2015 Annual Report, Denver Office of the Independent Monitor, 2016

Disciplinary Self-Help Litigation Manual - Header

2015 Annual Report, Denver Office of the Independent Monitor, 2016

• Dec. 29, 2016 • Locations: United States of America • Topics: Corrections Audits

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail

Document text

This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.

DENVER

OFFICE OF THE
INDEPENDENT MONITOR

2015 Annual Report

Nicholas E. Mitchell

Independent Monitor

The Office of the Independent Monitor
The Office of the Independent Monitor (“OIM”) is charged with working to ensure
accountability, effectiveness, and transparency in the Denver Police and Sheriff
disciplinary processes. The OIM is responsible for:
♦♦

Ensuring that the complaint and commendation processes are
accessible to all community members;

♦♦

Monitoring investigations into community complaints, internal
complaints, and critical incidents involving sworn personnel;

♦♦

Making recommendations on findings and discipline;

♦♦

Publicly reporting information regarding patterns of complaints,
findings, and discipline;

♦♦

Making recommendations for improving Police and Sheriff policy,
practices, and training;

♦♦

Conducting outreach to the Denver community and stakeholders
in the disciplinary process; and

♦♦

Promoting alternative and innovative means for resolving
complaints, such as mediation.

DENVER

OFFICE OF THE
INDEPENDENT MONITOR

OIM Staff:
Policy
Jennifer Fratello, Policy Director
Matthew Buttice, Senior Policy Analyst
Ena Vu, Senior Programmer Analyst
Kat LaCoste, Policy Analyst
Monitors
Gregg Crittenden, Senior Deputy Monitor
Nate Fehrmann, Deputy Monitor
Kevin Strom, Deputy Monitor
Denis McCormick, Deputy Monitor
Suzanne Iantorno, Deputy Monitor
Community Outreach/Administration
Gianina Irlando, Community Relations Ombudsman
Gerylann Castellano, Office Manager
Teniqua Pope, Staff Assistant
Gianina Horton, Youth Outreach Staff Assistant (Grant Funded)

Contents
1

Overview 1

OIM Evaluation of DPD Policy

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Body Worn Camera Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Shooting Into Moving Vehicles Policies and Training . . . . . . . . 12
Early Intervention System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
Racial Profiling Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
NCIC/CCIC Discipline. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Use of Force Against Arrestees Attempting to Swallow Potential
Contraband . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Summary of OIM Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3

Denver Police Department Monitoring

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Complaints Recorded in 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Most Common Complaint Specifications. . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Patterns in Outcomes on Community Complaints. . . . . . . . . 33
Significant Disciplinary Cases Closed in 2015. . . . . . . . . . . 36
Mediation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Timeliness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Complainant Demographics and Complaint Filing Patterns . . . . . 46
Commendations and Awards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Denver Sheriff Department Monitoring

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Complaints Recorded in 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Most Common Complaint Specifications. . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Disciplinary Process and Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Significant Disciplinary Cases Closed in 2015. . . . . . . . . . . 66
Timeliness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Complainant Demographics and Complaint Filing Patterns . . . . . 77
Commendations and Awards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
5 Critical Incidents

Patterns in Officer-Involved Shootings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
2015 DPD Involved Shootings (OISs). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
2015 DPD Accidental Shootings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
2015 DPD In-Custody Deaths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
2014 DPD Critical Incidents Closed in 2015. . . . . . . . . . . . 91
2015 DSD In-Custody Deaths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
2015 DSD Accidental Shootings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
2013 DSD Critical Incidents Closed in 2015. . . . . . . . . . . . 97
5

Appendices
Appendix A: Letter Re: DPD Early Intervention System
Appendix B: Letter Re: DPD Use of Force to Remove Contraband
Appendix C: How to File a Complaint/Commendation
Appendix D: Complaint/Commendation Brochure Locations
Appendix E: Citizen Oversight Board Biographies and Meetings

FROM THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR
March 15, 2016
2015 was a year of progress and productivity for the Office of the Independent
Monitor (“OIM”). The OIM reviewed hundreds of investigations conducted by the
Internal Affairs Bureaus of Denver Police and Denver Sheriff Departments (“DPD”
and “DSD,” respectively) in an attempt to ensure that those investigations were
conducted fairly and impartially. The OIM also monitored the handling of multiple
officer-involved shootings and deaths-in-custody, and significantly expanded
its youth/officer outreach program: Bridging the Gap: Kids and Cops, which has
demonstrated exciting preliminary results at enhancing trust between officers and
youth. Similarly, the OIM was a significant contributor to efforts at reform in both
the DPD and DSD by making recommendations that helped those departments
reshape policy, practice, or training in a number of key areas.
These efforts are discussed in greater depth in this report. We look forward to
continuing to work with the community, the Executive Director of Safety, the DPD,
and the DSD to further this important work in 2016.
Sincerely,

Nicholas E. Mitchell
Independent Monitor
Denver, Colorado

Overview
The Office of the Independent Monitor (‘‘OIM’’) is charged with
monitoring the disciplinary systems in the Denver Police and Denver
Sheriff Departments (‘‘DPD’’ and ‘‘DSD,’’ respectively), making policy
recommendations to those departments, and conducting outreach to
communities throughout Denver. By ordinance, the OIM is to report to
the public by March 15th of every year on the work of the OIM, as well as
information about complaints, investigations, and discipline of sworn
police and sheriff personnel during the prior year.
The OIM’s 2015 Annual Report is presented in five chapters. Chapter 1
provides an overview of key information related to OIM operations in
2015. Chapter 2 presents the OIM’s evaluation of recent revisions to
certain DPD policies and practices, and makes recommendations for
additional changes. Chapters 3 and 4 discuss OIM monitoring of the
DPD and the DSD, respectively, and examine statistical patterns in
complaint and disciplinary trends in each. Finally, Chapter 5 contains
information about the officer-involved shootings and in-custody deaths
involving DPD officers and DSD deputies that occurred in 2015.1
The OIM has a number of key focus areas:
1. Conducting data-driven systems analyses of potential policy issues in
the DPD and DSD;
2. Promoting engagement through outreach to the community and
officers;
3. Working to ensure that DPD and DSD Internal Affairs Bureau
(‘‘IAB’’) investigations are thorough, and conducted without bias;
4. Working to ensure fair and consistent disciplinary outcomes;

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Chapter 1 :: Overview

5. Monitoring officer-involved shootings and in-custody deaths; and
6. Cultivating DPD officer/community member dialogue through the use of
mediation.
In 2015, the OIM had significant achievements in each of these areas.

Data-Driven Analyses of Potential Policy Issues
Expanding the OIM’s Authority Through an Ordinance Change
The OIM’s 2013 Semiannual Report presented findings and recommendations
from our in-depth evaluation of the DSD’s Inmate Grievance Process, which
ultimately resulted in significant improvements to the accessibility of the
complaint process for inmates.2 While preparing that report, the OIM was
unable to obtain some necessary documents from the DSD,3 which prompted a
public dialogue about the need to strengthen the OIM’s authority to obtain
information from the DPD and DSD.4
In 2015, the Denver City Council approved amendments to three sections of the
Denver Revised Municipal Code that define the OIM’s access to information.
These changes require the DSD and DPD to cooperate with the OIM as it
monitors IAB investigations.5 Further, those departments, as well as the
Department of Safety, must provide records and other information requested by
the OIM as it performs its duties, unless the requested records are ‘‘protected by
the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product privilege or any
document that must not be disclosed to the monitor’s office pursuant to federal,
state, or local law or federal or state regulation.’’6 Under the revised ordinance, if
information requested by the OIM cannot be produced, the OIM must be
provided with a prompt and sufficiently detailed written explanation as to why
not.7 These changes will maximize the OIM’s effectiveness by removing potential
barriers to information access. The OIM is thankful to Councilman Paul Lopez
for leading this effort at reform, and to Mayor Michael B. Hancock and other
members of the City Council for supporting it.

Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 1 :: Overview

Analysis of DPD Policy
Proactive policy analysis is a critical component of the OIM’s work. In Chapter
2, we present six issues involving DPD policy that the OIM evaluated and, in
some cases, made recommendations on in 2015. The chapter begins by
summarizing four issues that were either discussed in prior OIM reports or about
which the OIM otherwise made recommendations to the DPD. The DPD made
notable improvements to its policies regarding each of these issues. Specifically,
we discuss:
•
•
•
•

The DPD’s revisions of its Body Worn Camera Policy, which incorporated
significant feedback from the OIM and the community;
The DPD’s new prohibition against shooting into moving vehicles, and new
training in that area;
The DPD’s recent improvements of its Early Intervention System; and
The DPD’s revision of its racial profiling policy to make it consistent with
federal guidelines.

The chapter then presents two additional subjects that we believe provide
opportunities for improvements to the policies or practices of the DPD or Office
of the Executive Director of Safety (‘‘EDOS’’). Specifically:
•
•

The OIM recommends that the DPD and EDOS strengthen discipline to
deter misuse of the National Crime Information Center (‘‘NCIC’’) and
Colorado Crime Information Center (‘‘CCIC’’) criminal justice databases; and
The OIM recommends that the DPD clarify its Use of Force Policy and
prohibit the use of strikes to prevent arrestees from swallowing potential
contraband.

We look forward to working with the DPD and EDOS on these additional
recommendations in 2016.

Participation in the DSD Reform Effort
Beginning in 2013, the OIM issued a series of written analyses of systemic issues
impacting accountability in the DSD.8 After several high-profile civil rights
lawsuits and disciplinary cases involving the use of inappropriate force on
inmates, Mayor Hancock announced a series of steps to review and ultimately
reform the DSD.9

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Chapter 1 :: Overview

The DSD is now in the midst of a comprehensive reform process. In May 2015,
two independent consultant groups hired to evaluate the DSD issued a report that
included 277 recommendations that address nearly every area of the DSD’s
operations.10 Following the release of that report, Mayor Hancock created the
DSD Reform Implementation Team, led by EDOS Stephanie O’Malley.
Members of this team have organized issue-specific action groups comprised of
DSD personnel, city employees, and community members. Former Manager of
Safety Al LaCabe and Independent Monitor Nicholas Mitchell are co-chairing
the Use of Force and Internal Affairs Action Group, which is working to
reengineer the DSD’s use of force and disciplinary policies, among other areas. To
fund certain reforms, the Denver City Council approved a 2016 budget that
includes 24 million dollars dedicated to implementing high-priority
recommendations, such as hiring more deputies and providing additional use of
force training to DSD staff. Training on the new DSD Use of Force Policy is set to
begin in March 2016.
The OIM’s recent policy work with the DSD has focused on helping to advance
the reform process, rather than issuing reports that analyze the DSD’s policies,
training, and practices, many of which are in the process of being developed or
changed. Recent updates about the reform process can be found among the
Mayor’s official programs and initiatives on the Sheriff Department Reform
Website.11

Community and Officer Engagement
The OIM had many notable achievements in outreach to communities and to
officers in 2015. We held or attended 208 presentations or events in the
community, including 148 meetings with neighborhood associations, advocacy
groups, and representatives of community organizations. We also held or
attended 60 events that included outreach to members of law enforcement,
including presentations at roll calls, ride alongs, and training events.

Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 1 :: Overview

Expansion of the Youth Outreach Project—
Bridging the Gap: Kids and Cops
As discussed in our 2014 Annual
Report, the OIM sought and received
a Colorado Justice Assistance Grant
(‘‘JAG’’), which resulted in the OIM’s
Youth Outreach Project (‘‘YOP’’),
Bridging the Gap: Kids and Cops.12 The
YOP strives to proactively improve
relationships between at-risk youth
and law enforcement in Denver by
educating youth on their rights and
responsibilities when in contact with
law enforcement, and educating
officers on key aspects of adolescent
development
and
de-escalation
techniques when contacting youth.
This education takes place in
facilitated forums in which young
people and officers share personal
experiences, receive training, and have
an opportunity to get to know one
another outside of law enforcement
contacts.

YOP Advisory Committee
Select Member Organizations
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Denver Police Department
Denver Sheriff Department
Citizen Oversight Board
Denver Public Schools
YESS Institute
University of Denver
University of Colorado, Denver
American Civil Liberties Union
Café Cultura
Denver District Attorney,
Juvenile Diversion Program
Denver Human Services:
Family Crisis Center
Gang Rescue and Support Project
(GRASP)
LYRIC: Learn Your Rights In Colorado
Denver Office of Children’s Affairs
Padres y Jovenes Unidos
Project VOYCE
Servicios de La Raza
Victim Offender Reconciliation
Program (VORP) of Denver
Youth on Record

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Chapter 1 :: Overview

The YOP had many successes in 2015. In May 2015, the OIM facilitated a
session in which 21 DPD officers were educated on adolescent development and
de-escalation strategies for youth contacts. The officers were trained using an
adaptation of an evidence-based model proven to increase officers’ knowledge of
youth behavior and to promote more positive attitudes towards youth.13 An
additional 16 officers were trained in September, and 11 officers received a trainthe-trainer certification, allowing the DPD to begin providing the educational
component independently within the department. The DPD has committed to
training an additional 20 officers in 2016. The OIM has also convened three
forums, to date, that were well-attended by youth and DPD officers. In 2016, the
OIM plans to convene up to 11 forums and will reach at least 500 of Denver’s
youth. Participant feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. The DPD’s
partnership, under the leadership of Chief White and spearheaded by District 1
Commander Paul Pazen, has been a critical component of the YOP’s success to
date.

