts were up 60% this quarter from an average of 160 to 257. In addition, another 366 people visited the Auditor�s website this quarter. The Auditor also read and studied 227 interviews of citizen and officer statements about what occurs during the course of contacts that lead to complaints in order to complete the monitoring and auditing of this quarter�s complaints. This data provides ample information, combined with all the other data this office has gathered in over three years, to draw from in order to make the recommendations it does. In fact, the accumulation of data makes detecting trends and patterns more discernible and more voluminous. Much more can accurately be said about the department as the amount of information increases. For this reason, and because the Office,

with the aid of Denise DeForest, finally has the assistance it was always meant to, we were able to revise the quarterly report. The format and some content has been reorganized to try and best relay the meaning of the data, the complaints and the issues they raise, as well as the recommendations offered. The changes are designed to give readers more idea how the report comes about each quarter. The changes are also meant to give the Auditing Committee, the police and fire departments, and the public more access to the work of this office. In addition to the above, this quarter, the Auditor continued work on the CJIMS committee that is, reviewing and monitoring the work of that grant, which is to construct and purchase an information framework that will allow for the building of an integrated criminal justice information management system. As reported in the past, the police department lags far behind most police departments in its information technologies. The past troubles of the department in this regard have been widely reported. The department is attempting to get its records management system back on track independent of the work of the CJIMS grant, but there is some overlap. If matters go as currently planned, the department should see great results in the next six months as both Phase I and II of the overall MIS plan should be completed.

27

While that promise has been made before, at least as far as the CJIMS project goes, the planning, funding, and most of the purchasing is complete. It is the implementation portion of the project that is now proceeding. Currently, it is a race against the clock to make sure all of the work is completed before time runs out on the grant. Lastly, the office continues its outreach efforts by attending community forums and presentations related to contacts with the police and fire departments. The Office also continues to work with its Advisory Committee to further the efforts of outreach by regularly meeting with community representatives. One measurable outcome of these meetings has been to increase the Auditor�s presence at various community meetings where the subject of policing is raised. The Auditor attends and presents at forums sponsored or held by or at many of the organizations served by the Advisory Committee, like Catholic Charities, the Chicano Awareness Center, GOCA, the NAACP, etc. In addition, the Auditor has begun a third fall round of speaking engagements at neighborhood and business associations about the work of the office.

B. Citizen Contacts: The Auditor�s Office fields numerous inquiries from the public in every quarter. The office�s contacts with the public occur primarily through phone calls and office visits. Table 26 tracks the number of public contacts recorded by the office for this quarter. Table 26: Citizen Contacts with the PSA Office Month Contacts July 90 August 95 September 72 Total 257 These public contacts can be further divided into the primary reasons why the contact occurred. Table 27 tracks the various types of public contacts that the Auditor�s Office received in this quarter. Contacts categorized as �Allegation/Inquiry� were public inquiries about initiation of a citizen complaint. Many of the contacts in this category included lengthy discussions between the Auditor and the citizen about the process of completing a Citizen Complaint Form.

28

�Commendations� refer to contacts initiated by citizens to commend the service of specific OPD or OFD personnel. �Referrals� constitute a category of contact where the Auditor or a member of the Auditor�s office referred the citizen to other resources which were more suited to handle the citizen�s question or complaint. Many of these calls were from citizens who did not know where else to call or who were frustrated with prior attempts to find the right person to assist them. The contacts listed as �General Inquiries/Follow Ups� generally refer to the contacts which included questions about the Auditor�s Office or to determine the status of complaints previously filed. �Community Outreach� contacts include calls and visits from members of organizations who are interested in learning more about the Auditor�s Office. Most of these contacts included requests to speak at meetings, forums, and neighborhood events. Many of these contacts are the result of outreach mailings conducted by the Auditor�s Office to neighborhood associations, libraries, school districts and diverse organizations within the Omaha area. The contacts listed in the �Other� category generally offered comments, suggestions, and

other types of input from members of the public in regard to the Auditor�s Office. The �Request for Review� category captures the number of complainants who requested that the Public Safety Auditor review the outcome of their Citizen Complaints. Table 27: Types of Public Contacts Contact Type No. Allegation / Inquiry

111 (109 OPD), 2(OFD)

Commendation 3 (OPD) Referrals to other agencies

13

General Inquiry / Follow Ups

71 (70 OPD, 1 OFD)

Community Outreach

50

Other 9 Requests for Review

0

Total Public Contacts

257

Visits of Website

366

The category of Community Outreach includes a variety of types of contacts, including trips made by the Auditor to appear or speak at a function. Community outreach for the Office of the Public Safety Auditor has three goals:

29

(1) to listen to the needs, opinions, and concerns of the community as to better serve it; (2) to familiarize members of the public with the mission and services of the Office of the Public Safety Auditor; and (3) to encourage and facilitate greater dialogue and collaboration between members of the Omaha Police and Fire Departments and the community they serve. In order to reach these goals, the Auditor actively searches for organizational meetings or other gatherings where she can speak and answer questions. Table 28 tracks the types of organizations visited by the Auditor in this quarter. Appendix E to this Report lists the specific appearances for this quarter. Table 28: Community Outreach Visits By The Auditor Activity Type No. Youth and School

1

Service Clubs 1 Professional Organizations

5

Human Rights / Minority Organizations

3

Neighborhood Assoc.

0

Church Groups 0 Media Presentation

1

Total 11 C. Customer Service Survey: In the same survey form used to gather citizen feedback about the Internal Affairs complaint process, the Auditor also gathers information from citizens about the services provided by this office. This quarter, the office sent out 56 surveys and received 12 completed surveys about the Public Safety Auditor�s Office. The results of those survey forms for this quarter are recorded in Appendix G to this report. A copy of the survey form is also included in Appendix G to this Report. D. Staff Training and Development: During the third quarter of this year, the Auditor attended the following training or development programs: On August 9, 2004, the Auditor attended a mounted horse demonstration at OPD Headquarters. The Auditor continues to track the progress made with the Criminal Justice Information Management Systems (CJIMS)

30

committee, by attending or reviewing minutes, updates, and proposals of various stages of that grant project. On August 24 - 25, 2004, the Auditor and Denise DeForest participated in a conference hosted by the Department of Justice and the Police Executive Research Forum in Kansas City, MO. The purpose of the conference was to learn how to interpret vehicle stop data in a manner consistent with social science principles. The conference was attended primarily by representatives of police departments from the western half of the United States. The Auditor�s Office costs for the trip were paid for by the Police Professionalism Institute at UNO. On September 22nd � 24th, 2004, the Auditor and Denise DeForest attended the second annual Auditor�s Conference held in Portland, Oregon. Twelve to fifteen offices from around the country were represented. These offices included: Los Angeles, New York City, Washington D.C., Portland, OR, Philadelphia, and San Jose, CA, among others. Auditors met to discuss specific technical topics, share ideas, and explore new areas in the field. The conference was sponsored by the Police Professionalism Initiative at UNO and moderated by Professor Sam Walker. Dr. Walker generates a report from the discussions held at the conference. The Police Professionalism Institute also

paid for the travel and expenses incurred by the office for this conference.

