60 Holiday Ideas for the San Diego Police Department

Commission on Police Practices Completes Audit on How SDPD Handled Complaints

By JW August

An audit of how the San Diego Police Department handles complaints was just completed on behalf of the Commission on Police Practices. It began as an inquiry by the Commission of previous SDPD cases that had passed the one-year statute of limitations for disciplining an officer.

Nevertheless the newly created commission felt they didn’t want the to let go of SDPD’s internal investigations without any review by CPP.  “What might be learned” was the motivation for hiring an independent auditor-Attorney Jerry Threet -to review “multiple areas of concerns and (make) suggestions for improvement” and what resulted is a report titled ‘Independent Civilian Audit of San Diego Police Department Complaint Investigations for the Commission on Police Practices 2020-2023’.

The 25 member Commission’s creation has been a long slog for activists and citizens seeking more comprehensive oversight of the police department. A prior effort at civilian oversight was considered a failure and San Diego voters approved a more vigorous model to investigate police conduct, independent of the SDPD and the Office of the Mayor.

This review of 153 cases, resulting from 651 allegations of misconduct against SDPD officers, is a baseline for data and insight into the department’s internal handling of citizen complaints.

The work on the released audit began in March of 2024, reviewing the 153 cases, with a deeper level of research on twenty of the cases which the auditor felt needed further attention.

What resulted is a 91 page report card of the department which says, “SDPD and its investigators do many things right and are to be commended overall for their commitment to a robust accountability system with strong procedures and policies in many key areas.”   But it goes on to detail serious problems with the department’s internal investigations, saying “administrative investigations of possible employee misconduct or violations of policy should be more timely, complete, and objective, for the benefit of all stakeholders.

The auditor was not able to question SDPD investigators, relying “solely on the records provided in the investigative files for each complaint.”  No officer was identified in the report, nor did the SDPD respond to a request for comment for this story.

The report focuses on the following areas: the lack of objectivity in investigations, completeness of investigations, the timeliness of investigations, excessive force complaint investigations, discourtesy investigations, conflict of interest issues and a subject of much discussion when it comes to racial profiling-traffic and pedestrian stops.

Overall It found “significant racial disparities in the rate of complaint allegations about use of force, racial discrimination, unlawful detentions and searches, and discourtesy”

In brief, details on some of the specific areas of findings-

—Deeper Level of Attention for 20 cases- Which came from 103 allegations, this included reviewing body worn camera video, interviews of witnesses, subject officers were reviewed as well.     The report found investigations were incomplete in some cases ,and less than fully objective. Complaints the department ruled as “unfounded” for allegations of racial discrimination and discourtesy were not appropriate and “not consistent with the evidence in almost every case”.

—Lack of objectivity-Investigator questioning of officers sometimes lacked objectivity in multiple ways. “in collecting and analyzing (or not collecting and analyzing) evidence relevant to the allegations.”  They would allow the officer’s attorney to suggest questions, which is not appropriate”. In several cases the investigator asked leading questions of the subject in a “yes or no” manner, leading the officer“to responses that supported negative findings on the complaint allegations.”

—Conflict of Interest Issues in Investigations- Two cases were highlighted. In one, the officer was a close relative of a member of the Departments command staff.  In the other, the subject was a high-ranking supervising officer.  The investigator, a sergeant, had to make the call on a complaint “against a person of significantly higher rank in their employing organization” which “creates an inherent conflict of interest for that investigator.”  In both cases,  interviews of the subject officers  were “highly deferential to the officer and failed to explore conflicts between the subject officer’s statements and other available evidence.”

–Timeliness of Investigations-  The report found this to be a consistent problem. SDPD’s operating manual provides that all CAT1 (Category 1) investigations should be completed within 90 days, and all CAT2 (Category 2) investigations should be finished within 60 days. However, the report finds “it is rare for SDPD administrative investigations to satisfy these guidelines.”

CAT1 is more serious “unreasonable force, discrimination, criminal conduct by an officer, unlawful search/seizure, unlawful detention, unlawful arrest” and CAT2 are less serious ‘discourtesy, procedural errors”.

–-Excessive Force Complaint Investigations-  One of the most common complaints, accounting for about 20% of the allegations.

It’s  considered among the most serious types of allegations that can be investigated by a police department and has “significant impacts on policed communities.” The auditor  found about 48% of the allegations involved force against a Black person, over eight times their share of the population.  “Of the 122 excessive force allegations, the great majority (20%) of the incidents were initiated due to a call for service that involved alleged violence or the threat of violence.”

–Completeness of Investigations -“A well-functioning, nimble IA system follows the evidence where it leads.” This was not always the case.  Occasions identified where they failed to ask officers about inconsistencies/ambiguities.  Or failed to consider certain evidence supporting the allegations.  The report says “The entire purpose of such investigations is to ensure employees follow policies and training designed to guide their actions and ensure they operate effectively, responsibly, and safely.”

The report closes with summary of findings and suggestions to address the problems detailed in the report which the San Diego Police Department might consider. And they provide a potential game plan for further consideration/discussion by the Commission on Police Practices as it is now monitoring and reviewing current cases. The report lists 60 suggestions including a revamping of how complaints are handled from the start.  Currently the filing of a complaint includes warning of negative consequences from filing a false one. It makes the process “less than welcoming” and should be eliminated.

It should be noted that Attorney Threet was the lead investigator for Richmond Californias’ Community Police Review Commission but resigned in September in protest over the way that Commission is handling police complaints.  Additionally Paul Parker, who was named director of the San Diego’s CPP just six months ago has quit, saying the current governance model was not to his liking.

There are 59 others to consider and you can see them here at the end of the 12-11-24 Agenda. Also for the city’s Commission on Police Practices see for yourself here