Internal Affairs/Disciplinary Oversight
A core OIM function is reviewing IAB investigations in an attempt to ensure that
they are thorough, complete, and fair to both community members and officers.
In 2015, the OIM reviewed 453 IAB investigations in the DPD. The OIM also
reviewed 263 IAB investigations in the DSD, a 46% increase from the prior year,
as DSD’s IAB works to clear the backlog of cases discussed in previous OIM
reports.14 The OIM reviews included examining a voluminous quantity of
evidence, including recorded interviews, video footage, police reports, and facility
records. When we identified a need for further investigation of particular cases,
we returned those cases to IAB with recommendations for additional work. We
also reviewed 177 DPD and DSD cases as they went through the discipline
process, making recommendations on the appropriate disciplinary outcome, if
any, under the departmental disciplinary matrices. In 2015, one DPD officer was
terminated, eight resigned or retired prior to the imposition of discipline, and 18
were suspended. In the DSD, four deputies were terminated, one was demoted,
seven resigned or retired prior to the imposition of discipline, and 24 were
suspended.
In 2015, DPD officers received 581 commendations and DSD deputies received
198 commendations, all of which reflected notable examples of bravery or
commendable performance. We discuss a number of individual commendations
of DPD officers and DSD deputies in Chapters 3 and 4, respectively.

Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 1 :: Overview

Officer-Involved
Investigations

Shooting

and

In-Custody

Death

Pursuant to Denver Ordinance, the OIM responds to every officer-involved
shooting and monitors the investigation and administrative review of each
shooting. In 2015, there were ten officer-involved shootings involving 15 DPD
officers and no officer-involved shootings involving DSD deputies. There were
two deaths of citizens in the custody of the DPD, and three deaths of citizens in
the custody of the DSD.15 In Chapter 5, we provide information about each of
the shootings and deaths in-custody and their current status in the administrative
review process.

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Chapter 1 :: Overview

Mediation
Mediation continued to be an important focus area for the OIM in 2015. Since
2006, the OIM has facilitated 458 successful mediations between community
members and DPD officers, and among DSD staff.16 In 2015, 40 complaints
were successfully mediated, including 38 complaints involving DPD officers and 2
complaints involving DSD deputies. Of those completed mediations, 98% of the
officer/deputy participants and 78% of the community member participants
reported feeling satisfied with the mediation process.17 Community member
satisfaction dropped this year, and the OIM is working closely with its mediation
partner, Community Mediation Concepts, to better understand the drop in
community member satisfaction, and to identify opportunities for improvement in
2016.
Figure 1.1: Community Member and Officer/Deputy Satisfaction with Mediation
Process
Officers/Deputies
100%

95%

96%
98%

89%

90%
80%

Community Members

83%

85%

89%

78%

70%
60%
50%
2011

2012
2013
2014
Year Mediation Completed

Office of the Independent Monitor

2015

OIM Evaluation of DPD Policy: Recent
Revisions and Recommendations for
Additional Change
Introduction
The last several years were marked by a series of police uses of force that
spurred conversation----and controversy----across the United States. To
address the need for guidance on improving community trust in American
policing, in 2014, President Barack Obama established the President’s
Task Force on 21st Century Policing (‘‘President’s Task Force’’).
Comprised of national policing and criminal justice experts, the
President’s Task Force engaged in months of research, then issued a report
(‘‘Report’’) in May 2015 that made a series of recommendations on how
police departments in the United States can build public confidence while
simultaneously working to reduce crime.18
Several themes were emphasized throughout the Report and identified as
critical to this effort. Among them, the Report noted that police leaders
must be willing to reexamine police policies and practices, and stressed
that they should do so in partnership with the community. For example,
police policy ‘‘must be reflective of community values’’19 and police
departments ‘‘should collaborate with community members to develop
policies and strategies.’’20 Further, ‘‘law enforcement agencies should
encourage public engagement and collaboration, including the use of
community advisory bodies.’’21 Ultimately, ‘‘law enforcement agencies
should work with community residents to identify problems and
collaborate on implementing solutions that produce meaningful results for
the community.’’22

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Chapter 2 :: OIM Evaluation of DPD Policy

In keeping with this philosophy, the DPD, under Chief Robert White, made a
number of significant changes to several of its policies and practices in 2015, often
after substantial feedback from the OIM and the community. We discuss several
of these changes in the first half of this chapter. This includes the DPD’s recent
revisions to its body worn camera program, its enactment of a new prohibition on
shooting into moving vehicles, its improvements to the DPD’s Early Intervention
System (‘‘EIS’’), and its revisions to its racial profiling policy. We commend the
DPD and Chief White for their significant achievements in each of these areas.
While these steps are notable and deserving of praise, there are other areas of
policy that we believe can be improved. In the second half of this chapter, we
examine two such areas. This includes the current practices of the DPD and the
EDOS regarding discipline for misuse of the National Crime Information Center
and Colorado Crime Information Center databases (‘‘NCIC’’ and ‘‘CCIC’’,
respectively, or ‘‘NCIC/CCIC’’). NCIC and CCIC are sensitive criminal justice
databases that contain significant amounts of personal information about
community members. When used appropriately, they can be powerful tools to
investigate crime. But the misuse of these databases for personal, non-law
enforcement purposes may compromise public trust and result in harm to
community members. We believe that the reprimands that are generally imposed
on DPD officers who misuse the databases do not reflect the seriousness of that
violation, and may not sufficiently deter future misuse.
We also discuss our recommendations to clarify current ambiguities in the DPD’s
Use of Force Policy about what types of force, if any, are permissible to remove
potential contraband from the mouths of persons being placed under arrest. We
recommend that the DPD fill the current gap in policy and training on this issue
to clearly articulate what types of force are permissible or prohibited to remove
potential contraband from the mouths of arrestees. Consistent with research and
developing standards, we also recommend that the DPD specifically prohibit the
use of strikes for this purpose.
The President’s Task Force noted that building community trust ‘‘requires
collaborative partnerships with agencies beyond law enforcement,’’23 and that
‘‘civilian oversight of law enforcement is important in order to strengthen trust
with the community.’’24 We wholeheartedly agree. By using our unique vantage
to identify these issues for additional evaluation and potential change, we hope to
help the DPD to more fully realize the Task Force’s vision of enhancing
community trust in policing, while continuing to work to reduce crime in Denver.

Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 2 :: OIM Evaluation of DPD Policy

The DPD Revises its Body Worn Camera Policy After
Significant Feedback
In its 2014 Annual Report, the OIM presented its data-driven analysis of the
DPD’s Body Worn Camera (‘‘BWC’’) pilot project, which was conducted for
approximately six months in police District 6 in 2014. The OIM commended the
DPD for initiating the project, which we believed was likely to improve police
accountability and contribute to more positive relationships between police and
community members in Denver.25
The OIM also identified several gaps in policy and practice during the BWC pilot
project that may have reduced the effectiveness of the program. Perhaps most
notably, a majority of the uses of force that occurred in District 6 or involved
officers from District 6 working outside their District were not recorded by
BWCs during the pilot project.26 We identified a variety of reasons for this,
including that many of these incidents involved sergeants or officers working
off-duty, who were not assigned to use BWCs during the pilot project.
Recognizing opportunities for improvement, the OIM made nine actionable
recommendations to the DPD before it finalized its BWC Policy and prepared to
roll the program out department-wide.27 These included deploying BWCs to all
uniformed officers who interact with the public in a law enforcement capacity,
including sergeants and officers working off-duty; requiring officers to notify
community members that encounters are being recorded by BWCs when possible;
providing written notice of possible disciplinary penalties for failing to adhere to
the BWC Policy; and soliciting officer and community input when revising the
BWC Policy, among other recommendations.28
In September 2015, the DPD released a draft BWC Policy for public comment.
While that draft addressed some of the OIM’s concerns, a number of the OIM’s
recommendations were either only partially implemented or not implemented at
all.29,30 The failure to implement one recommendation in particular----that BWCs
be assigned to all uniformed officers who interact with the public, including
sergeants and officers working off-duty----drew pointed criticism from City
Council members, civil rights groups, and from Denver’s Citizen Oversight
Board.31 Later that month, the DPD announced that it would, in fact, require
officers working off-duty to wear BWCs,32 and the following month, announced
that sergeants would also be outfitted with BWCs.33 We believe that the steps
taken by the DPD to implement BWCs are very positive. We appreciate the

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Chapter 2 :: OIM Evaluation of DPD Policy

recent enhancements of the policy, and we look forward to the full deployment of
BWCs department-wide.

The DPD Prohibits Shooting Into Moving Vehicles, and
Revises Training
In recent years, shooting into moving vehicles has come under increasing
national scrutiny as a police practice that can create significant public safety risks.
For example, it is often difficult to precisely judge speed and distance in order to
shoot accurately into moving cars, and missed shots can hit bystanders, non-targets
in a vehicle, or other police officers.34 Further, shooting into a moving vehicle
does not generally cause it to stop, and drivers struck by bullets are often not
immediately incapacitated. Instead, a moving vehicle with a driver who has
been shot may continue to travel towards bystanders or the involved officer, who
may have failed to seize a brief opportunity to take cover and move to a position
of safety.35
Between July 2014 and January 2015, there were four incidents in which one or
more DPD officers fired into a moving vehicle based on the belief that the vehicle
posed an imminent threat to officer safety. Two of these shootings were fatal.
Troubled by this potential trend, on January 27, 2015, the OIM announced its
launch of an evaluation of the DPD’s policies, practices, and training on shooting
into moving vehicles.36 The next day, the DPD announced that it, too, had
determined to conduct an internal review of this same subject matter.37
To perform its analysis, the OIM analyzed all officer-involved shootings (‘‘OISs’’)
in which DPD officers shot into a moving vehicle over an eight-year period,38
compared the DPD’s policies to the policies of 43 other law enforcement
agencies, and evaluated DPD training on shooting into moving vehicles. This
evaluation, and our conclusions about necessary changes to policy and training,
are discussed more fully in the OIM’s 2015 Semiannual Report.39
In June 2015, the DPD published a revised policy on shooting into moving
vehicles that contains significant enhancements, including the addition of a general
prohibition against shooting into moving vehicles.40 The DPD also significantly
strengthened its training on situations that could result in potential shootings into
moving vehicles. The DPD adopted the revised policy and training after its own
independent analysis. Yet, the revised policy and training addressed many of the
OIM’s concerns. They are also consistent with national best practices and model

Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 2 :: OIM Evaluation of DPD Policy

policies in other jurisdictions. We believe that the DPD’s steps to strengthen
policy and training on this issue will improve safety for both officers and
community members in the future.

The DPD Improves its Early Intervention System
Early Intervention Systems (‘‘EIS’’) are proactive, data-driven management tools
that use officer performance indicators, such as complaints and uses of force
(among many others), to identify officers who may be developing problematic
behavior. One example of an EIS performance indicator is the frequency with
which an officer uses force, compared to the frequency with which officers in
similar assignments use force.41 When an officer is flagged for review by an EIS,
a rigorous evaluation of all aspects of his/her performance should be conducted.
If the officer’s performance is truly concerning, s/he should be provided with
enhanced supervision, retraining, or other resources to help him or her self-correct
before more serious disciplinary sanctions become necessary. The Department of
Justice (‘‘DOJ’’) consistently requires the development of EISs as part of its police
reform efforts across the United States.42
Recognizing the importance of an effective EIS, in June 2013, the OIM called for
a meeting with Chief White to express concerns about the DPD’s EIS (called the
Personnel Assessment System or ‘‘PAS’’) and to inform the Chief that the OIM
had initiated an evaluation of the PAS. After the meeting, the OIM sent a
follow-up letter (attached as Appendix A).43
The OIM evaluation sought to determine if the PAS was operating according to
DPD policy and national standards, and if it was effective at deterring future
officer misbehavior. It included surveying academic research; assessing other
police EIS programs; analyzing the DPD’s EIS database and the criteria the
DPD uses to flag officers for review; and evaluating the quality of the reviews
conducted, and interventions provided, if any. After conducting several of these
steps, our preliminary assessment was that while the design of the PAS was not
fundamentally flawed, its implementation was problematic, and the quality of the
reviews needed to improve.
Following a high-profile lawsuit alleging inappropriate force by a DPD officer
with a lengthy complaint history, and while the OIM evaluation was ongoing,
DPD command staff publicly acknowledged a failure in the PAS, telling the press
that they had not been taking its warnings seriously enough.44 In April and July
of 2015, the DPD updated its PAS Policy to restructure some elements of the
ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Chapter 2 :: OIM Evaluation of DPD Policy

system.45 Around the same time, the DPD convened a PAS Improvement
Workgroup that reviewed the system, identified certain problems with its usage,
and made recommendations to revise both PAS policy and practice.46 Resulting
changes to the program include updates to the criteria used to flag officers,
enhanced requirements of the officer reviews, and a reorganization of the unit that
manages the PAS.47 We commend the DPD for making these changes. We are
cautiously optimistic that if rigorously implemented and reinforced throughout
the DPD over time, they will make the PAS more effective. We will continue to
assess the effectiveness of the PAS, and plan to revisit this issue in future OIM
reports.