31

V. Clarifications and Corrections In last quarter�s June 30th 2004 report, the Auditor incorrectly referred to pepperballs as powerballs twice in the Discussion section on page 4. In that same Report, the Safety Review Board was mistakenly referred to as the �Safety Review Committee.� The Safety Review Board is convened under the authority granted in the Omaha Police Department�s Standard Operating Procedures. The Safety Review Board has the authority to review use of force matters. The Safety Committee, on the other hand, is created as an advisory body under union contract and does not have such authority. The Auditor apologizes for any confusion these errors may have caused.

#

APPENDIX A Sec. 25-9. Independent public safety auditor and auditor committee. A. Purpose. An office of public safety auditor is established to increase public confidence in the internal investigations process, by creating an independent review and audit process of all citizen complaints against any sworn police officer or firefighter. The public safety auditor shall have the authority to review and audit investigations, initiated by citizens' complaints and conducted by the office of professional standards in the police department, or the internal investigation staff in the fire department. The public safety auditor is intended to serve the interests of the public by monitoring the integrity of investigations into citizens' complaints. The auditor committee shall include all members of the city council, the mayor, the police chief and the fire chief. B. Hiring and firing.

1. Retention of services. The public safety auditor, and subordinates of this office, shall be in the classified service and for all hiring, firing, discipline and personnel actions be accountable to the auditor committee in conformance with the personnel rules and regulations set forth in Chapter 23 of the Omaha Municipal Code. The auditor committee shall retain the services of a public safety auditor and his or her support staff; and the public safety auditor shall report directly to the auditor committee.

2. Qualifications. The public safety auditor shall either hold a law degree with legal, investigative, administrative, review or criminal prosecutorial experience or have served at least ten years as a sworn officer in a municipal, county, state or federal law enforcement agency. The public safety auditor shall not have prior experience as a law enforcement officer in a Nebraska municipal, county, or state law enforcement agency. The public safety auditor shall not have any parents, children, and/or siblings who are or who have been sworn officers of the Omaha Police Department or Omaha Fire Department. C. Functions of the independent public safety auditor.

a) To assure citizens that an independent auditor will work in tandem with the office of professional standards (police department) or internal investigation staff (fire department) to promote fair and impartial resolution of citizen complaints against police officers and firefighters.

b) To oversee and to audit investigations conducted by the office of professional

standards (police department), internal investigation staff (fire department), generated by citizen complaints (only), and to provide an independent evaluation and recommendation to the auditor committee. The public safety auditor may make recommendations to the police or fire chief on procedural matters as an outcome of an investigation.

c) To recommend to the auditor committee that it review the investigation and the

determination of the chief of police or fire chief. d) To promote public awareness of a citizen's right to file a complaint.

D. Duties and responsibilities of the auditor.

1. General. The public safety auditor shall review and audit police and fire investigations of civilian complaints against police officers and firefighters to determine if the investigation was complete, thorough, objective and fair.

2. Cooperation. The office of professional standards (police department), and internal

investigation staff (fire department), shall cooperate with the public safety auditor and shall make all records, reports and investigation activities available to the auditor, as described below. The office of professional standards (police department) or internal investigation staff (fire department), shall honor the requests of the public safety auditor for additional information. This may include a request that a specific question to be asked by the investigator in the interview process.

3. Conduct of the investigation. The office of professional standards (police

department) or internal investigation staff (fire department), shall conduct and lead the review/investigation of the citizen complaints. The public safety auditor shall audit the process by reviewing the following: all interviews (both civilian and officer interviews), all tapes and reports of interviews, investigative reports, evidence, tests, employment records and history of employment, or all other material generated during the course of the internal investigation. These materials shall be made available by the office of professional standards (police department) or internal investigation staff (fire department), upon request by the city auditor, on the same business day requested, wherever possible. Likewise, information requested of the public safety auditor by the office of professional standards (police department) or internal investigation staff (fire department), shall be provided on the same business day as requested, wherever possible. The public safety auditor may be present for the purpose of observing interviews, but shall not question witnesses directly. The public safety auditor may present suggested questions to the police officer or firefighter conducting the interview and request that the questions be answered. The office of professional standards (police department) or internal investigation staff (fire department will make a determination as to the relevance of the question so suggested.

4. Further investigation. If the public safety auditor concludes, after the investigation is

completed, that further investigation is warranted, or that the public safety auditor's requests were not adequately addressed during the investigation, the public safety auditor shall express his or her concerns, in writing, to the individual in charge of the investigation, and give such person an opportunity to order the requested follow-up investigation. If the matter can not be resolved, and the public safety auditor believes that further investigation is warranted, the public safety auditor shall make a request, in writing, to the police chief or fire chief (with a copy provided to all members of the auditor committee) for further investigation and review. All reports shall be transmitted to all audit committee members concurrently and never separately, except as outlined in the specific paragraph. If the public safety auditor is not satisfied with the response of the police chief or fire chief, the public safety auditor may make a request, in writing, that the auditor committee review the request in an executive session of the city council (personnel matters).

5. Scope of review by the auditor committee. The public safety auditor may, at his or

her discretion request the auditor committee to meet in executive session to discuss the concerns that the public safety auditor has with the investigation. It is understood that the names of any city employees and/or citizens involved in the investigations will not be revealed by the public safety auditor to the auditor committee, nor will any documents be provided to the committee for use outside of the executive session. All documents used during the executive session will be returned to the public safety auditor, the chief of police, or the fire chief. If no satisfactory resolution is reached by the committee, the chief of police or fire chief shall continue the investigation in the manner that meets professional standards for the conduct of investigations. If, a majority of the city council believes that further investigation is warranted, the council may invoke Charter Section 8.07, investigations by the council, to reinvestigate the matter.

E. Filing complaints.

1. Filing a complaint against a police officer or firefighter. Any person may, at his or her election, file a complaint against any member of the police department or fire department for investigation by the office of professional standards (police department) or internal investigation staff (fire department) with review and audit by the public safety auditor. Citizen complaints shall be filed, signed and attested as a formal complaint in the presence of a command officer or internal affairs officer (or office of professional standards officer) of the Omaha Police Department or internal investigator in the fire department). However, this does not preclude a citizen from initially contacting either a police precinct, police facility, fire facility, the city auditor, or any other city official for advice and assistance with filing a complaint as prescribed above, except that no member of the Omaha Police Department or fire department shall solicit a formal complaint against an officer or firefighter. All initial citizen complaints against a police officer or firefighter shall be immediately and concurrently forwarded to the office of professional standards (police department) or internal investigation staff (fire department) and the office of the city auditor.

2. Dismissal of complaints by citizen. Should a citizen complaint be initiated and later

dropped or discontinued at the request of the complainant, then the investigation and audit will be discontinued as outlined in this section. However, if the police chief or fire chief wishes to continue a review or investigation without a valid citizen complaint, the department shall continue the same outside of the review of this section. A record of the complaint will be kept for statistical purposes and statistical reporting only.

F. Initial establishment.

1. Effective date. The office of public safety auditor shall be established on January 1, 2001. However, the city council shall initiate the appropriate budgeting and personnel recruitment steps through the personnel department to recruit and hire the public safety auditor and the authorized support staff in advance of January 1, 2001, and this shall commence as soon as possible after the effective date of this section.

