|
|
January 2006 An Explanation of the Investigation I want to provide the citizens of Seattle with an explanation of the actions taken when the Seattle Police Department investigates a complaint against an officer, and of the decision-making process that occurs. This same information is also provided to our personnel, as it is equally important to make sure that employees as well as the public understand the system since the reality is that very few employees are ever involved in the disciplinary system. There is nothing more important to the Department than to maintain the trust and respect of those we serve, and as I stated in a letter to every employee when I became chief, our policies and procedures are enforced fairly and consistently. A police department should protect everyone's rights, including the rights of its own personnel. All complaints coming into the Department are thoroughly reviewed and investigated by the Department's Office of Professional Accountability (OPA). The facts are that for a large department dealing on an annual basis with thousands of individuals, reports of crime, arrests, accidents, and calls to 911, there are only a small number of complaints received. The process that exists in the Department has many checks and balances to ensure - as much as human beings can - levels of fairness and protection for everyone. First of all, all complaints are subject to review and input by members of the Internal Investigations Section along with the Director of the OPA and the Independent Auditor. Steps are taken to ensure employees are provided with prompt and full notice of the allegations against them, and they are entitled to representation throughout the process. If the facts developed in the investigation appear to establish a violation of policy, the following process takes place.
Recent stories in the Seattle Times indicate that I have "reversed disciplinary recommendations." That statement is an inaccurate description of the process and is misleading to readers. The process that I have described is grounded in law, and takes into account input and recommendations from many other command and executive personnel. The fact is that in almost all cases (as opposed to individual allegations cited within a case), there is general consensus and agreement. It is the rare circumstance in which I reject an entire case that has been presented to me. I have determined that a more appropriate policy provision should be cited after having received input during the meeting. The Chief of Police is the appointing authority and, by ordinance, maintains final authority over whether cases should be sustained and, if so, what discipline shall be imposed. This authority is exercised after careful review of all of the facts, and after a substantial amount of input and discussion from a wide array of key personnel. Moreover, this authority is subject to a tremendous amount of citizen oversight. In addition to the civilian director of the OPA and the Independent Auditor, the Seattle City Council also created an OPA Review Board with authority to review all closed OPA cases. In addition, the Department's Firearms Review Board, which is responsible for the investigation of every weapon's discharge, includes a civilian member. Finally, another Independent Auditor ensures that the Department complies with the Investigations Ordinance. This is far more citizen oversight than almost any police department in the nation, and the Seattle Police Department welcomes the additional scrutiny. |
|
||||