The DPD Revises its Racial Profiling Policy
In its 2014 Annual Report, the OIM recommended that the DPD revise its
Biased Policing Policy, which addresses racial profiling, to be consistent with
federal guidelines. Those guidelines expressly prohibit federal law enforcement
agents from considering race, ethnicity, gender, national origin, religion, sexual
orientation, or gender identity in law enforcement decisions, unless listed as part
of a specific suspect description.48 The DPD’s previous policy prohibited
profiling only if race was the sole basis upon which law enforcement decisions
were made, and did not prohibit profiling based on gender identity.49
Following the OIM’s recommendation, in June 2015, the DPD published a
revised Biased Policing Policy that contains stronger prohibitions against profiling
based on race, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristics. The
revised policy states:
Officers will not make routine or spontaneous law enforcement
decisions . . . based upon to any degree a person’s race, ethnicity,
national origin, age, religion, gender, gender identity, or sexual
orientation unless these characteristics, traits, attributes, or statuses
are contained in suspect descriptions that have been provided to
officers. Profiling or discriminating on the basis of these
characteristics, traits, attributes, or statuses is prohibited. In taking
police actions, officers may never rely on generalized stereotypes
but may rely only on specific characteristic-based information.50

Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 2 :: OIM Evaluation of DPD Policy

This was an important revision, and we are pleased that the DPD’s revised policy
is now consistent with federal standards.
_________________________________________
The policy changes discussed above reflect significant examples of the DPD and
its leadership working with the community and the OIM in precisely the ways
outlined by the President’s Task Force. In the remainder of this chapter, we
examine two other issues that we believe present opportunities for additional
reform of important DPD policies and practices.

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Chapter 2 :: OIM Evaluation of DPD Policy

The OIM Recommends Stronger Discipline to Deter Misuse of
the NCIC/CCIC Databases
In recent decades, police agencies have become increasingly reliant on information
aggregated in criminal justice databases to help fulfill their law enforcement and
public safety responsibilities. As a data-driven agency, the DPD has embraced
this trend by equipping DPD officers with access to a variety of law enforcement
databases for use in their work. This includes the databases known as the
National Crime Information Center and Colorado Crime Information Center.51
NCIC is available to virtually every law enforcement agency nationwide and
includes a variety of important criminal justice record types, including multi-state
information about arrests, sex offenders, protection orders, immigration, missing
persons, and alleged gang affiliations, among others.52 It is a critical law
enforcement tool that DPD officers use every day to solve crimes, apprehend
fugitives, recover stolen property, and execute other policing functions that keep
Denver’s residents safe.
Some of the information in NCIC/CCIC is sensitive or confidential. For
example, it includes home addresses, and immigration status information, as well
as certain personal information about victims of domestic violence who have
obtained protection orders.53 In recent years, additional types of sensitive criminal
justice records have been included within NCIC/CCIC, including certain juvenile
arrest records.54 NCIC is thus a growing repository of sensitive information about
the American public.55 While DPD officers are permitted to use NCIC/CCIC
for official purposes, they may not use it for personal reasons. Indeed, DPD
policy includes several strong warnings to officers against the misuse of the
databases. For example, the DPD policy in effect during the incidents
summarized on pages 17 through 19 of this report warned officers that misuse of
NCIC/CCIC may subject them to possible criminal penalties:
All personnel should be advised that the NCIC system is covered
under the Federal Privacy Act of 1974, which contains criminal
penalties for violations. This Act provides in part that, ‘any person
who knowingly and willfully requests or obtains any record
concerning an individual from an agency under false pretenses shall
be guilty ...’. Personnel shall not use the CCIC/NCIC system to
obtain information, criminal or otherwise for personal use, gain,
benefit, or remuneration. This includes police officers, CSA
employees, and any other person.56

Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 2 :: OIM Evaluation of DPD Policy

This point is reiterated elsewhere in the DPD policy on NCIC/CCIC:
Any information available via the NCIC/CCIC system will be
limited to criminal justice purposes only. Personnel will not use
criminal justice information for personal reasons, including
curiosity inquiries or non-criminal justice investigations.57
Other DPD policies, such as DPD’s Care and Use of Computer Equipment
Policy, also inform officers that the misuse of computer resources, such as
NCIC/CCIC, may subject them to disciplinary action and possible criminal or
civil penalties:
(5) Employees may be disciplined by the Department for any
conduct that is prohibited by or otherwise in violation of this
policy.
d. Violations of this policy may result in suspension or
termination of department computer Internet access;
disciplinary action pursuant to the department’s rules
and regulations; or legal action in the form of criminal
or civil penalties.58
Notwithstanding these strong warnings, when DPD officers have misused
NCIC/CCIC, the practice of the DPD and the EDOS has generally been to
impose oral or written reprimands, rather than stronger disciplinary sanctions,
such as fined time or suspensions. In many cases, the OIM agreed with these
disciplinary outcomes. Yet, in the past year, several cases highlighted the risks of
harm associated with this misconduct, and caused the OIM to reconsider the
issuance of reprimands for misuse of NCIC, which may neither be commensurate
with those risks nor sufficiently deter the behavior.
o On September 28, 2015, a man was parked at the Colorado Springs home
of a woman he was dating. The woman was in the middle of a divorce.
The woman’s soon-to-be ex-husband (‘‘ex-husband’’) saw the man’s car in
the driveway, suspected his wife of having an affair, and took note of the
car’s license plate. Database records revealed that on September 28, a
DPD officer (‘‘Officer A’’) ran the man’s license plate in NCIC/CCIC.
Shortly thereafter, the ex-husband began driving by the man’s house and
threatening him. The ex-husband also found and contacted the man’s
wife to tell her that the man was having an affair. The ex-husband told
the wife that he knew their home address, showed her a picture of the
ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Chapter 2 :: OIM Evaluation of DPD Policy

man’s car, and asked her questions about the man to find out what gym he
worked out at, what shift he worked, and where he spent his leisure time.
During an investigation, Officer A admitted that he knew the ex-husband,
who called him to complain about the vehicle parked in front of his house.
The ex-husband said that he believed that his wife was having an affair,
and asked Officer A to run the vehicle’s plate, which Officer A did. The
DPD issued a written reprimand to the officer for this misuse of the
NCIC/CCIC databases.
o On May 15, 2015, a female hospital employee spoke with a DPD officer
who was at the hospital to investigate a reported sexual assault. The
female employee was not involved in the investigation, but the officer
made ‘‘small talk’’ with her after his interview of the sexual assault victim.
At the end of her shift, the female employee returned home and found a
voicemail message from the officer on her personal phone. She had not
given the officer her phone number, and was upset that he had obtained it
(she assumed) by improperly using law enforcement computer systems.
During an investigation into the incident, records revealed that the officer
had, in fact, used the NCIC/CCIC database (and other DPD databases)
to obtain her phone number, and the officer ultimately admitted to this
conduct. The DPD issued the officer a written reprimand for his misuse
of the NCIC/CCIC databases, and fined him two days’ pay for leaving an
unwelcome voice message that upset the female employee.
o A tow truck driver who frequently works with DPD officers was involved
in a custody dispute with her ex-boyfriend regarding her teenage daughter.
She learned that her ex-boyfriend and daughter were given a ride by
another individual (who was a friend of the ex-boyfriend). According to
the tow-truck driver, she called a DPD officer and asked him to run the
license plate of the individual’s vehicle. The officer did so and provided
her with information about the individual. The tow truck driver then
spoke with the individual by phone and told him that she had personal
information about him, including his home address.
During an investigation into the incident, the tow-truck driver expressed
significant concern about the officer possibly getting into trouble, and said
that she had explained her reason for wanting the officer to run the license
plate before he did so. The officer denied this, saying instead that he ran
the plate because he thought that the tow-truck driver might have needed
18

Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 2 :: OIM Evaluation of DPD Policy

the information in connection with her official duties. The officer was
alleged to have misused NCIC/CCIC and to have improperly
communicated confidential information. The DPD and EDOS found
these allegations to be not sustained and unfounded, respectively, and no
discipline was imposed related to this incident.
The OIM believes that by-and-large, DPD officers adhere to DPD policy on the
use of NCIC/CCIC. Yet, in our view, each of the cases above reflected serious
departures from that policy and the standards of conduct expected of DPD
officers. Further, each case risked potential harm to the reputation of DPD
officers as trustworthy public servants, and in one case, the improper disclosure of
NCIC/CCIC information created the opportunity for possible criminal behavior
by a vengeful spouse. In each case, the OIM recommended that the DPD and
EDOS impose discipline greater than a reprimand for the misuse of
NCIC/CCIC. These recommendations were not accepted.59

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Chapter 2 :: OIM Evaluation of DPD Policy

Historical Information About the Misuse of NCIC/CCIC
The OIM identified a total of 43 allegations over the last ten years of
unauthorized access to or misuse of NCIC/CCIC by DPD officers.60,61 Twentyfive of these allegations were sustained.62 That is, the investigations determined
that the officers had, in fact, misused NCIC/CCIC. These sustained allegations
were dispersed across the ten years, with each year having a minimum of one
sustained allegation and a maximum of four sustained allegations of misuse of
NCIC/CCIC.
Figure 2.1: Allegations of Misuse of NCIC/CCIC Over Time (2006-2015)
Sustained allegations

Allegations that were not sustained

8
7
6

3
2
1
0

2006

2007

2009

2010

2011

2012

1
2008

1
1
3

2013

2
2014

2015

Of the 25 sustained allegations, the majority of officers (16) received reprimands
for their misuse of NCIC/CCIC. In eight cases, an officer was fined between 8
and 16 hours of pay, and in one case, an officer was suspended for 3 days. Of the
nine officers who received penalties greater than reprimands, five would have
received written reprimands for their misuse of NCIC/CCIC but for their prior
disciplinary history. Because these five officers had prior disciplinary infractions,
the disciplinary matrix automatically elevated their penalties to fined time, rather
than reprimands.

Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 2 :: OIM Evaluation of DPD Policy

Figure 2.2: Discipline Imposed in the 25 Sustained Misuse of NCIC/CCIC Allegations
(2006-2015)
25
20
15

Reprimand
Automatically
Escalated to Fine

10
5

Oral or Written
Reprimands

0
Oral or Written
Reprimand

Fine of 8-16 Hours 3-day Suspension
(Fine Automatically
Escalated Due to
Prior Discipline)

In some of these cases, additional discipline was imposed for misconduct other
than the misuse of NCIC/CCIC. For example, in five cases, officers were
disciplined for engaging in other misconduct that included: conduct prejudicial,63
failing to make, file or complete official reports, improper use of electronic mail,
law violation -- assault, and departing from the truth. The penalties imposed for
this other misconduct included fines of 16 hours, and in one case, dismissal.

Seriousness of the Misconduct and Risk of Harm
The DPD’s Disciplinary Handbook (‘‘Handbook’’), which governs the discipline
process for DPD officers, repeatedly emphasizes that the severity of discipline for
any act of misconduct should be determined by ‘‘the nature and seriousness of the
misconduct,’’ and ‘‘the harm or prejudice arising’’ from it, among other factors.64
When imposing discipline, the DPD and EDOS are required to assess the ‘‘actual
and demonstrable harm or risk of harm’’ that results from the misconduct.65
‘‘‘[H]arm’ is not limited to physical injury. The term ‘harm’ is intended to apply
to any demonstrable wrong, prejudice, damage, injury or negative effect/impact
which arises from the violation.’’66 In order to evaluate the harm or risk of harm,
the DPD and EDOS must carefully consider the ‘‘overall effect of the misconduct
on the goals, values, operation, image and professional standards of the
Department.’’67

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Chapter 2 :: OIM Evaluation of DPD Policy

In light of these principles, violations that tend to result in reprimands under the
discipline matrix are generally minor, with little appreciable harm or risk of harm
to the community. This includes, for example, failing to abide by police uniform
restrictions when off-duty (such as wearing ‘‘civilian attire with the uniform cap or
helmet’’),68 or entering into a ‘‘place of amusement or liquor establishment’’ when
on duty.69 Similarly, suggesting ‘‘attorneys, bondsmen, or bail brokers to any
person arrested’’ (other than a member of the officer’s immediate family) can also
result in a reprimand.70 The failure to make reports ‘‘promptly, accurately, and
completely in conformity with specifications of the Department’’ also generally
results in a reprimand.71
In contrast, violations that involve the abuse of police powers for personal reasons
tend to result in more severe discipline under the matrix, such as fined time or
suspensions. This includes, for example, officers taking ‘‘police action or making
arrests in their own quarrels or in those involving their families,’’72 officers
misusing their police powers to ‘‘solicit preferential treatment,’’73 and officers who
knowingly receive anything of value from ‘‘suspects, prisoners, arrestees,
prostitutes, or other persons whose vocations may profit from information
obtained from the police.’’74 Similarly, violations that tend to damage officer or
public safety, or result in harm to the reputation or professional operations of the
DPD, also tend to result in more serious discipline.
This includes
discrimination,75 verbal abuse of the public,76 or intimidation of persons,77 each of
which should result in the imposition of stiff discipline under the matrix.
The OIM believes that the misuse of NCIC/CCIC has more in common with
the second category of violations discussed above than it has with the first.
Indeed, the DPD’s written NCIC/CCIC Policy acknowledges the seriousness of
this violation through its repeated warnings of the criminal, civil, or disciplinary
penalties that could theoretically result from the misuse of NCIC/CCIC.
Further, the misuse of NCIC/CCIC involves the misuse of a power granted for
official purposes, it may damage community trust in the DPD, and in some cases,
it risks actual harm to community members.

Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 2 :: OIM Evaluation of DPD Policy

The Role of Deterrence in Police Discipline
The Handbook identifies the deterrence of misconduct as another critical aim of
the DPD’s disciplinary system for several reasons.78 First, by imposing sanctions
on an officer who has engaged in misconduct, the DPD and EDOS aim to deter
future misconduct by the particular officer being disciplined.79 Second, and no
less important, by imposing disciplinary sanctions for an act of misconduct, the
DPD and EDOS aim to provide notice of the consequences of misconduct to all
members of the DPD, and thus deter future misbehavior by the entire
department.80 This is consistent with best practices, and with the philosophy
espoused by DOJ on the important role of discipline on deterring officer
misbehavior.81
The cases and historical trends discussed above are not evidence of widespread
abuse of the NCIC/CCIC databases. Instead, they suggest that small-scale
misuse of NCIC/CCIC may have persisted across time, and may require the
imposition of discipline more serious than reprimands to deter future misconduct.
Some other law enforcement agencies have already adopted such an approach.
For example, officers in the Phoenix Police Department who misuse NCIC are
referred for suspensions without pay.82 Other departments also impose significant
discipline on officers who misuse NCIC, including suspensions and, in some
egregious cases, termination.83
Therefore, to address the concerns above:
OIM Recommendation # 1:
The OIM recommends that the DPD and the EDOS re-evaluate the current
framework for imposing discipline on DPD officers who misuse
NCIC/CCIC. Specifically, due to the potential for harm to community
members and the reputation or operations of the DPD, the OIM
recommends that penalties for misuse of NCIC/CCIC should be
strengthened within the matrix, carrying a range of penalties from fined days
to termination, depending on the seriousness of the misuse of NCIC/CCIC
and the harm or risk of harm that resulted from it. To ensure fair notice to
officers, the OIM also recommends that the DPD and the EDOS provide
written notification to officers of the reasons for this change in disciplinary
practices, and the factors that will be considered in assigning an NCIC/CCIC
violation to a particular conduct category within this new penalty range.

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Chapter 2 :: OIM Evaluation of DPD Policy

The OIM Recommends that the DPD Clarify Policy on the Use
of Force Against Arrestees Attempting to Swallow Potential
Contraband
While on patrol, officers may encounter suspects who place potential contraband
into their mouths in an attempt to swallow it or otherwise prevent its detection or
seizure by the police. For example, in an August 2014 arrest, a man attempted to
swallow a sock filled with suspected drugs, and was punched in the face multiple
times by a DPD officer who was trying to make him spit out the substances. A
witness later alleged that the officer had used inappropriate force against the
arrestee and another person.84 The DPD exonerated this officer in January 2016
after an administrative review of his conduct.
As the OIM noted during that review, the DPD’s Use of Force Policy is almost
entirely silent on whether physical force is authorized to remove potential
contraband from an arrestee’s mouth and, if so, what kinds of force are
permitted.85 Little guidance is provided, other than a short notation that officers
may not use Tasers to prevent arrestees from swallowing contraband.86 Similarly,
the DPD Training Academy does not currently provide any specific training
addressing appropriate and safe methods for the removal of potential contraband
from an arrestee’s mouth.87 The DPD’s Arrest and Control Technique (‘‘ACT’’)
Manual is also silent on this issue.88
This gap in current policy and training leaves officers in the unenviable position of
having to make field determinations about whether to attempt to remove
potential contraband from arrestees’ mouths, quickly and under tense
circumstances, without formal direction from the DPD. In December 2015, the
OIM verbally recommended that the DPD revise its Use of Force Policy to
provide specific guidance on this issue. In a follow-up letter sent in January 2016
(a copy of which is attached as Appendix B of this Report), the OIM specifically
recommended that the DPD prohibit the use of strikes to force persons to spit
out potential contraband for several reasons.
First, medical research reflects that when foreign bodies such as drug packets are
swallowed, they generally pass through the body within 12-24 hours without
medical intervention.89 At that point, they may be recovered and used as evidence
in criminal proceedings, if necessary. Second, to be successful at causing arrestees
to spit out potential contraband, strikes may often be serious enough to risk
potential injury. In Denver, between 2013 and 2015, there were at least 2,037

Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 2 :: OIM Evaluation of DPD Policy

incidents in which one or more DPD officers used force,90 and DPD data indicate
that a high proportion of the uses of force that involved strikes resulted in injury
to community members.91 Similarly, the use of strikes to remove contraband from
the mouths of arrestees may also be dangerous for officers, who may be bitten or
otherwise assaulted during those uses of force.92
Third, some police departments have recently prohibited the use of strikes to
remove potential contraband from the mouths of suspects or gone even further---forbidding the use of any force at all for this purpose. This includes the Seattle
Police Department, which adopted a new Use of Force Policy that distinguishes
between a suspect who is attempting to put possible contraband into his mouth,
and one who has done so and is attempting to swallow it.93 While reasonable
force is permissible to prevent a suspect from putting possible contraband into his
mouth, no force is permitted to try to remove such contraband after the suspect
has placed it into his mouth. This new policy was adopted under the auspices of
the DOJ and a United States federal judge.94
Therefore, to address the concerns above:
OIM Recommendation # 2:
The OIM recommends that the DPD revise its Use of Force Policy to provide
specific guidance on what types of force are permitted, and prohibited, to
remove potential contraband from the mouths of persons being placed under
arrest. The OIM further recommends that this revised policy prohibit the use
of strikes to force persons being placed under arrest to spit out potential
contraband.

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Chapter 2 :: OIM Evaluation of DPD Policy

Summary of OIM Recommendations to the DPD and the
Office of the Executive Director of Safety
1) The OIM recommends that the DPD and the EDOS re-evaluate the
current framework for imposing discipline on DPD officers who misuse
NCIC/CCIC. Specifically, due to the potential for harm to community
members and the reputation of the DPD, the OIM recommends that
penalties for misuse of NCIC/CCIC should be strengthened within the
matrix, carrying a range of penalties from fined days to termination,
depending on the seriousness of the misuse of NCIC/CCIC and the harm
or risk of harm that resulted from it. To ensure fair notice to officers, the
OIM also recommends that the DPD and the EDOS provide written
notification to officers of the reasons for this change in disciplinary
practices regarding misuse of NCIC/CCIC, and the factors that will be
considered in assigning an NCIC/CCIC violation to a particular conduct
category within this new penalty range.
2) The OIM recommends that the DPD revise its Use of Force Policy to
provide specific guidance on what types of force are permitted, and
prohibited, to remove potential contraband from the mouths of persons
being placed under arrest. The OIM further recommends that this revised
policy prohibit the use of strikes to force persons being placed under arrest
to spit out potential contraband.

Office of the Independent Monitor

Denver Police Department Monitoring
Introduction
The OIM is responsible for monitoring Denver Police Department
(‘‘DPD’’) investigations into complaints involving sworn personnel and for
ensuring that the complaint process is accessible to all community
members. Having an accessible complaint process is critical for several
reasons. First, complaints provide the DPD with information it can use to
hold officers accountable when they fail to live up to Department and
community standards of conduct. Second, complaints may provide
‘‘customer feedback’’ that can be used to improve police services through
the refinement of policies, procedures, and training. Third, complaints
can identify points of friction between officers and the community, which
can support the development of outreach and community education
initiatives. Finally, an open complaint process tends to foster community
confidence in the police, which enables officers to effectively fulfill their
important public safety function.
In this chapter, we review statistical and workload patterns relating to the
DPD’s 2015 complaints, investigations, findings, and discipline.

Highlights
•
•

The number of community complaints recorded by the DPD in 2015
declined substantially. In 2014, 539 community complaints were
recorded against DPD officers, compared to 396 in 2015.
The percentage of internal complaints, or complaints filed by DPD
officers, in which one or more allegations were sustained declined
between 2014 and 2015. In 2014, 50% of internal complaints had one
or more sustained allegations compared to 30% in 2015.

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Chapter 3 :: DPD Monitoring

•

One DPD officer was terminated in 2015 and eight officers resigned or
retired while an investigation or disciplinary decision was pending.

Receiving Complaints Against DPD Officers
Complaints against Denver police officers fall into three categories: community
complaints, internal complaints, and scheduled discipline complaints.

Community Complaints/Commendations
Community complaints are allegations of misconduct against a sworn member of
the DPD that are filed by community members. Community members can file
complaints or commendations by filling out the OIM’s online
complaint/commendation form, mailing the OIM a completed postage pre-paid
complaint/commendation form, emailing or faxing a complaint/commendation to
the OIM, or by visiting the OIM’s offices. Complaints or commendations can
also be filed directly with the DPD, through its Internal Affairs Bureau (‘‘IAB’’),
or by using forms that are generally available at the Mayor’s office, DPD District
stations, and City Council offices. See Appendices C and D, which describe how
complaints and commendations can be filed, and where OIM
complaint/commendation forms are located.

Internal Complaints
Internal complaints are those that are filed by an officer, supervisor, command
staff, or Internal Affairs. Internal complaints are more likely to be procedural
than community complaints, and often allege a failure to follow DPD procedures.
Not all internal complaints are minor, however, as complaints of criminal
behavior by officers are sometimes generated internally.

Scheduled Discipline Complaints
Scheduled discipline complaints are generally minor, such as when a DPD officer
gets into a preventable traffic accident that does not cause injury, or misses a court
date, shooting qualification, or continuing education class.95 Discipline for these
types of routine offenses is imposed according to a specific, escalating schedule.
Historically, the OIM has opted not to monitor or report on these types of cases.
As a result, this chapter does not address patterns in scheduled discipline.

Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 3 :: DPD Monitoring

Complaints Recorded in 2015
Figure 3.1 presents the number of complaints recorded by DPD IAB during 2015
and the previous four years.96,97,98 These numbers do not include scheduled
discipline cases. In 2015, 396 community complaints and 110 internal complaints
were recorded against DPD officers.99 The number of community complaints is
lower in 2015 than in previous years, while the number of internal complaints
increased slightly. When compared to 2014, community complaints decreased by
27% in 2015 and internal complaints increased by 10%.
As we have noted in previous reports, it is very difficult to explain fluctuations in
the number of complaints filed over time. Patterns in complaints can change as
the result of improvements to organizational policy, practice, or training.
Complaint numbers can also increase or decrease in response to a range of other
factors, including but not limited to media coverage, changes in complaint triage
practices, and/or changes in the types of complaints that are recorded.
Figure 3.1: Complaints Recorded by Year
Community Complaints

539

534

515

460

Internal Complaints

396

2011

2012

2013

100

2014

110

2015

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Chapter 3 :: DPD Monitoring

Most Common Complaint Specifications
Table 3.1 presents some of the most common specifications (or rules that a DPD
officer might be disciplined for violating) in both internal and community
complaints in 2015 and the previous four years.100 The most common
specification recorded by IAB in 2015 was ‘‘Responsibilities to Serve the Public,’’ a
specification used when officers are alleged to have violated a rule requiring them
to ‘‘respect the rights of individuals and perform their services with honesty, zeal,
courage, discretion, fidelity, and sound judgment.’’101
Table 3.1: Most Common Specifications
Specification
2011 2012
Responsibilities to Serve Public
16%
18%
Duty to Obey Departmental Rules and
22%
15%
Mayoral Executive Orders
Discourtesy
23%
23%
Inappropriate Force
16%
12%
Conduct Prohibited by Law
2%
2%
Failure to Give Name and Badge
1%
4%
Number
Failure to Make or File Reports
3%
3%
Conduct Prejudicial
3%
2%
Duty to Protect Prisoner
0%
0%
All Other Specifications
14%
20%
Total Number of Specifications
920
1,124
*Note: Columns may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

Office of the Independent Monitor

2013
26%

2014
21%

2015
23%

20%

22%

20%
10%
1%

18%
16%
1%

19%
14%
4%

3%
2%
0%
15%
1,255

3%
1%
0%
14%
1,372

2%
1%
1%
12%
911

Chapter 3 :: DPD Monitoring

Intake Investigations and Screening Decisions
After a complaint is received, a preliminary review is conducted to determine its
level of seriousness, and whether it states an allegation of misconduct or a policy
and procedural concern. This process may be thought of as ‘‘triage’’ to determine
the level of resources to devote to the investigation of each complaint. IAB
conducts this preliminary review (sometimes known as an ‘‘intake investigation’’ or
‘‘screening investigation’’). The preliminary review may include a recorded
telephonic or in-person interview with the complainant and witnesses; a review of
police records, dispatch information, and relevant video; and interviews of
involved officers.
Following the preliminary review, IAB supervisors determine what policies and
procedures have allegedly been violated, and make a screening or classification
decision that determines how the complaint will be handled. There are five
common screening decisions:

Decline
The complaint either does not state an allegation of misconduct under DPD
policy, or the preliminary review revealed that the facts alleged in the complaint
did not occur or that there is insufficient evidence to proceed with an
investigation. No further investigation will be conducted. The OIM reviews
every declined case before it is closed. The OIM also communicates the case
outcome by mailing a letter to the complainant, along with a findings letter from
IAB.

Informal
The complaint states an allegation of a minor procedural violation (‘‘minor
misconduct’’) not rising to the level of official misconduct (‘‘serious misconduct’’).
As such, the complaint will be investigated by the subject officer’s supervisor,
rather than by IAB. The OIM reviews the completed investigation, and may
recommend additional investigation, if warranted. If the allegation is proven, the
supervisor is to debrief or counsel the subject officer and document this action.

Service Complaint
The complaint states a general concern with police policy or services, rather than
an allegation of misconduct against a specific officer. The OIM also reviews
service complaints prior to case closure.

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Chapter 3 :: DPD Monitoring

Mediation
The complaint states a relatively non-serious allegation of misconduct, such as
discourtesy, and the complainant and officer might benefit from the opportunity
to discuss their interaction. The complaint will not be further investigated, but
the OIM will work to schedule a facilitated discussion with a neutral, professional
mediator.