2. Preliminary budgeting. Initial budget obligations shall be provided before January 1,

2001, by city council fund transfer ordinances to sustain the initial startup expenditures as required. Thereafter, and in subsequent years, the public safety auditor shall be appropriated funds in the normal city budgeting process similar to other city departments, and shall be included within the police department and fire department budget.

3. Staffing. The office of city auditor shall initially be staffed with the public safety

auditor, one staff auditor assistant, and one administrative assistant. The public safety auditor shall be exempted from the job bank provisions outlined in city personnel policy No. 18 "hiring and promoting procedures", subtitled job bank, page four.

G. Reporting function.

1. Quarterly reports. The public safety auditor shall file quarterly statistical reports, with the city clerk for transmittal to the auditor committee, which shall:

a. Include a statistical analysis documenting the number of complaints by category, the number of complaints sustained, and the actions taken; b. Analyze trends and patterns; c. Make recommendations; d. Not include officer or citizen names, times and/or places, or other personal data of specific investigations or complaints.

2. Updates. The public safety auditor shall provide timely updates on the progress of

the office of professional standards' (police department), or internal investigation staff (fire department) investigations to any complainant who so requests, however, strict confidentiality, as outlined below, shall be adhered to.

H. Confidentiality.

1. Strict confidentiality. The public safety auditor shall comply with all state laws requiring the confidentiality of police department, fire department and other city personnel, and investigative records and information as well as the privacy rights of all individuals involved in the process. No written quarterly reports to the auditor committee shall contain the name of any individual city employee or witness, or the facts of any specific investigation. Reports or information conveyed during an executive session of the city council shall contain no names and information discussed during those sessions shall remain confidential.

No auditor committee member shall discuss the progress of an investigation with the public safety auditor, or receive information from the public safety auditor, except as described above, in an executive session or by receipt of a quarterly report. Neither the public safety auditor, nor any member of his/her staff, nor any member of the auditor committee shall discuss matters related to internal investigations with any other person or persons, other than as prescribed herein. Failure to comply with the confidentiality provisions as outlined herein shall be grounds for removal of the independent auditor or any member of his staff. I. Independence of the auditor. The public safety auditor shall, at all times, be totally independent and requests for further investigations, recommendations and reports shall reflect the views of the public safety auditor alone. No person shall attempt to undermine the independence of the public safety auditor in the performance of the duties and responsibilities set forth above. (Ord. No. 35280, § 1, 7-25-00; Ord. No. 35792, § 1, 12-11-01) Secs. 25-10--25-19. Reserved.

Appendix “B”

Public Safety Auditor Brochure

HOW TO CONTACT US It’s our pleasure to serve the community, we welcome your comments:

1.In person: 1905 Harney Street, Ste. 530, Omaha, NE 68102

2.By phone: (402) 546-1704

3.By fax: (402) 996-8361

4.By e-mail: tbonn@ci.omaha.ne.us

MISSION STATEMENT The Public Safety Auditor’s mission is to provide an independent review and to promote public awareness of the citizen complaint process, thereby increasing greater accountability by the Omaha Police and Fire Departments.

Office of the Public Safety Auditor 1905 Harney Street, Ste. 530

Omaha, NE 68102

CITY OF OMAHA

PUBLIC SAFETY AUDITOR’S OFFICE

“We are here to serve you”

Tristan Bonn, Auditor

Appendix “B”

OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY AUDITOR The purpose of the Auditor’s Office is to provide independent oversight of citizen complaints filed about the Police and Fire Departments. The office was established to monitor formal citizen complaints, collect statistical data on citizen complaints, prepare and publish reports containing recommendations that reflect the needs of the community, and educate the public about the complaint process. Citizen feedback, then, can assist the Police and Fire Departments in making strategic choices, allocating resources, reducing liability, and addressing the community’s safety concerns. This approach allows for a systematic means to improve the Police and Fire Departments’ service to the community.

The operating philosophy of the Office of the Public Safety Auditor consists of the following guiding principles under which this Office strives to reach its goals:

- to provide equal, fair, and impartial access to the services of the Public Safety Auditor; without regard to age, race, gender, creed, color, nationality, or station in life;

- to treat all individuals, regardless of their attitude or demeanor, with the same courtesy, tolerance, sensitivity, and dignity

any person would expect if placed in a similar situation;

- to provide quality, timely, objective, and responsive services to those persons who request the assistance of this Office.

ABOUT THE AUDITOR Tristan Bonn graduated from the University of Arizona in 1981, and continued her education at Creighton University School of Law; graduating from Creighton in 1985. She has a master’s degree in history from the University of Colorado and previously worked 7 years as the Senior Prosecuting Attorney for the City of Colorado Springs. Prior to that, she was in private practice for ten years, she also taught a variety of legal classes to undergraduates and master’s degree candidates at the University of Phoenix and Regis University in Colorado Springs. Tristan has served as the Public Safety Auditor for the City of Omaha since June 4th, 2001.

Theresa Ellrott is the office secretary. Prior to working for the Auditor’s Office, Theresa was in the Telephone Response Unit at the Omaha Police Department for several years. She brings great computer and administrative skills to the office.

Denise DeForest, formerly of the Denver Public Safety Review and the Colorado Attorney General’s Office, is currently working as a researcher in our office. Denise has years of experience in

the field of oversight and is working on some projects and reports for the office. .

COMMUNITY OUTREACH

The Auditor has and will continue to provide information about the office through media, school, and community meetings and presentations. If your group, club, or organization would like to learn more or is interested in having the Auditor speak at one of your gatherings, please contact the office. We look forward to hearing from you and we look forward to serving the community.

CITIZEN COMPLAINT FORMS Formal citizen complaint forms for complaints about the Omaha Police Department are available at:

-Precinct Front Desks and at Headquarters

-Mayor’s Action Office

-Any Branch of Omaha Public Library

-Public Safety Auditor’s Office

-www.opd.ci.omaha.ne.us

For information regarding formal citizen complaints about the Omaha Fire Department, contact the Auditor’s Office or the Fire Chief or Assistant Fire Chief at (402) 444-5745.

Appendix “C” Pending Complaint Form

NOTIFICATION OF PENDING COMPLAINT

II-No.____________________

Investigator: ____________________ Day/Date/Time I/A Notified: _________________________________

Name of Complainant(s):_____________________________________________________________________ Home Address: ____________________________________________________________________________ Home Phone No.: ___________________________ Alternate Phone No.: _____________________________ Attachments: Yes ______ No ______ If so, what? _______________________________________________________________________________ RB Number(s) of Incident Reports(s), if any: ____________________________________________________ Complaint Against Officer(s)/Civilian Employee(s): 1. _________________________________________ 4. ___________________________________________ 2. _________________________________________ 5. ___________________________________________ 3. _________________________________________ 6. ___________________________________________ Day, Date & Time of Occurrence: _____________________________________________________________ Synopsis of Complaint: _____________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Signature of Person Receiving Complaint: _______________________________________________________ cc: D.C. Brenda Smith – Office of Professional Standards Tristan Bonn - Public Safety Auditor

15th Day ___________ 20th Day ___________ 30th Day ___________ 45th Day ___________ No Time Limit ______

Appendix “D” Citizen’s Commendation/Inquiry/Complaint Form

OMAHA POLICE DEPARTMENT

CITIZEN’S COMMENDATION/INQUIRY/COMPLAINT

I.I. NUMBER________________

1. Please complete this form, then contact the Internal Affairs Unit at 444-

5629. Office hours are Monday through Friday, from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM and voice mail is available 24 hours-a-day, 7 days-a-week. You may also forward a message to the Department via the web at www.opd.ci.omaha.ne.us, for the attention of Internal Affairs.