Formal
The complaint alleges misconduct under DPD policy and requires a full
investigation and disciplinary review. Cases that are selected for full formal
investigations are investigated by sergeants in IAB. On some serious cases, the
OIM will actively monitor the investigations. When the OIM actively monitors a
case, an OIM monitor will observe interviews, consult with the investigators and
their supervisors on what direction the investigation should take, and review
evidence as it is collected. Since active monitoring is resource-intensive, the OIM
only actively monitors the most serious cases. Regardless of whether the OIM
actively monitors a case, an OIM monitor reviews and comments on the IAB
investigation once it is complete. The case is then given to the DPD’s Conduct
Review Office (‘‘CRO’’) for disciplinary findings.

Findings and Discipline
After a case is investigated by IAB and reviewed by the OIM, the case is sent to
the CRO. In reviewing a case, the CRO examines the evidence, evaluates the
appropriateness of the specifications assigned by IAB, and makes findings on each
specification. There are generally four findings on formal investigations:102
•
•
•
•

Sustained - A preponderance of the evidence indicates that the officer’s
actions violated a DPD policy, procedure, rule, regulation, or directive.
Not Sustained - There was insufficient evidence to either prove or disprove
that the alleged misconduct occurred as described in the complaint.
Unfounded - The evidence indicates that the misconduct alleged did not
occur.
Exonerated - The evidence indicates that the officer’s actions were permissible
under DPD policies, procedures, rules, regulations, and directives.

Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 3 :: DPD Monitoring

Patterns in Outcomes on Community Complaints
Figure 3.2 shows the disposition of internal and community complaints closed
during 2015. There were clear differences in outcomes between complaints filed
by community members and internal complaints filed by supervisors or command
staff. The majority of community complaints closed in 2015 were declined after
an initial intake investigation (64%), while a much smaller percentage of internal
complaints were closed as declines (14%). Internal complaints were much more
likely to result in a sustained finding than community complaints. For example,
6% of community complaints closed in 2015 resulted in at least one sustained
finding, while 30% of internally-generated complaints resulted in a sustained
finding.
Figure 3.2: Outcomes of Complaints Closed in 2015
Community Complaints

Internal Complaints

64%
46%
30%
14%

13%

8% 11%

0%
Declined/
Administrative
Review

Informal/
Service
Complaint

Mediation

Not Sustained/
Exonerated/
Unfounded

Sustained

These patterns are generally consistent with previous years. However, a
considerably larger percentage of internal complaints were resolved informally in
2015 than in previous years. In 2014, 13% of internal complaints were resolved
informally, compared to 46% in 2015.
This increase in informal resolutions corresponds to a similar decrease in
sustained findings. As Figure 3.3 demonstrates, between five and six percent of
closed community complaints had at least one allegation that was sustained since
2011. In comparison, between 47% and 54% of the internal complaints closed
between 2011 and 2014 had one or more sustained allegations. The total number

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Chapter 3 :: DPD Monitoring

of internal complaints closed in 2015 includes 30 cases alleging violations of
DPD’s Secondary Employment Policy identified by a Telestaff Audit.103 These
cases were closed informally and not reviewed by the OIM. The handling of
these cases may explain why the rate of cases closed informally is substantially
higher than in previous years. It may also help explain why the sustained rate for
internal complaints is lower than in previous years. We will monitor this and
discuss trends in complaint outcomes in future OIM reports.
Figure 3.3: Complaints that Resulted in One or More Sustained Allegations
Community Complaints
54%
48%

47%

Internal Complaints
50%

30%

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Discipline on Sustained Cases
After the completion of the DPD IAB investigation, the case is reviewed by the
DPD Conduct Review Office (‘‘CRO’’). The CRO makes an initial finding
regarding policy or procedural violations. The OIM then reviews the CRO
findings. When the CRO and/or the OIM initially recommend that discipline
greater than a written reprimand be imposed or when there is a disagreement
between the OIM and CRO about the findings, a Chief’s meeting will be held.
At this meeting, the Chief, Independent Monitor (and/or his representative), the
CRO, Commander of IAB, the EDOS (and/or her representative), an assistant
City Attorney, and a number of DPD Command officers discuss the case and
provide input to the Chief to assist him in making his disciplinary
recommendations, if any, to the EDOS.
If discipline greater than a written reprimand is contemplated following the
Chief’s meeting, the officer is entitled to a ‘‘Chief’s Hearing.’’ At this meeting,
34

Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 3 :: DPD Monitoring

the officer can present his or her side of the story and any mitigating evidence to
explain the alleged misconduct. After this meeting, the Chief and the
Independent Monitor each make a final recommendation to the EDOS,
independently. The EDOS is closely involved in the process of advising the
Chief as he formulates his recommendation. The EDOS then makes a final
decision as to findings and discipline. If the officer disagrees with the discipline
imposed by the EDOS, the officer may file an appeal with the Civil Service
Commission’s Hearing Office.
Table 3.2 reports the number of officers who retired/resigned prior to a discipline
finding or who were disciplined by the Police Chief (for reprimands) or the
EDOS (for any discipline greater than a reprimand) for sustained allegations from
2011 through 2015. The most frequent discipline imposed in 2015 was written
reprimands, followed by suspensions without pay and fined time. One officer was
terminated in 2015.104
Table 3.2: Discipline Imposed by Year of Case Closure105
Discipline
Terminated
Resigned/Retired Prior to Discipline
Demoted
Suspended Time
Fined Time
Written Reprimand
Oral Reprimand

2011
10
1
0
28
38
41
10

2012
0
4
0
21
35
31
9

2013
1
9
0
20
19
38
4

2014
4
6
1
22
28
38
3

2015
1
8
0
18
15
30
4

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Chapter 3 :: DPD Monitoring

Significant Disciplinary Cases Closed in 2015
Terminations
 On July 10, 2014, a female struggled with police officers while they attempted
to arrest and handcuff her, spitting in one officer’s face and kicking a second
officer in the face while he placed her in the back of a patrol car. She was
transported to a district station. While in a holding cell, the female refused to
relinquish her belt and shoes, which quickly led to a struggle with the male officer
who had been previously kicked. During the struggle, the officer placed his right
knee in the area of her neck and pinned her down on a bench. Moments later,
the female is seen on video apparently losing consciousness and sliding off the
bench, possibly due to the pressure that the male officer had placed on her neck.
The officer failed to get medical attention for the female, failed to report the use
of force to supervisors, and also failed to document the use of force, all of which
are required by DPD policy. The officer was terminated. He appealed that
decision, and a Hearing Officer modified the discipline to two 30 day suspensions
and a termination held in abeyance (i.e., a suspended termination, or probation)
for two years pending no further similarly serious acts of misconduct. The Office
of the EDOS has appealed this decision to the Civil Service Commission.

Resignations and Retirements
 On February 6, 2014, following a three-car accident, an off-duty officer was
arrested in another jurisdiction and charged with driving under the influence of
alcohol and careless driving. The results of a blood alcohol test indicated he had a
Blood Alcohol Content (‘‘BAC’’) of .186. The officer ultimately pled guilty to
driving under the influence with one prior offense and was sentenced to 24
months of probation and ten days in jail. He resigned before a disciplinary
decision was reached.
 On June 8, 2014, a detective was arrested by the Thornton Police Department
after police were called to his home for an alleged domestic violence incident.
During this incident, he was allegedly intoxicated and fired six rounds from a
handgun through the floor of a second story bedroom into a first story living
room. Police found his wife and two children huddled together in a bathroom.
He pled guilty to Prohibited Use of a Weapon, Reckless Endangerment, and
Harassment by Telephone, and was sentenced to probation. As a condition of his
probation, he was prohibited from carrying a weapon, thus disqualifying him from

Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 3 :: DPD Monitoring

further serving as a DPD officer. The detective resigned prior to a final discipline
finding.
 On July 26, 2014, an officer allegedly took an unattended backpack from a
district station without authorization, instead of taking the property to the
Property Bureau. He was seen on camera placing the backpack in a paper bag,
taking it into the back of the parking lot, crouching down out of camera view,
placing it in the trunk of his patrol car, and then bringing another bag back into
the station. The backpack and its contents went missing. The officer also
allegedly lied during the IAB investigation. The officer resigned prior to a
discipline finding.
 On August 16, 2014, an off-duty officer was arrested and charged with
Disorderly Conduct and Child Abuse. The results of a portable breath test
indicated that his blood alcohol level was .257. The officer was criminally
charged and pled guilty to disorderly conduct. The officer resigned prior to a
discipline finding.
 On September 29, 2014, several officers responded to a 911 call in which a
woman’s ex-boyfriend, whom she knew to carry a gun, allegedly broke into her
home. Officers were warned previously that the suspect would not be taken
alive and would engage in a shoot-out with police. While transporting the victim
and her children to a safe house, the officer a l l eg e dly drove the victim to
three different locations where the victim believed the suspect might be. The
suspect was seen kneeling beside his truck at the third location. To avoid being
detected, the officer drove away, but stopped after a short distance, while other
officers arrived to make the arrest. The officer then a l le ge dl y left his police car
to assist with the arrest, leaving the victim and two children unattended and
potentially vulnerable. There were also concerns that the officer lied to IAB
during the investigation of the incident. The officer resigned prior to a discipline
finding.
 Sometime between the night of November 27 and the early morning hours of
November 28, 2014, an off-duty officer threw his intimate partner’s belongings
from a balcony, possibly including car keys. The car allegedly went missing
around the same time. The officer also allegedly lied to police during their
investigation and during an IAB investigation. He was also alleged to have
carried his service weapon while intoxicated, displaying it in a bar, and to have
committed offensive acts. The officer resigned prior to a discipline finding.

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Chapter 3 :: DPD Monitoring

 On February 11, 2015, during a task force investigation into juveniles being
trafficked for prostitution, investigators allegedly linked a cell phone number on a
trafficked juvenile’s phone to a DPD officer. The officer resigned before a
disciplinary decision was reached.
 An officer had two cases alleging misconduct. In the first case, on March 3,
2015, while off-duty, the officer was involved in a car accident. He was charged
with driving under the influence along with other violations and is alleged to have
had a BAC of .146. In the second case, on August 22, 2015, the officer was onduty when he was contacted by a supervisor because the officer allegedly appeared
intoxicated. The officer resigned prior to the completion of the IAB investigation
into either case.

Other Significant Cases, Including Suspensions for Ten or More
Days
 In June 2009, a detective was assigned to conduct a follow-up investigation of a
cold case. The District Attorney’s Office requested that the detective obtain an
arrest warrant for the suspect, but the detective did not obtain the warrant in a
timely manner. The detective was suspended for ten days.
 An officer spent excessive amounts of time visiting and attempting to flirt with
female civilian DPD employees, causing multiple employees to feel
uncomfortable. The officer also sent non-work-related and possibly inappropriate
emails to one of the employees. During one interaction, the officer touched this
employee’s hair several times, making her feel uncomfortable. He also
commented on her appearance and massaged her shoulders. The female
employee’s supervisor twice told the officer he needed to leave, and instead the
officer walked behind the female supervisor and inappropriately tickled her waist.
The officer was suspended for ten days and fined two days’ pay.
 On July 26, 2014, an officer working off-duty in a bar downtown escorted an
intoxicated male patron out of the establishment. The officer placed the male in
handcuffs and called for a vehicle to take him to detox. The male’s brother
attempted to discuss the situation with the officer and asked the officer to
reconsider. When the officer refused, the brother allegedly began verbally abusing
the officer. Although the brother did not make any threatening gestures, the
officer advanced on him and aggressively shoved him to the ground, causing him
to fall backwards onto concrete steps. The use of force was captured by a nearby
HALO camera. The sergeant investigating the use of force was briefed by the
38

Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 3 :: DPD Monitoring

officer, reviewed the HALO footage, and determined that the use of force did not
require further investigation. Several weeks later, the male and his brother filed a
complaint alleging inappropriate force, resulting in an IAB investigation of the
incident. The officer was ultimately suspended for 30 days for the inappropriate
use of force, and the sergeant received a written reprimand for failing to
recommend further investigation into the incident. The officer appealed this
decision, and in August 2015, a Hearing Officer reversed the discipline order.
The Office of the EDOS has appealed this decision to the Denver Civil Service
Commission.
 On September 2, 2014, several officers responded to a disturbance call between
two families. A victim mistakenly identified an individual as being involved in the
disturbance. When officers attempted to contact him, he fled into a home where
officers restrained him and placed him into custody. During the encounter, an
officer confronted a female at the scene who was upset with the police actions.
The officer yelled and inappropriately continued to escalate the argument. The
officer also failed to provide his name and badge number in writing after
individuals at the scene requested it. The officer has prior sustained complaints,
and was thus suspended for ten days and fined two days’ pay.
 On October 2, 2014, several officers and an ambulance responded to an office
to assist with a male who was thought to be a suicide risk. One officer entered
the office carrying a pepper ball gun without the safety engaged. The officers
handcuffed the man without incident. While waiting for the elevator to transport
the man from the building, the officer accidentally discharged the weapon and a
single pepperball projectile was fired in the hallway. Several parties who were in
the area, including the handcuffed individual, were exposed to the oleoresin
capsicum (‘‘OC’’) from the pepper ball. The officer was suspended for ten days
and fined four days’ time, to run concurrently. The officer appealed this decision,
and a Hearing Officer affirmed the four days of fined time but reversed the
suspension. The Office of the EDOS appealed the Hearing Officer’s decision,
and the suspension was reinstated by the Civil Service Commission.
 On January 14, 2015, an officer responded to a hit-and-run accident involving
property damage to a residential fence. The officer failed to conduct a thorough
investigation and failed to accurately complete a required report. The report
omitted the presence of broken auto parts at the scene and potential video
evidence from a nearby surveillance camera. This information could have helped
to identify the make and model of the suspect’s vehicle and otherwise assist in the
investigation. The officer, who had an extensive disciplinary history, received two

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Chapter 3 :: DPD Monitoring

ten day suspensions to run concurrently. The officer appealed one aspect of this
decision, and a Hearing Officer affirmed the discipline. The officer has appealed
this decision to the Civil Service Commission.
 On February 11, 2015, several officers were involved in a sting operation
targeting prostitution customers. During a break, a male officer made an
inappropriate comment to a female officer about her involvement in the
operation. Although a supervisor ordered the male officer to have no further
contact with the female officer, the male officer contacted her through text
messages. The officer received a ten day suspension for disobeying an order and
was fined two days’ pay for failing to demonstrate respect for a fellow officer.
 On July 2, 2015, an officer was in an elevator with a civilian employee of the
police department and other individuals. The officer drew his knife from its
sheath and displayed it while allegedly looking the civilian employee in the eye.
The employee felt intimidated and unsafe. DPD policy requires officers to keep
pocket knives completely concealed when not in use. The officer, who had a
significant disciplinary history, received two ten day suspensions to run
concurrently. The officer has appealed this decision.
 On July 3, 2015, an officer removed his handgun from his holster and placed it
on a table in front of his coworkers for no legitimate purpose. The next day, the
officer was upset and pointed his handgun at a computer exclaiming, ‘‘They can
take my gun, they can take my badge! I don’t care anymore.’’ The officer said it
was just a joke. Several days later, the officer drew his handgun and pointed it at
a fellow officer’s car while she was transporting a prisoner. The officer once again
described this as a joke. The officer was suspended for ten days and fined two
days’ pay.

Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 3 :: DPD Monitoring

Appeals on Significant Discipline Cases Closed Prior to January 1,
2015, and Decided or Pending With the Civil Service Commission
in 2015106
 In July 2009, an officer used inappropriate force by inappropriately grabbing a
female citizen, taking her to the ground, and punching her in the face. The
officer then lied to IAB about the incident. The Manager of Safety at the time
terminated the officer for Commission of a Deceptive Act and suspended him for
30 days for the use of inappropriate force. The officer appealed this decision. A
panel of Hearing Officers upheld his 30 day suspension for inappropriate force
but overturned his termination and reinstated the officer.107 The Manager of
Safety appealed this decision to the Civil Service Commission, which upheld the
panel’s decision to reinstate the officer. After appeals to both the District Court
and the Colorado Court of Appeals, the officer’s case was remanded back to the
Civil Service Commission and, in August 2015, his termination for Commission
of a Deceptive Act was reinstated. He has appealed this to the Denver District
Court.
 In 2013, two officers (Officers A and B) engaged in repeated sexual acts while
on duty. Officer B admitted to engaging in sexual acts with Officer A while on
duty, and resigned prior to a disciplinary finding. Officer A lied about that
conduct during an IAB investigation. Officer A was also later criminally charged
with crimes characterized by domestic violence and entered into a plea agreement
whereby she pled guilty to revised charges in return for a deferred judgment and
sentence in that case. In April 2014, Officer A was terminated for her
misconduct, appealed, and a Hearing Officer reversed the discipline decision and
reinstated her employment. The Office of the EDOS appealed that decision, and
in March 2015, the Civil Service Commission reversed the Hearing Officer’s
decision and reinstated Officer A’s termination.
 In March 2013, a detective failed to properly investigate a theft case
resulting in an innocent citizen being unnecessarily arrested. The detective
overlooked important exculpatory information that another detective had
previously added to the case file, and failed to provide the victim with a
photographic array from which the victim could attempt to identify the guilty
party. In October 2014, the EDOS ordered a suspension of ten days, and the
detective appealed the decision. In April 2015, a Hearing Officer determined
that the level of seriousness of the misconduct was misclassified by the EDOS’s
office, and purported to remand the case back to the Deputy Director of Safety

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Chapter 3 :: DPD Monitoring

to determine an appropriate penalty under a lesser misconduct category. The
Office of the EDOS appealed this decision, and the Civil Service Commission
reversed the Hearing Officer’s decision and reinstated the original suspension.
 In January 2014, an officer failed to properly investigate a DUI contact, and then
also failed to properly document the incident and the reasons for the lack of
investigation. The officer had prior cases involving the failure to make or file
reports or take police action on incidents. The officer was suspended for ten days.
The officer appealed the decision, and it was upheld by a Hearing Officer. The
officer appealed that decision, which was upheld by the Civil Service
Commission. The officer appealed that decision to the Denver District Court,
but subsequently withdrew that appeal.
 In March 2014, an officer was confronting a suspect who had fled from a traffic
stop and entered another vehicle. The officer was drawing his handgun and
turning on the attached flashlight as he stepped out of the car. The police
vehicle’s door swung back and threw him off-balance, causing him to
unintentionally discharge a round. The bullet entered the suspect vehicle’s
windshield, and the suspect sustained minor injuries from the flying glass. In
November 2014, the officer was suspended without pay for 18 days. He
appealed the decision, and a Hearing Officer upheld the suspension in June
2015. He appealed the Hearing Officer’s decision, which was affirmed by the
Civil Service Commission in February 2016.
 In May 2014, an officer requested time off to attend an out-of-town family
event. After being denied part of the time requested, she engaged in dishonest and
manipulative conduct by talking to different supervisors, and misleading them
regarding what others knew and had already approved in regard to her
request. She then made deceptive statements to IAB investigators. In October
2014, the officer was terminated for two separate violations of DPD policy, and
appealed that decision. In May 2015, a Hearing Officer modified the discipline
on one rule violation from termination to 90 suspended days, but affirmed the
termination on the other rule violation. The officer appealed that decision as did
the Office of the EDOS. In January 2016, the Civil Service Commission
reversed the Hearing Officer’s decision to modify the discipline for the first rule
violation to a 90 day suspension, and the termination findings on both violations
were upheld.

Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 3 :: DPD Monitoring

 An officer was accused by a citizen of sexual misconduct after he was called to
a homeless shelter on a disturbance call in July 2014. The officer made contact
with the woman allegedly causing the disturbance, then drove her to find
temporary lodging for the night. He drove her to several hotels and motels in and
out of Denver looking for a vacancy, finally finding an available room at
approximately 3 a.m. He helped her check-in to her room and left the hotel 40
minutes later. The officer failed to call out his mileage as required when
transporting a female, failed to get permission to travel outside of city limits, and
failed to notify dispatch of his arrival at the destination. While the evidence
was inconclusive about the allegation of sexual misconduct, the officer was
suspended 20 days for his violations of DPD policy. He appealed the decision,
and it was upheld by a Hearing Officer in April 2015. He appealed that
decision as well, which was upheld by the Civil Service Commission in
November 2015.

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Chapter 3 :: DPD Monitoring

Mediation
The complaints handled by IAB and the OIM range from allegations of criminal
conduct to less serious misunderstandings between community members and
police officers, including alleged rudeness. Although allegations of inappropriate
force or serious constitutional violations require the investment of significant
investigative resources, complaints alleging discourtesy and other less serious
conduct can often be resolved more effectively through mediation. Mediation is a
voluntary program. In 2015, the OIM/DPD mediation program resulted in 38
completed officer-community member mediations.108
Figure 3.4: Completed Community-Police Mediations
60

50
42
40

30
20
10
0
2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Denver continues to have one of the most successful complaint mediation
programs in the country (Table 3.3). New York City’s Civilian Complaint
Review Board completed the largest number of mediations in 2015 (205).
Relative to the size of each police agency, however, Denver had one of the highest
mediation rates in the country, with approximately 26 completed mediations per
1,000 officers in 2015.

Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 3 :: DPD Monitoring

Table 3.3: Mediation Rates per Officer for Select Agencies, 2015
City

Agency

Sworn
Officers

Mediations
Completed

Mediations
Per 1,000
Officers

Office of the
1,442
38
26.4
Independent Monitor
Office of Citizen
San Francisco
2,208
45
20.4
Complaints
Washington
Office of Police
3,789
42
11.1
D.C.
Complaints
Civilian Complaint
New York
34,500
205
5.9
Review Board
Office of Community
Kansas City
1,354
6
4.4
Complaints
Community Mediation
Aurora
682
3
4.4
Concepts
Civilian Police Review
Minneapolis
848
1
1.2
Authority
Office of Professional
Seattle
1,820
1
0.5
Accountability
Table Notes: Washington D.C. Office of Police Complaint’s mediation counts are for the
fiscal year October 1, 2014 to September 30, 2015. All other figures are based on the
2015 calendar year. Kansas City, MO also completed 29 conciliations.109
Denver

Timeliness
Table 3.4 reports the mean and median processing time, in days, for complaints
recorded by IAB in 2015.110,111 These figures exclude the number of days required
for the OIM to review investigations and discipline. On average, IAB cases are
closed within 42 days. Complaints still open when the OIM extracted data for
this report had an average age of 71 days.
Table 3.4: Mean and Median Case Age for Community and Internal Complaints
Received in 2015
Case Type

Mean

Median

All IAB Cases

Declined/Administrative Review/Informal/
Service Complaint/Mediation

Full Formal Investigations

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Chapter 3 :: DPD Monitoring

Complainant Demographics and Complaint Filing Patterns
The demographic characteristics of the 435 complainants who filed complaints
against DPD officers in 2015 are presented in Table 3.5 (note that a single
complaint can be associated with multiple complainants). Ninety-eight percent of
complainants filed only a single complaint, while 2% filed two or more
complaints.112
Table 3.5: Complainant Demographics and Filing Patterns113
Gender

Count

Percent

Male

222

51%

Female

174

40%

Missing

Total

435

100%

Race

Count

Percent

White

144

33%

Black

19%

Hispanic

13%

Asian/Pacific Islander

< 1%

Missing

152

35%

Total

435

100%

Age

Count

Percent

0 - 18

19 - 24

25 - 30

15%

85
59
62
127
435
Count
426
9
435

20%
14%
14%
29%
100%
Percent
98%
2%
100%

31 - 40
41 - 50
51+
Missing
Total
Filed More than One Complaint?
One Complaint
Two or More
Total

Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 3 :: DPD Monitoring

Officer Complaint Patterns
Complaints per Officer
Table 3.6 shows the number of complaints lodged against DPD officers from
2011 through 2015.114 This table includes citizen and internal complaints
(regardless of finding), but excludes scheduled discipline complaints and
complaints against non-sworn employees. In 2015, 65% of DPD sworn officers
did not receive any complaints, while 25% received one complaint.
Table 3.6: Number of Community/Internal Complaints Per Officer by Year
Number of
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Complaints
0
67%
62%
61%
59%
65%
1
23%
24%
24%
25%
25%
2
7%
9%
9%
11%
7%
3
2%
3%
3%
3%
2%
4
1%
1%
1%
1%
< 1%
5
< 1%
< 1%
1%
< 1%
< 1%
6
< 1%
0%
< 1%
< 1%
0%
7 or More
< 1%
< 1%
< 1%
< 1%
< 1%
Total Sworn
1,418
1,384
1,388
1,420
1,442
Officers*
*Note: Counts of sworn officers provided by the DPD Data Analysis Unit

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Chapter 3 :: DPD Monitoring

Inappropriate Force Complaints per Officer
Table 3.7 shows the number of inappropriate force complaints lodged against
DPD officers from 2011 through 2015. Seven percent of DPD officers received
one inappropriate force complaint in 2015. Slightly more than one percent of
officers received two or more inappropriate force complaints in 2015.
Table 3.7: Officers Receiving Inappropriate Force Complaints by Year
Number of
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Complaints
0
92%
92%
92%
88%
92%
1
7%
7%
7%
10%
7%
2
1%
1%
1%
2%
1%
3 or More
< 1%
< 1%
< 1%
< 1%
< 1%
Total Sworn
1,418
1,384
1,388
1,420
1,442
Officers*
*Note: Counts of sworn officers provided by the DPD Data Analysis Unit

Sustained Complaints per Officer
Table 3.8 reports the number of sustained complaints for officers between 2011
and 2015 (grouped by the year the complaints were closed). Four percent of
officers had one complaint sustained in 2015 and fewer than one percent had two
or more sustained complaints.
Table 3.8: Percentage of Officers with One or More Sustained Community/Internal
Complaints by Year of Case Closure
Number of
2011
2012
2013
2014
Complaints
0
93%
95%
95%
94%
1
6%
5%
5%
5%
2
1%
1%
1%
< 1%
3 or More
0%
< 1%
0%
< 1%
Total Sworn
1,418
1,384
1,388
1,420
Officers*
*Note: Counts of sworn officers provided by the DPD Data Analysis Unit

Office of the Independent Monitor

2015
96%
4%
< 1%
0%
1,442

Chapter 3 :: DPD Monitoring

Commendations and Awards
Every year, there are noteworthy examples of officers engaging in actions that
reflect departmental values of honor, courage, and commitment to community
service. Table 3.9 presents the number and type of commendations awarded to
DPD officers in 2015. Table 3.10 provides definitions for select commendations.
Table 3.9 Commendations Awarded to DPD Officers in 2015
Commendations
Commendatory Action Report
Official Commendation
Citizen Letter
Commendatory Letter
Unspecified
Life Saving Award
STAR award
Letter of Appreciation
Other than DPD Commendation
Distinguished Service Cross
Leadership Award
Top Cop
Merit Award
Medal of Valor
Community Service Award
Citizens Appreciate Police
Chiefs Unit Citation
Excellence in Crime Prevention
Outstanding Volunteer Award
Service Award
Unit Commendation
Total

Number
258
95
90
41
19
16
15
14
5
5
4
4
4
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
581

Percent
44.4%
16.4%
15.5%
7.1%
3.3%
2.8%
2.6%
2.4%
0.9%
0.9%
0.7%
0.7%
0.7%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
100.0%

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Chapter 3 :: DPD Monitoring

Table 3.10: Commendation Types and Descriptions

Commendation
Type

Description

Commendatory
Action Report

A Commendatory Action Report is generated when the Department receives
complimentary information about an officer from a member of the public; the
commendable action generally does not rise to the level of an official Departmental
award.