2. Once the Internal Affairs Unit is notified of your formal complaint, the

assigned investigator will contact you to schedule an appointment for an interview with you. Efforts will be made to accommodate all citizens with particular needs or concerns.

3. Although this form may be mailed, it’s more efficient to bring this form with

you when you come in for your interview. A copy will be provided to you. 4. You will receive a letter from the Chief of Police with the results of the

investigation when it is completed.

NOTE: You will be allowed to bring a personal representative or associate with you to the interview if you desire.

Internal Affairs Investigator __________________________________ Telephone Extension ________________________________________ I am completing this form on:

Date ______________________________ Time _______________________

Name ____________________________________________________________ Print (Last) (First) (Middle)

Address __________________________________________________________

City ____________________ State _________________ Zip Code ________

Home Phone ________________________ Alternate Phone _______________

Appendix “D”

THE INCIDENT I AM REFERRING TO OCCURRED ON ( ) AM Day ______________ Date __________________ Time ___________( ) PM

Location _________________________________________________________

WITNESSES TO THIS INCIDENT (If known)

Name __________________ Address ____________________Phone ________

Name __________________ Address ____________________Phone ________

OMAHA POLICE OFFICER(S)/EMPLOYEE(S) INVOLVED IN THIS

INCIDENT (If known)

Name _________________________ Rank _______ Badge/Serial No. ______

Name _________________________ Rank _______ Badge/Serial No. ______

Note: Guilt or innocence of any criminal charge you may be facing is not determined

by this investigation. You are still required to attend any scheduled court appearance

you may have.

Describe what happened. If you need more space for your description or to list the names of more witnesses or involved officer/employees, you may attach additional sheets of paper. __________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

Signature __________________________________________________ Date ______________ It is very important that truthful accounts are given by all concerned. Your signature certifies the truthfulness of your statements. Please sign this form at the time of your interview which acknowledges your understanding of such.

Appendix “D”

WHAT TO EXPECT AFTER A COMPLAINT IS FILED • You will be contacted by either the Internal Affairs unit commander or his/her

designate to confirm receipt of the complaint. • The assigned investigator will schedule an interview time and location with you

at your convenience. • All witnesses and involved police officers/employees will be interviewed

concerning the incident. • The interviews will be tape-recorded by Internal Affairs and become part of the

official investigation. • When the investigation is completed, it will be forwarded to the Chief of Police

for his/her review and findings. • If it is found that rules or regulations were violated, the officer/employees’

supervisors will recommend the appropriate discipline. • No matter what the outcome of the investigation, you will receive written

notification of the findings. • The investigation will be monitored and audited by the Public Safety Auditor. • Should you decide not to continue with or pursue a formal investigation by

Internal Affairs, you have the option at any time during the process, to request that the matter be brought to the attention of the officer/employees’ supervisor for his/her information or action. While it is not considered to be a formalized Internal Affairs investigation, the matter will still be examined and appropriately handled by a supervisor. The matter will be documented, but you will not receive a letter from the chief with a disposition.

• If at any time you have questions concerning the process, you may contact the

Internal Affairs Unit at 444-5629 or the Office of the Public Safety Auditor at 546-1704.

The Omaha Police Department thanks you for taking the time to bring this matter to our attention.

Det

ach

this

pag

e pr

ior t

o su

bmitt

ing

and

reta

in fo

r you

r inf

orm

atio

n

Appendix “D”

DEPARTAMENTO DE POLICÍA DE OMAHA

LA RECOMENDACIÓN DE HONOR/LA INVESTIGACIÓN/LA QUEJA

DEL CIUDADANO

I.I. NÚMERO _______________________

1. Complete por favor esta forma y entonces avise a la Oficina de Asuntos Internos al 444-5629. La oficina está abierta de lunes a viernes, de las 8:00AM hasta las 4:00PM y el contestador teléfonico está disponible las 24 horas al día, siete días de la semana. También puede enviar un mensaje al departamento en la red en http://www.opd.ci.omaha.ne.us/, para la atención de la oficina de Asuntos Internos.

2. Una vez que la Oficina de Asuntos Internos se notifica de su queja formal, el investigador asignado le avisará para planificar una cita para una entrevista con usted. Los esfuerzos se harán para acomodar cualquier y a todo ciudadano con necesidades particulares o lo que le concierne.

3. Aunque esta forma se puede enviar, es más eficiente traerla cuando llega a su entrevista. Se le dará una copia.

4. Usted recibirá una carta del jefe de la policía con los resultados de la investigación cuando se complete.

NOTA:Usted será permitido traer un representante o socio personal con usted a la entrevista si usted lo desea.

El Investigador ____________________________________

Extensión telefónica ________________________________

He completado esta forma en:

Fecha ______________________________ Hora ______________________________

Nombre: _______________________________________________________________

Apellido Primero Inicial

Dirección _______________________________________________________________

Ciudad ____________________Estado ______________ Código postal ____________

Número de Teléfono ______________________otro # de Teléfono ________________

OPD Form 80-S (11/02)

Appendix “D”

EL INCIDENTE A QUE ME REFIERO OCURRIÓ

Día ___________________ Fecha _____________________Hora ____________

Localidad __________________________________________________________

LOS TESTIGOS EN ESTE INCIDENTE (si tiene su información)

Nombre _____________ dirección _________________Número de teléfono ________

Nombre _____________ dirección _________________Número de teléfono ________

EL OFICIAL DE LA POLICÍA O EMPLEADO IMPLICADO EN ESTE

INCIDENTE (si lo conoce)

Nombre _________________________Rango ___________Número de placa _______

Nombre _________________________Rango ___________Número de placa _______

Nota: La culpa o la inocencia de algún cargo criminal que usted puede afrontar no es determinado por esta investigación. Se requiere que asista a cualquier y todas las citas de la corte tribunal.

Describa lo que aconteció. Si usted necesita más espacio para su descripción o para escribir los nombres de más testigos, oficiales o empleados implicado, usted puede añadir más hojas.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Firma ________________________________________________________________

Es muy importante que las versiones de todos los involucrados sean honestas. Su firma indica que su versión es verdad. Por favor firme esta forma al momento de su entrevista la cual afirma que Ud. ha entendido esta declaración.

LO QUE PUEDE ESPERAR DESPUÉS DE PRESENTAR UNA QUEJA

• Se le avisará por el comandante de la oficina de Asuntos Internos o su persona designada para confirmar el recibo de la queja.

• El investigador asignado planificará una hora y sitio para la entrevista que más le convenga.

• Todos los testigos y la policía o empleados implicados serán entrevistados.

Appendix “D”

• Las entrevistas serán grabadas y formarán parte de la investigación.

• Cuando se termina la investigación, será enviado al Jefe de La Policía para su reviso y conclusiones.

• Si se encuentra que los reglamentos o las reglas se violaron, el supervisor del oficial o empleado recomendará la disciplina apropriada.

• Según los resultados de la investigación, usted recibirá la notificación escrita con las conclusiones del jefe.

• La investigación será supervisada y verificada por la Auditora de la Seguridad Pública.

• Si usted decide no continuar una investigación formal por la oficina de Asuntos Internos, usted tiene la opción durante el proceso en cualquier momento de pedir que este asunto sea presentado al supervisor del oficial o empleado para su información o acción. Aunque esta investigación no se considera una formal de la oficina de Asuntos Internos, este asunto seguirá examinado y dirigido por un supervisor de una manera apropiada. El asunto será documentado. Sin embargo usted no recibirá una carta con los resultados del Jefe de Policía.

• Si en cualquier momento usted tiene preguntas con respecto al proceso, usted puede avisar a la oficina de Asuntos Internos al 444-5629 o Auditora de la Seguridad Pública al 546-1704.

El Departamento de Policía de Omaha les agradece por su tiempo en este asunto.

OFD-9(P) (2/03) 1 of 3

OMAHA FIRE DEPARTMENT

CITIZEN’S INQUIRY/COMPLAINT FORM

I.I. NUMBER________________

1. Please complete this form, then contact the Internal Affairs Unit at 444-

4993. Office hours are Monday through Friday, from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM and voice mail is available 24 hours-a-day, 7 days-a-week. You may also forward a message to the Department via the web at iao@ci.omaha.ne.us, for the attention of Internal Affairs.

2. Once the Internal Affairs Unit is notified of your formal complaint, the

assigned investigator will contact you to schedule an appointment for an interview with you. Efforts will be made to accommodate all citizens with particular needs or concerns.

3. Although this form may be mailed, it’s more efficient to bring this form with

you when you come in for your interview. A copy will be provided to you. 4. You will receive a letter from the Fire Chief with the results of the

investigation when it is completed.

NOTE: You will be allowed to bring a personal representative or associate with you to the interview if you desire.

Internal Affairs Officer __________________________________ Telephone Extension ________________________________________ I am completing this form on:

Date ______________________________ Time _______________________

Name ____________________________________________________________ Print (Last) (First) (Middle)

Address __________________________________________________________

City ____________________ State _________________ Zip Code ________

Home Phone ________________________ Alternate Phone _______________

OFD-9(P) (2/03) 2 of 3

THE INCIDENT I AM REFERRING TO OCCURRED ON ( ) am Day ______________ Date __________________ Time ___________( ) pm

Location _________________________________________________________

WITNESSES TO THIS INCIDENT (If known)

Name __________________ Address ____________________Phone ________

Name __________________ Address ____________________Phone ________

Name __________________ Address ____________________Phone ________

Name __________________ Address ____________________Phone ________

OMAHA FIREFIGHTERS(S)/EMPLOYEE(S) INVOLVED IN THIS

INCIDENT (If known)

Name _________________________ Rank _______ Badge/Serial No. ______

Name _________________________ Rank _______ Badge/Serial No. ______

Name _________________________ Rank _______ Badge/Serial No. ______

Name _________________________ Rank _______ Badge/Serial No. ______ Describe what happened. If you need more space for your description or to list the names of more witnesses or involved firefighter/employees, you may attach additional sheets of paper. __________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

Signature __________________________________________________ Date ______________ It is very important that truthful accounts are given by all concerned. Your signature certifies the truthfulness of your statements. Please sign this form at the time of your interview which acknowledges your understanding of such.

OFD-9(P) (2/03) 3 of 3

WHAT TO EXPECT AFTER A COMPLAINT IS FILED

• When you call to make your appointment you will talk directly to the Internal

Affairs Investigator who will set the time of your appointment and document the details of your incident.

• The Internal Investigator will schedule an interview time and location with you

at your convenience. • All witnesses and involved firefighter/employees will be interviewed

concerning the incident. • The interviews will be tape-recorded by Internal Affairs and become part of the

official investigation. • When the investigation is completed, it will be forwarded to the Fire Chief for

his/her review and findings. • If it is found that rules or regulations were violated, the Fire Chief will

determine the appropriate discipline. • No matter what the outcome of the investigation, you will receive written

notification of the findings. • The investigation will be monitored and audited by the Public Safety Auditor. • Should you decide not to continue with or pursue a formal investigation by

Internal Affairs, you have the option at any time during the process, to request that the matter be brought to the attention of the Fire Chief for his/her information or action. While it is not considered to be a formalized Internal Affairs investigation, the matter will still be examined and appropriately handled by a supervisor. The matter will be documented, but you will not receive a letter from the Fire Chief with a disposition.

• If at any time you have questions concerning the process, you may contact the

Internal Affairs Unit at 444-4993 or the Office of the Public Safety Auditor at 546-1704.

The Omaha Fire Department thanks you for taking the time to bring this matter to our attention.

Det

ach

this

pag

e pr

ior t

o su

bmitt

ing

and

reta

in fo

r you

r inf

orm

atio

n

OFD Form 9s (2/03)

CUERPO DE BOMBEROS DE OMAHA

LA RECOMENDACIÓN DE HONOR/LA INVESTIGACIÓN/LA QUEJA

DEL CIUDADANO

I.I. NÚMERO _______________________

1. Complete por favor esta forma y entonces avise a la Oficina de Asuntos Internos al 444-4993. La oficina está abierta de lunes a viernes, de las 8:00AM hasta las 4:00PM y el contestador teléfonico está disponible las 24 horas al día, siete días de la semana. También puede enviar un mensaje al departamento en la red en iao@ci.omaha.ne.us, para la atención de la oficina de Asuntos Internos.

2. Una vez que la Oficina de Asuntos Internos se notifica de su queja formal, el investigador asignado le avisará para planificar una cita para una entrevista con usted. Los esfuerzos se harán para acomodar cualquier y a todo ciudadano con necesidades particulares o lo que le concierne.

3. Aunque esta forma se puede enviar, es más eficiente traerla cuando llega a su entrevista. Se le dará una copia.

4. Usted recibirá una carta del jefe del Fuego con los resultados de la investigación cuando se complete.

NOTA:Usted será permitido traer un representante o socio personal con usted a la entrevista si usted lo desea.

El Investigador ____________________________________

Extensión telefónica ________________________________

He completado esta forma en:

Fecha______ ______________________________ Hora ___________________

Nombre completo:__________________________________________________ Apellido Primero Inicial

Dirección:_________________________________________________________

Ciudad ________________________Estado________ Código postal__________

Número de Teléfono___________________Otro # de Teléfono_______________

OFD Form 9s (2/03)

EL INCIDENTE A QUE ME REFIERO OCURRIÓ

Día _____________ Fecha _________________________Hora ______________

Localidad__________________________________________________________

LOS TESTIGOS EN ESTE INCIDENTE (si tiene su información)

Nombre ______________ dirección______________Número de teléfono_______

Nombre ______________dirección ______________Número de teléfono_______

Nombre ______________ dirección______________Número de teléfono_______

Nombre ______________ dirección______________Número de teléfono_______

BOMBEROS O EMPLEADO IMPLICADO EN ESTE

INCIDENTE (si lo conoce)

Nombre _____________________Rango ___________Número de placa _______

Nombre _____________________Rango ___________Número de placa _______

Nombre _____________________Rango ___________Número de placa _______

Nombre _____________________Rango ___________Número de placa _______

Nota: La culpa o la inocencia de algún cargo criminal que usted puede afrontar no es determinado por esta investigación. Se requiere que asista a cualquier y todas las citas de la corte tribunal.