Community Service
Award

Awarded to an employee who, by virtue of sacrifice and expense of time, fosters or
contributes to a valuable and successful program in the area of community affairs, or
who acts to substantially improve police/community relations through contribution
of time and effort when not involved in an official police capacity.

Department Service
Award

Awarded to an individual who, through personal initiative and ingenuity, develops a
program or plan (for non-leadership type of actions) which contributes significantly
to the Department’s objectives and goals.

Distinguished Service
Cross

Awarded to employees who are cited for gallantry not warranting a Medal of Honor
or a Medal of Valor.

Leadership Award

Awarded to an individual in a position of command or supervisory authority for a
single or a series of incident(s)/event(s)/initiative(s) where the leadership and
management actions of the individual were such that the successful outcome of the
incident/event/initiative was greatly influenced by the timely, accurate, and decisive
nature of the individual’s actions, and which contributed significantly to the
Department’s mission, vision and values.

Life Saving Award

Awarded to employees who, through exceptional knowledge and behavior, perform
a physical act which saves the life of another person and there is no danger to the
officer’s life.

Medal of Honor

Awarded to employees who distinguish themselves conspicuously by gallantry and
intrepidity at the risk of their lives above and beyond the call of duty.

Medal of Valor

Awarded to employees who distinguish themselves by extraordinary heroism not
justifying the award of the Medal of Honor.

Merit Award

Awarded to employees who distinguish themselves by exceptional meritorious
service who, through personal initiative, tenacity and great effort act to solve a
major crime or series of crimes, or through personal initiative and ingenuity, develop
a program or plan which contributes significantly to the Department's objectives and
goals.

Officer of the Month

Awarded to employees who represent the Department in all facets of law
enforcement with a commitment to excellence, in support of the values of the
organization, and a desire to represent the department in the manner in which they
were sworn.

Official
Commendation

Awarded to employees, who by exemplary conduct and demeanor perform their
assigned functions in an unusually effective manner.

Purple Heart

Awarded to employees who are killed, seriously wounded or seriously injured in the
performance of an official action.

STAR Award

Awarded to employees who, through exceptional tactics, act to successfully resolve
a critical incident, thereby setting a standard for safety and professionalism to which
all officers should aspire.

Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 3 :: DPD Monitoring

Highlighted Commendations
OFFICIAL COMMENDATION
An officer responded to a family disturbance in which the complainants indicated
that their adult son, who suffered from mental health issues and was currently off
his medication because of financial difficulties, was threatening their lives. The
officer quickly de-escalated the situation and recognized that the son’s hunger was
aggravating the situation. In addition to providing resources and information to
assist the family, the officer accompanied the son to a nearby restaurant and
shared a meal with him. The officer was commended for de-escalating a volatile
situation.

COMMENDATORY LETTERS/CITIZEN LETTERS OF APPRECIATION
Officers received multiple commendatory letters and citizen letters of appreciation
for their participation in the FBI Denver Rocky Mountain Innocence Lost Task
Force. The task force recovered six minors from commercial sexual exploitation
and arrested two traffickers in the week preceding and during the 2015 National
Western Stock Show. In recent years, the task force has recovered more than 100
minors and helped train numerous community members and law enforcement
officers.

COMMUNITY SERVICE AWARD
A tree was uprooted and stolen from a privately funded park in Denver. Upon
learning of the theft, an officer and police dispatcher donated a larger, more
expensive replacement tree along with several additional trees and bushes. In
addition, the officer and dispatcher volunteered their Saturday to help plant the
trees and bushes in an effort to enhance the park. For his selflessness and
community spirit, the officer was awarded the Community Service Award.

OFFICIAL COMMENDATION
Officers responded to a report of a suicidal female who had barricaded herself
inside the women’s restroom of a restaurant. The officers quickly established
communication with the individual and confirmed that she was emotionally
distraught and threatening suicide. While maintaining verbal dialogue, the
officers bypassed the locked door and positioned the camera from a body worn
camera over the top of the door. The officers could see the female laying on the
bathroom floor cutting her wrists with a razor blade. They implemented a sound

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Chapter 3 :: DPD Monitoring

tactical plan, entered the bathroom, and took the woman into custody where she
received the necessary medical and mental health care. The officers were
commended for bringing a dangerous situation to a peaceful resolution using their
CIT training and a creative tactical response that included the use of new
technology.

CITIZEN LETTER OF APPRECIATION
A resident wrote to commend two DPD officers who assisted her and her mother
when their vehicle lost power on Peña Boulevard on the way to the airport. A
tow truck was unavailable for two hours and the two were running late for a flight
to visit a critically ill family member. The resident’s mother had undergone a
recent hip surgery in addition to requiring full time oxygen. Officers arranged for
their car to be towed, drove the two to the airport, and helped push the mother’s
wheelchair and portable oxygen tank, arriving at the gate with five minutes to
spare. The resident relayed that the kindness shown to her and her mother was
extremely comforting in a difficult situation.

LIFESAVING AWARD
Officers were dispatched to an intersection where a victim was found on the
ground. The individual was bleeding profusely from his chest and had stopped
breathing. The officers responded quickly by ensuring the victim’s airway was
clear, performing CPR, and applying clotting powder and bandages to the wound.
They continued to work for several minutes until paramedics arrived and took
over. Several medical professionals contacted the DPD to commend the actions
of the officers, who were given Lifesaving Awards for their quick response and
selfless actions.

EXCELLENCE IN CRIME PREVENTION
An officer assigned to the Sex Crimes Unit attended a conference that included a
presentation about the Start by Believing (‘‘SBB’’) campaign, which is a public
awareness campaign designed to change the way communities respond to victims
of rape and sexual assault. The officer obtained permission to bring the campaign
to Denver and served on a committee of members of the DPD and other Denver
agencies. Among other activities, the committee and the SBB campaign worked
to create advertisements on outdoor billboards, bus shelters, cabs, and magazines;
develop public service announcements; and obtain a trauma-based training video
that was used by the DPD as mandatory training in 2015. For his personal

Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 3 :: DPD Monitoring

initiative to help develop a program that contributes to the DPD’s mission, the
officer was awarded a commendation for Excellence in Crime Prevention.

LIFESAVING AWARD
Two officers arrived to a scene where multiple parties appeared to be using
narcotics within a vehicle. One individual passed out and stopped breathing. The
officers requested medical personnel and removed the individual from the vehicle.
After confirming that the individual had no pulse, one officer initiated
cardiopulmonary resuscitation while the other injected Narcan (an opioid
antidote) into the individual’s nasal passage in an effort to counteract the potential
ingestion of suspected heroin. Shortly after, a pulse was detected and the
individual began breathing again. The individual was stabilized and transported
to a medical facility for additional care. The officers were given Lifesaving
Awards for their actions.

MEDAL OF VALOR
While assisting with the large outgoing crowd following the closing of local bars,
an officer noticed an SUV slowly driving through a crowded alley. As he
approached the vehicle, the officer noticed the front passenger leaning across the
driver with what appeared to be a semi-automatic handgun pointed out the
window. The officer ordered the suspect to drop the gun and the individual
eventually complied. Upon arrival of cover officers, the individual was placed in
custody without incident and the firearm was recovered from under the passenger
seat. Because his actions brought an end to a potentially violent incident without
any shots being fired or bystanders injured, the officer was awarded the Medal of
Valor.

CITIZEN LETTER OF APPRECIATION
A resident wrote to commend a lieutenant for the support and assistance he had
provided to the Jewish community in District 1. The lieutenant displayed the
utmost respect towards Jewish religion and culture. Examples included offering
kosher food during Commander’s Advisory Group meetings, traveling to Jewish
institutions to meet with community leaders, and organizing a safety awareness
seminar. The resident expressed appreciation for the lieutenant and the deep
impact he has had on the community.

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Denver Sheriff Department Monitoring
Introduction
The OIM is responsible for monitoring and reporting on patterns in DSD
complaints and commendations. In this chapter, we review statistical and
workload patterns relating to the DSD’s 2015 complaints, investigations,
findings, and discipline.115

Highlights
•

•
•

•

The DSD is in the midst of a comprehensive reform that is addressing
nearly every area of the Department’s operations. The Denver City
Council and Mayor included an additional $24 million in the City’s
2016 budget to advance this reform. Among the many recent efforts,
the DSD gained new leadership in Sheriff Patrick Firman, announced
structural changes to the internal organization of the department,
began training its largest-ever class of 83 recruits, and will begin
department-wide training on a new Use of Force Policy in March
2016.
The number of complaints recorded by the DSD in 2015 declined
substantially. In 2014, 421 complaints were recorded against DSD
sworn staff, compared to 232 in 2015.
The percentage of complaints closed with one or more sustained
allegations remained largely the same between 2014 and 2015. In
2014, 19% of the closed complaints had one or more sustained
allegations compared to 18% in 2015.
Four DSD deputies were terminated in 2015 and seven deputies
resigned or retired while an investigation or disciplinary decision was
pending.

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Chapter 4 :: DSD Monitoring

•

In 2014, the DSD hired six civilian investigators with law enforcement
experience (along with former Arapahoe County Sheriff Grayson Robinson)
to help clear a backlog of cases that were taking too long to reach resolution.116
Most of those investigators have since left the Internal Affairs Bureau
(‘‘IAB’’). The DSD is in the final stages of a recruitment process to fill those
vacancies and bolster IAB’s capacity to conduct timely investigations.
In January 2016, the OIM notified the DSD of concerns over several data
quality issues in the IAPro database regarding cases closed in 2015. IAB
quickly responded by conducting a data audit of all formal investigations
closed by the DSD in 2015, and making a number of corrections to the data.
The OIM appreciates the hard work of Sheriff Firman, Major Jodi Blair, IAB
Manager Armando Saldate, and the IAB staff in conducting this audit.

Receiving Complaints against DSD Deputies
Complaints against sworn members of the DSD generally fall into four categories:
community complaints, inmate complaints, management complaints, and
employee complaints.

Community Complaints
Community complaints are allegations of misconduct against deputies that are
filed by community members. See Appendices C and D which describe how
complaints and commendations can be filed, and where OIM
complaint/commendation forms are located.

Inmate Complaints
Complaint/Commendation forms are available to inmates housed at DSD
correctional facilities. These forms can be completed and mailed to the OIM at
no charge to the inmate. Inmates may also file complaints by contacting the
OIM by telephone, without charge, from inside any DSD jail.

Management Complaints
DSD management complaints are those filed by a supervisor, command officer, or
IAB (as opposed to a community member or inmate).

Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 4 :: DSD Monitoring

Employee Complaints
Employee complaints are those filed by civilian or non-supervisory sworn
employees of the DSD against deputies.

Complaints Recorded in 2015
Figure 4.1 reports the number of complaints recorded by the DSD by year.117 In
2015, the DSD recorded 232 total complaints against deputies. This represents a
45% decrease from 2014, when 421 complaints against deputies were recorded.
Figure 4.1: Total DSD Complaints Recorded by Year
450
400

421
377

370

350

304

300

232

250
200
150
100
50
0
2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

As we have noted in previous reports, it is very difficult to explain fluctuations in
the number of complaints filed over time. Patterns in complaints can change as
the result of improvements in organizational policy, practice, or training.
Complaint numbers can also increase or decrease in response to a range of other
factors, including but not limited to media coverage, changes in complaint
triaging practices, and/or changes in the types of complaints that are recorded.
We will be monitoring this trend in the future.

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Chapter 4 :: DSD Monitoring

Figure 4.2: Complaints Recorded by Year and Complaint Type
DSD Management/
Employee Complaints
250

Other/
Missing

233

226
188

200
150

Community/
Inmate Complaints

174

179

171

147

133
94 101

100

50
3

0
2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Figure 4.2 shows the number of complaints recorded against deputies by
complaint type and year.118,119 The number of complaints by DSD management
and other employees that were recorded in 2015 declined by 47% when compared
to 2014, while the number of complaints by community members and inmates
declined by 57%. The decline in recorded community member and inmate
complaints is particularly striking and the OIM will continue to monitor the
trend.

Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 4 :: DSD Monitoring

OIM Unable to Ascertain Proper Handling
of a Large Number of Complaints
There has been considerable turnover in the command staff of IAB in the past two
years, which, we believe, has had a significant impact on the work of the unit. We
previously reported in the 2015 Semiannual Report that a prior IAB commander had
marked a large number of inmate complaints as requiring formal investigation (in
internal tracking documents), presumably due to their level of seriousness, but many
of these complaints were never entered into IAPro (the DSD’s complaint tracking
database) and/or reviewed by the OIM.120 After the most recent leadership
transition in IAB, the new IAB command expressed their belief that some of these
complaints may have been duplicates or otherwise did not require formal
investigations.121
To ensure that potentially serious complaints were being properly handled, in June
2015, the OIM met with the EDOS and IAB personnel to request copies of each of
these complaints. The OIM reiterated this request in meetings with IAB staff in
July and October 2015, and in an email in September 2015.122 While IAB staff did
respond in October 2015 with a letter discussing the issue, the complaints themselves
were never provided to the OIM nor, in many cases, entered into IAPro.123 We were
thus unable to ascertain the seriousness of these complaints, whether they had been
properly handled, or whether it was appropriate that many of them were not,
apparently, being recorded within IAPro or investigated by IAB.