Describa lo que aconteció. Si usted necesita más espacio para su descripción o para escribir los nombres de más testigos, bomberos o empleados implicado, usted puede añadir más hojas.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Firma ______________________________________________Fecha__________________

Es muy importante que las versiones de todos los involucrados sean honestas. Su firma indica que su versión es verdad. Por favor firme esta forma al momento de su entrevista la cual afirma que Ud. ha entendido esta declaración.

OFD Form 9s (2/03)

LO QUE PUEDE ESPERAR DESPUÉS DE PRESENTAR UNA QUEJA

• Se le avisará por el comandante de la oficina de Asuntos Internos o su persona designada para confirmar el recibo de la queja.

• El investigador asignado planificará una hora y sitio para la entrevista que más le convenga.

• Todos los testigos y la policía o empleados implicados serán entrevistados.

• Las entrevistas serán grabadas y formarán parte de la investigación.

• Cuando se termina la investigación, será enviado al Jefe del Fuego para su reviso y conclusiones.

• Si se encuentra que los reglamentos o las reglas se violaron, el Jefe del Fuego recomendará la disciplina apropriada.

• Según los resultados de la investigación, usted recibirá la notificación escrita con las conclusiones del jefe.

• La investigación será supervisada y verificada por la Auditora de la Seguridad Pública.

• Si usted decide no continuar una investigación formal por la oficina de Asuntos Internos, usted tiene la opción durante el proceso en cualquier momento de pedir que este asunto sea presentado al Jefe del Fuego para su información o acción. Aunque esta investigación no se considera una formal de la oficina de Asuntos Internos, este asunto seguirá examinado y dirigido por un supervisor de una manera apropiada. El asunto será documentado. Sin embargo usted no recibirá una carta con los resultados del Jefe del Fuego.

• Si en cualquier momento usted tiene preguntas con respecto al proceso, usted puede avisar a la oficina de Asuntos Internos al 444-4993 o Auditora de la Seguridad Pública al 546-1704.

El Cuerpo de Bomberos de Omaha les agradece por su tiempo en este asunto.

Appendix “E” Community Outreach

July Appeared on “People to People” With Cheryl Weston, Channel 23 Met with Outreach Advisory Committee, Special Guest Police Chief Thomas Warren Met with Sam Walker, UNO Met with “Families and Mothers Against Conspiracy” August Attended demonstration of Mounted Patrol Unit Met with Jose Luis Cuevos, Consul of Mexico Attended PERF Conference on Racial Profiling in Kansas City, MO Presented to the South Omaha Kiwanis Club at the Chicano Awareness Center Met with members of the Boys Town Audit Program Met with Sam Walker, UNO September Attended Auditor’s Convention in Portland, OR

Appendix “G” Customer Service Survey

The Office of the Public Safety Auditor continued sending Customer Service Survey’s to Citizens that initiated complaints with either the Omaha Police or Fire Departments during this quarter. Letters were sent to citizens once the Auditor’s Office received a pending complaint form identifying the citizen and their specific complaint. A self-addressed stamped-envelope was included with the surveys to encourage participation. Responses were anonymous. The surveys asked the same questions regarding service provided by either the OPD’s or the OFD’s Internal Affairs Units and the Public Safety Auditor’s Office. A total of 56 letters were mailed to citizens during the first quarter, of those, 12 completed surveys were returned pertaining to the Auditor’s Office and 13 completed surveys were returned pertaining to OPD’s Internal Affairs Unit. The following is a breakdown of the questions and the responses pertaining to either OPD’s Internal Affair Unit or the Public Safety Auditors Office. No surveys pertaining to the OFD were received. 1. How receptive was the staff when you first had contact with the office (ie. were you made to

feel comfortable and welcomed)?

Public Safety Auditor’s Office: Excellent-4 Above Average-7 Average-1 Below Average-0 Poor-0 No Opinion-0

OPD Internal Affairs Unit: Excellent-3 Above Average-6 Average-0 Below Average- 3 Poor-1 No Opinion-0 2. Are you satisfied with the quality of the explanation of the complaint process given to you by

the staff?

Public Safety Auditor’s Office: Completely Satisfied-6 Average-2 Dissatisfied-0 Completely No Satisfied-4 Dissatisfied-0 Opinion-0 OPD Internal Affairs Unit: Completely Satisfied-8 Average-1 Dissatisfied-0 Completely No Satisfied-2 Dissatisfied-2 Opinion-0

Appendix “G”

3. If applicable, were you satisfied that your phone calls were returned in a timely manner?

Public Safety Auditor’s Office: Completely Satisfied-4 Average-1 Dissatisfied-0 Completely Not Satisfied-6 Dissatisfied-0 Applicable-1 OPD Internal Affairs Unit: Completely Satisfied-6 Average-1 Dissatisfied-1 Completely Not Satisfied-4 Dissatisfied-1 Applicable-0

4. Were you interviewed by a staff member?

Public Safety Auditor’s Officer: Yes-9 No-3 OPD’s Internal Affairs Unit: Yes-13 No-0 Citizens who replied that they were interviewed by either a staff member of the Auditor’s Office or the Internal Affairs Unit were asked to respond to the following statements:

A. My interview was conducted in a timely manner?

Public Safety Auditor’s Office: Completely Agree-3 Somewhat Disagree-0 Completely No Agree-5 Agree-0 Disagree-0 Opinion-1

OPD’s Internal Affairs Unit:

Completely Agree-5 Somewhat Disagree-0 Completely No Agree-5 Agree-0 Disagree-2 Opinion-1

B. My interview was conducted in a courteous manner?

Public Safety Auditor’s Office: Completely Agree-1 Somewhat Disagree-0 Completely No Agree-8 Agree-0 Disagree-0 Opinion-0

OPD’s Internal Affairs Unit:

Completely Agree-1 Somewhat Disagree-0 Completely No Agree-10 Agree-0 Disagree-2 Opinion-0

Appendix “G”

C. My interview was objective?

Public Safety Auditor’s Office: Completely Agree-3 Somewhat Disagree-0 Completely No Agree-5 Agree-1 Disagree-0 Opinion-0

OPD’s Internal Affairs Unit:

Completely Agree-4 Somewhat Disagree-0 Completely No Agree-6 Agree-1 Disagree-2 Opinion-0

5. Overall, how do you feel about the services you received?

Public Safety Auditor’s Office: Completely Satisfied-5 Average-0 Dissatisfied-0 Completely No Satisfied-4 Dissatisfied-0 Opinion-0 OPD’s Internal Affairs Unit: Completely Satisfied-7 Average-1 Dissatisfied-0 Completely No Satisfied-3 Dissatisfied-2 Opinion-0

6a. What could the Office of the Public Safety Auditor do to be more helpful to people filing complaints against an Omaha Police Officer.

Comments included:

• Officers with hostile anger toward other races should be relieved of duty and

never allowed to work as an Officer again. • I was worried about making my complaint against an Officer and there being

some kind of retaliation; I was never given any information or comfort about that concern.

• In my situation Sgt. “X” was extremely helpful and explained what would happen. I do not think that there is any more that could possibly be done. Thank you.

Appendix “G”

6b. What could the Internal Affairs Unit do to be more helpful to people filing complaints against an Omaha Police Officer.

Comments included:

• I think the Internal Affairs Officer did a fine job with my complaint. • It was obvious that the investigator was biased towards the credibility of the

Officers involved by some of the questions he asked. • They believed the Officer over me, even though I was willing to take a lie

detector test. • The process was fully explained to me in both the paperwork I received with my

complaint form and again over the phone and in person with Sgt. “X.” Sgt. “X” returned my phone call within 48 hours after I made my initial contact with the department following completion of my complaint form. Sgt. “X” was able to schedule my interview within 1 week of our initial conversation. My interview was conducted in a very professional and objective manner. I felt completely at ease during the interview. Regardless of the outcome of my complaint, I will have no criticisms of the way it was processed.

Appendix “G”

Customer Service Survey about the

Office of the Public Safety Auditor (PSA)

The purpose of this voluntary survey is to obtain information from the public about the quality of customer service provided by the staff of the Office of the Public Safety Auditor (PSA). Your cooperation is appreciated. Please take a few moments to answer the following questions. The information reported will have no effect on the investigation or outcome of your complaint and will not become part of your complaint file. This survey is intended to measure the quality of service you received and not the outcome of your complaint. 1. How receptive was the Office of the Public Safety Auditor staff when you first had

contact with the office (i.e. were you made to feel comfortable and welcomed)? 5 4 3 2 1 0 Excellent Above Average Average Below Average Poor No Opinion 2. Are you satisfied with the quality of the explanation of the complaint process given to you by the staff at the PSA? 5 4 3 2 1 0 Completely Satisfied Average Dissatisfied Completely No Opinion Satisfied Dissatisfied 3. If applicable, were you satisfied that your phone calls were returned in a timely manner? 5 4 3 2 1 0 Completely Satisfied Average Dissatisfied Completely Not Satisfied Dissatisfied Applicable 4. Were you interviewed by a staff member from the PSA, if so, answer the following

statements? Yes No A. My interview was conducted in a timely manner?

5 4 3 2 1 0 Completely Agree Somewhat Disagree Completely No Agree Agree Disagree Opinion

(Continued on other side)

Appendix “G”

B. My interview was conducted in a courteous manner?

5 4 3 2 1 0 Completely Agree Somewhat Disagree Completely No Agree Agree Disagree Opinion

C. My interview was objective?

5 4 3 2 1 0 Completely Agree Somewhat Disagree Completely No Agree Agree Disagree Opinion

5. Overall, how do you feel about the services you received? 5 4 3 2 1 0 Completely Satisfied Average Dissatisfied Completely No Opinion Satisfied Dissatisfied 6. What could the Office of the Public Safety Auditor do to be more helpful to people filing complaints against an Omaha Police Officer.

Return this survey in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope

Appendix “G”

Customer Service Survey about the

Omaha Fire Department Internal Affairs Unit (IA)

The purpose of this voluntary survey is to obtain information from the public about the level and quality of customer service provided by the staff of the Omaha Fire Department Internal Affairs Unit (IA). Your cooperation is appreciated. Please take a few moments to answer the following questions. The information reported will have no effect on the investigation or outcome of your complaint and will not become part of your complaint file. This survey is intended to measure the quality of service you received and not the outcome of your complaint. 1. How receptive was the Internal Affairs staff when you first had contact with the office

(i.e. were you made to feel comfortable and welcomed)? 5 4 3 2 1 0 Excellent Above Average Average Below Average Poor No Opinion 2. Are you satisfied with the quality of the explanation of the complaint process given to you by the staff at Internal Affairs? 5 4 3 2 1 0 Completely Satisfied Average Dissatisfied Completely No Opinion Satisfied Dissatisfied 3. If applicable, were you satisfied that your phone calls were returned in a timely manner? 5 4 3 2 1 0 Completely Satisfied Average Dissatisfied Completely Not Satisfied Dissatisfied Applicable 4. Were you interviewed by a staff member from Internal Affairs, if so, answer the

following statements? Yes No A. My interview was conducted in a timely manner?

5 4 3 2 1 0 Completely Agree Somewhat Disagree Completely No Agree Agree Disagree Opinion

Appendix “G”

B. My interview was conducted in a courteous manner?

5 4 3 2 1 0 Completely Agree Somewhat Disagree Completely No Agree Agree Disagree Opinion

C. My interview was objective?

5 4 3 2 1 0 Completely Agree Somewhat Disagree Completely No Agree Agree Disagree Opinion

5. Overall, how do you feel about the services you received? 5 4 3 2 1 0 Completely Satisfied Average Dissatisfied Completely No Opinion Satisfied Dissatisfied 6. What could the Internal Affairs Unit do to be more helpful to people filing complaints against Omaha Fire Personnel.

Return this survey in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope

Appendix “G”

Customer Service Survey about the

Omaha Police Department Internal Affairs Unit (IA)

The purpose of this voluntary survey is to obtain information from the public about the level and quality of customer service provided by the staff of the Omaha Police Department Internal Affairs Unit (IA). Your cooperation is appreciated. Please take a few moments to answer the following questions. The information reported will have no effect on the investigation or outcome of your complaint and will not become part of your complaint file. This survey is intended to measure the quality of service you received and not the outcome of your complaint. 1. How receptive was the Internal Affairs staff when you first had contact with the office

(i.e. were you made to feel comfortable and welcomed)? 5 4 3 2 1 0 Excellent Above Average Average Below Average Poor No Opinion 2. Are you satisfied with the quality of the explanation of the complaint process given to you by the staff at Internal Affairs? 5 4 3 2 1 0 Completely Satisfied Average Dissatisfied Completely No Opinion Satisfied Dissatisfied 3. If applicable, were you satisfied that your phone calls were returned in a timely manner? 5 4 3 2 1 0 Completely Satisfied Average Dissatisfied Completely Not Satisfied Dissatisfied Applicable 4. Were you interviewed by a staff member from Internal Affairs, if so, answer the

following statements? Yes No A. My interview was conducted in a timely manner?

5 4 3 2 1 0 Completely Agree Somewhat Disagree Completely No Agree Agree Disagree Opinion

(Continued on other side)

Appendix “G”

B. My interview was conducted in a courteous manner?

5 4 3 2 1 0 Completely Agree Somewhat Disagree Completely No Agree Agree Disagree Opinion

C. My interview was objective?

5 4 3 2 1 0 Completely Agree Somewhat Disagree Completely No Agree Agree Disagree Opinion

5. Overall, how do you feel about the services you received? 5 4 3 2 1 0 Completely Satisfied Average Dissatisfied Completely No Opinion Satisfied Dissatisfied 6. What could the Office of the Public Safety Auditor do to be more helpful to people filing complaints against an Omaha Police Officer.

Return this survey in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope

Appendix “I” Public Safety Auditor’s Recommendations

Issues Raised In

Recommendations Disposition Resolution Period

2001-3rd Qtr. Report

Increase the frequency of OPD retreats with the community

Adopted 2001-4th Qtr. Report

Increase the awareness of the Crime Prevention Specialists

Adopted 2001-4th Qtr. Report

Network with Social Service agencies and increase the use of volunteer Chaplains to assist OPD with mental health concerns.

Adopted 2001-4th Qtr Report

Increase “Verbal Judo” training within Adopted 2001-4th Qtr. Report Increase public service presentations about

Police Practices and Procedures Adopted 2001-4th Qtr. Report

Review OPD telephone procedures in order to provide better service

Adopted 2001-4th Qtr. Report

Increase the number of Spanish speaking Police personnel by offering incentives

Adopted 2001-4th Qtr. Report

Fill all 5 Internal Affairs Investigator positions within OPD, with consideration of a 6th position

Adopted 2001-4th Qtr. Report

Create a sub-committee of the Auditing Committee

Adopted 2002-1st Qtr. Report-Public Safety Committee established

Create a “Best Practices” SOP notebook to ensure all Citizen Complaint investigations are conducted similiarly

Partially Adopted

2001-4th Qtr. Report

Increase training within OPD’s IA Unit Adopted 2001-4th Qtr. Report Complete an OPD SOP regarding traffic stops Adopted 2002-1st Qtr. Report Make the Public Safety Auditor’s budget

independent of OPD Adopted 1st Qtr. 2002 Report-

Budget was largely removed

Consider filling the Assistant Auditor position within the Office of the Public Safety Auditor

Pending

2001-4th Qtr. Report

Fill the In-service position with the OPD Training Unit

Adopted 2002-1st Qtr. Report

Provide additional computers at OPD’s NE and SE precincts in order for Officers to obtain departmental e-mails

Adopted 2002-2nd Qtr. Report-Computers increased by 2 at each precinct

Prepare and distribute OPD roll call bulletins regarding accident investigations, entry/search of vehicles and residences, landlord/tenant assistance, and elements of disorderly conduct

Partially Adopted

2002-1st Qtr. Report-A video regarding disorderly conduct was created and distributed

Appendix “I”

Issues Raised In

Recommendations Disposition Resolution Period

2001-4th Qtr. Report

Establish conflict of interest policy for OPD Officers involved in Police matters themselves

Adopted 2002-1st Qtr. Report-General Orders were drafted to address issue

Require that Police Officers involved in felony stops explain basis of stop to Citizen

Adopted 2002-1st Qtr. Report-General Order drafted to address issue

Review OPD policy on glove wear Adopted SOP updated December 2002

Establish procedure to identify Citizens in the OPD’s CIB Unit

Rejected Department will not disclose who is in CIB for questioning.

Assign a single Police Officer to each death custody case

Adopted 2002-1st Qtr. Report-Practice in place to address this issue

Review current OPD policy on storage of cruiser video tapes

Adopted 2003-1st Qtr. Report

2002-1st Qtr. Report

Increase OPD staff Adopted 2002-2nd Qtr. Report-Lateral Training Academy and new recruit Academy slated for 2002/2003

Created a mandatory annual OPD training plan

Pending

Review OPD policy on expediting medical personnel involved in Police contacts

Adopted 2002-2nd Qtr. Report-Policy was devised

Survey and monitor the use of guns and gun drawn contacts by Police Officers

Pending

2002-2nd Qtr. Report

Review overall Citizen Complaint process to make more user friendly

Partially Adopted

2002-4th Qtr. Report-Revised Citizen Complaint Forms

Determine a finding for Citizen Complaints to distinguish b/t an incorrect vs. fraudulent claim

Pending

Prepare and distribute an OPD accident investigation refresher video for roll calls

Pending

Establish OPD SOP for detention practices on use of restraints, force, etc.

Adopted Same Quarter

Devise procedure to guide the Public Safety Auditor’s Office and Auditing Committee

Pending

Improve functions of OPD and Impound Lot in regards to towing vehicles

Pending

Review and standardize OFD’s Citizen Complaint process

Adopted May 21, 2004

Appendix “I”

Issues Raised In

Recommendations Disposition Resolution Period

2002-3rd Qtr. Report

Review OPD efforts to improve customer service

Pending

Review OPD procedures to monitor the number of cruisers that arrive at all calls

Pending

2002-3rd Qtr. Report

Improve communication b/t OPD and 911 to ensure Officers are called out when appropriate

Pending

Improve Administrative Support within OPD’s IA Unit

Adopted April 2004-Second typist was hired.

Consider using retired Police Officers in various positions in order to increase the number of Officers on street

Partially Adopted

2003-1st Qtr. Report-City Announcement that some retired Officers with be School Resource Officers.

2002-4th Qtr. Report

Make OPD’s SOP available for public review Pending

Expand Complaint intake process to include general inquiries to IA Unit

Pending

Create and use an evidence and allegation checklist to assist IA Unit Citizen Complaint investigations in each case

Pending 2003-1st Quarter-Checklist created.

Create more local training opportunities/attempt to reduce IA Unit turnover

Pending

Request change in OPD’s Union contract to increase IA Unit investigative period

Pending

Devise a 3rd party complaint policy Pending Document and develop clearer legal analysis

in certain cases Pending

Define “no finding” and “court issue” disposition of IA cases in SOP

Pending

Devise a cruiser video collection policy Adopted 2003-1st Qtr. Report-General Order drafted to address issue.

2003-1st Qtr. Report

Address “Patterns and Trends” identified in 2003 First Quarter Report

Pending

Separate Recommend -ation Report 03/10/03

Create a separate policy modeled upon the IACP model policy on motor vehicle searches

Adopted SOP changed June 2003

Appendix “I”

Issues Raised In

Recommendations Disposition Resolution Period

Separate Recommend -ation Report 03/10/03

Training Issues-Use of consent cards for vehicle searches

Adopted June 2003-Vehicle Searches tracked on F.O. Cards

Separate Recommend- ation report 06/01/03

Revise or replace OPD’s current policies on warrants

Pending

2003-2nd Qtr. Report

Study the data contained in the 2nd Quarter 2003 report and respond to recommendations made in the past 2 years.

Pending

2003-3rd Qtr. Report

Implement a Department-wide system to capture all forms of Officer Commendations.

Partially Adopted

Convene a work group to conduct various system reviews within the Police Department.

Pending

2003-4th Qtr. Report

Examine the overall disciplinary system within the Police Department and make changes/improvements as necessary.

Pending

2004-1st Qtr. Report

Consider forming a “Risk Management Team” within OPD

Under Review

Review OPD training or personnel reassignments in response to Special Events/Crowd control pattern of complaint.

Pending

Continue OPD public appearances and outreach. Consider making SOP’s, Union Contracts, etc. available to the public.

Pending

OPD should consider partnering with the Phoenix Police Department for a training exchange.

Pending

OFD should consider a system wide collection of general inquiries/comments from the public for review my management.

Adopted May 21, 2004

OFD should consider instituting an anonymous complaint process.

Adopted May 21, 2004

2004-2nd Qtr. Report

Use the information in the Police Chief’s reports to review tactical decisions as well as reasonable force in use of force cases.

Pending

Appendix “I”

Issues Raised In

Recommendations Disposition Resolution Period

2004-2nd Qtr. Report

OPD should generate appropriate training, policy, and practice recommendations about tactical reviews.

Pending

OPD should provide a written explanation for each internal use of force decision, both reasonableness and tactics, in each Safety Review Committee and in citizen’s complaints where excessive force is alleged.

Pending

Adopt a definition or review structure for determining excessive force by OPD Officers.

Pending