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Chapter 4 :: DSD Monitoring

Most Common Complaint Specifications
Table 4.1 reports the most common specifications recorded against DSD deputies
in 2015.124,125 The most common specification was Unauthorized Leave, which
prohibits the use of ‘‘unauthorized leave in violation of Departmental Orders.’’126
The second most common specification, Inappropriate Force, prohibits the use of
‘‘inappropriate force in making an arrest, dealing with a prisoner or in dealing
with any other person.’’127
Table 4.1: Most Common Specifications in 2015
Specifications
Unauthorized Leave
Inappropriate Force
Unassigned
Failure to Perform Duties
Ensuring Care and Treatment of Ill or Injured Prisoners
Discourtesy
Harassment of Prisoners
Discrimination, Harassment or Retaliation against Prisoners
Full Attention to Duties
Disobedience of Rule
All Other Specifications
Total Number of Specifications
*Note: Columns may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

Office of the Independent Monitor

2015
13%
13%
9%
6%
6%
6%
5%
4%
3%
3%
32%
372

Chapter 4 :: DSD Monitoring

Complaint Location
Table 4.2 reports the location of the incidents about which complaints were
recorded between 2011 and 2015. The largest percentage of recorded complaints
(53%) related to incidents occurring at the Downtown Detention Center
(‘‘DDC’’). This is not unexpected since the DDC houses the greatest number of
inmates in DSD custody. The County Jail had the second highest percentage of
recorded complaints at 27%.
Table 4.2: Location of Complaints by Year Received
Location

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

DDC

51%

49%

54%

62%

53%

County Jail

24%

26%

22%

18%

27%

Other Location

25%

20%

14%

13%

Missing Location

Intake Investigations and Screening Decisions
When complaints are filed directly with the OIM, the role of the OIM in the
intake process is limited to collecting the complainant’s contact information and
the general nature of the complaint. The complaint is then forwarded to DSD
IAB for its review and screening decision, which can include any of the following:

Decline
The complaint does not state an allegation of misconduct, or the intake review
reveals that the facts alleged did not occur as described by the complainant. No
further action will be taken.

Informal
If founded, the complaint results in a debriefing with the subject deputy. This
outcome does not necessarily indicate that the deputy engaged in misconduct.

Resolved
DSD IAB or a DSD supervisor was able to resolve the issue without a full, formal
investigation or the subject deputies resigned, retired, or were otherwise
determined to be disqualified from sworn service while the investigation was
pending. No further action was deemed necessary.
ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Chapter 4 :: DSD Monitoring

Referred
The complaint is referred to another agency or division for review and handling.

Mediation
The complaint states a relatively less serious allegation of misconduct, such as
discourtesy, and those involved might benefit from the opportunity to discuss
their interaction. Due to security concerns, the DSD does not mediate
complaints filed by inmates.

Formal
The complaint states an allegation of misconduct under DSD policy that requires
a full investigation and disciplinary review.
The OIM monitors DSD IAB case screening decisions.128 If the DSD resolves,
declines, or treats the complaint as an informal, the OIM reviews the completed
case and makes any recommendations that may be necessary. If the OIM agrees
that the case handling was appropriate, the DSD IAB writes a letter to the
complainant that explains the outcome. The OIM then forwards DSD IAB’s
letter to the complainant along with a letter from the OIM.
If a case is referred for a formal investigation, it is assigned to a DSD IAB
investigator.129 In some serious cases, the OIM may actively monitor and
participate in the investigation. In the majority of cases, the OIM will review the
formal investigation once DSD IAB has completed its work.

Disciplinary Process and Findings
After the completion of the DSD IAB investigation, the case is reviewed by the
DSD Conduct Review Office (‘‘CRO’’). The CRO makes an initial finding
regarding policy or procedural violations. The OIM then reviews the CRO
findings. When the CRO and/or the OIM initially recommend that discipline
greater than a written reprimand be imposed or when there is a disagreement
between the OIM and CRO about the findings, a Sheriff’s meeting will be held.
At this meeting, the Sheriff, Independent Monitor (and/or his representative),
the CRO, and the EDOS (and/or her representative) discuss the case and provide
input to the Sheriff to assist him in making his disciplinary recommendations, if
any, to the EDOS.

Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 4 :: DSD Monitoring

If discipline greater than a written reprimand is contemplated following the
Sheriff’s meeting, the deputy is entitled to a ‘‘pre-disciplinary meeting.’’ At this
meeting, the deputy can present his or her side of the story and any mitigating
evidence to explain the alleged misconduct. After this meeting, the Sheriff and
the Independent Monitor each make a final recommendation to the EDOS,
independently. The EDOS is closely involved in the process of advising the
Sheriff as he formulates his recommendation. The EDOS then makes a final
decision as to findings and discipline. If the deputy disagrees with the discipline
imposed by the EDOS, the deputy may file an appeal with the Career Service
Board’s Hearing Office.

Closed Complaints
Figure 4.3 reports the number of complaints closed between 2011 and 2015. The
DSD closed 319 complaints in 2015, representing a 20% increase from 2014,
when 266 complaints were closed.130 The OIM believes that this increase in
closed cases reflects the efforts of IAB and the CRO to address the backlog of
cases discussed in the OIM’s 2015 Semiannual Report.131
Figure 4.3: Complaints Closed by Year Closed
500
426
400
324
277

300

319
266

200
100
0
2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Chapter 4 :: DSD Monitoring

Findings on Complaints
Table 4.3 reports the final disposition of complaints closed between 2011 and
2015. 18% of the cases closed in 2015 resulted in one or more sustained findings.
As in the previous four years, the rate of cases declined after an initial review
increased from the prior year. In 2014, 42% of complaints were declined while
54% percent of complaints closed in 2015 were declined.
Table 4.3: Findings for Complaints Closed in 2015
Outcome

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Declined

11%

15%

26%

42%

54%

Sustained

41%

34%

36%

19%

18%

Informal/Referred/Resolved

15%

16%

11%

16%

Not Sustained/Exonerated/Unfounded

33%

35%

29%

27%

11%

Mediation

Patterns in sustain rates vary considerably across different case types. Complaints
that are initiated by DSD management or employees tend to result in sustained
findings at much higher rates than complaints initiated by community members
or inmates (see Figure 4.4).132 In 2015, 7% of community member and inmate
complaints had one or more sustained findings. The 2015 sustained rate for
complaints filed by DSD management or other employees was 35%.
Figure 4.4: Complaints that Resulted in One or More Sustained Findings
DSD Management/DSD Employee
70%

62%

60%

58%

Community/Inmate

56%

50%
40%

29%

30%

18%

20%
10%

35%

2011

2012

2014

2015

Office of the Independent Monitor

2013

Chapter 4 :: DSD Monitoring

Patterns in Discipline
Table 4.4 reports the number of deputies who retired/resigned prior to a
discipline finding or who were disciplined for sustained allegations from 2011
through 2015.133,134 The most common forms of discipline in 2015 were
suspensions and written reprimands, followed by verbal reprimands.
Table 4.4: Discipline Imposed by Year of Case Closure
Discipline

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Termination

Resigned/Retired Prior to Discipline

Demoted

Suspended Time

Written Reprimand

Verbal Reprimand

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Chapter 4 :: DSD Monitoring

Significant Disciplinary Cases Closed in 2015135
Terminations
 On May 7, 2014, a jail camera captured video of an incident involving three
deputies. One deputy (‘‘Deputy A’’) allowed two inmate workers to conduct pat
searches of numerous other inmates. The inmate workers also restrained inmates
in physical holds to prevent their free movement. One inmate worker is seen on
video kicking an inmate’s foot, causing the inmate’s knee to buckle. This
behavior took place in front of Deputy A’s desk while he remained seated and
failed to intervene, despite the protests of multiple inmates. Deputy A and
another deputy (‘‘Deputy B’’) also made deceptive statements to IAB during its
investigation of the incident. In a separate incident, Deputy A allegedly failed to
write a required report after being present when force was used on an inmate.
Deputy A was terminated for the first incident, thus a disciplinary decision was
not reached for the second incident. Deputy B was also terminated. A third
deputy (‘‘Deputy C’’), who was also alleged to have been involved in the incident,
resigned prior to the completion of the investigation. Deputies A and B have
appealed their terminations.
 On June 15, 2014, an off-duty DSD captain was arrested for an alleged
domestic violence incident. Following an arraignment on June 16, 2014, the
captain was issued a personal recognizance bond with pre-trial services as a
condition of the bond. Although a DSD acting division chief had been given
direct orders by the Sheriff not to give the captain any preferential treatment,
certain evidence indicated that he allowed the captain to leave the courtroom
without following the proper procedure for releasing inmates, which would have
required the captain to return to the jail to complete paperwork and to check in
with pre-trial services. The acting division chief also allegedly made deceptive
statements during IAB’s investigation of the incident. He was terminated,
appealed this decision, and his termination was upheld by a Hearing Officer. He
has appealed that decision, and a decision by the Career Service Board is pending.
 A deputy had multiple cases in which misconduct was alleged. In June 2014,
while on unpaid leave, the deputy was off-duty when he engaged in a
confrontation with his neighbor after his neighbor stomped on the floor. The
deputy responded by pounding on the neighbor’s door, brandishing his badge,
calling the neighbor a derogatory name and threatening to have the neighbor
falsely arrested for domestic violence if he ever stomped on the floor again. The
deputy also later lied to police investigating the incident, stating that the neighbor
66

Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 4 :: DSD Monitoring

had kicked him. In September 2015, the deputy was terminated for his
misconduct in this case, and he appealed that decision. In February 2016, the
deputy entered into a settlement agreement with the EDOS and resigned in
settlement of his appeal.
The deputy had three other pending investigations at the time of his termination.
In April 2014, the deputy allegedly failed to conduct required rounds prior to an
inmate attempting suicide. In August 2014, the deputy was again alleged to have
failed to conduct and document required rounds around the time another inmate
attempted suicide. The deputy is also alleged to have violated department policy
by carrying an unapproved knife into the jail. He also allegedly made misleading
statements in a report. In November 2014, the deputy allegedly used
inappropriate force against an inmate.

Demotions
 On September 14, 2014 a captain, a major and several other deputies
responded to the cell of a severely mentally ill inmate who needed to be moved to
a cell with a video camera. The inmate was disoriented and incoherent, and was
repeatedly saying the word ‘‘cigarette.’’ The major obtained a cigarette (a
contraband item inmates are prohibited from possessing) and gave it to the
captain to use to coax the inmate from the cell without having to use force. After
the inmate had already accompanied deputies to a camera cell without any use of
force the captain gave the inmate the cigarette. Two deputies wrote reports about
the incident omitting that a captain had given the inmate a cigarette. The major
and the two deputies were suspended for two days. The captain was demoted to
rank of sergeant and appealed that decision. A Hearing Officer reversed the
demotion. The Office of the EDOS has appealed that decision.

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Chapter 4 :: DSD Monitoring

Resignations and Retirements
 See ‘‘Deputy C’’
termination case above.

first

 A deputy had two separate cases

alleging misconduct. In the first
case, on May 10, 2013, a female
inmate was found unresponsive in
her cell. She was transported to the
hospital and pronounced dead the
following day. The deputy allegedly
failed to conduct and document his
required rounds during his shift. In
the second case, on September 10,
2014, the deputy was arrested and
charged with Driving Under the
Influence of Alcohol and other
traffic infractions. The deputy’s
driver’s license was subsequently
revoked. Prior to the determination
of discipline in either case, the
deputy entered into a settlement
agreement with the EDOS and
resigned.
 On multiple days in June 2013, a

deputy brought an unauthorized cell
phone into the jail while on her
shift, in violation of DSD policy.
Several inmates allegedly got access
to the phone. The deputy resigned
prior to a discipline finding.
 A deputy had three cases alleging
misconduct. In April 2014, the
deputy was arrested for Felony
Criminal Trespassing. During an
investigation into the alleged
trespassing, the deputy was allegedly

Office of the Independent Monitor

The OIM Recommends Continued Focus on
Developing an Effective Early Intervention
System
Conventional wisdom and national research
suggest that a small percentage of law
enforcement personnel are responsible for a
disproportionate amount of the misconduct
within a department.136 The discipline
histories for several deputies who resigned
or were terminated in 2015----a number of
whom had multiple active misconduct
investigations----suggest that the DSD is no
exception to this pattern.
Early
Intervention Systems (‘‘EIS’’), which are a
requirement in recent reform efforts led by
the Department of Justice, are one way law
enforcement agencies address this issue.137
EISs
are
proactive,
data-driven
management tools that identify officers who
may be developing problematic behavior,
and intervene with training or enhanced
supervision
(among
other
possible
interventions), to save officers’ careers
before serious disciplinary sanctions become
necessary.
In multiple prior reports, the OIM has
identified the deployment of a strong EIS
as a critical need within the DSD.138 In
2014, the DSD drafted an EIS policy, but
it has not implemented an EIS to date.139
In November 2015, the DSD Reform
Implementation Team, led by EDOS
O’Malley, determined that the Human
Resources Action Team should lead the
EIS effort in the DSD.140 The OIM
continues to believe that this is a critically
important effort, and anticipates evaluating
the DSD’s EIS once it is in operation.

Chapter 4 :: DSD Monitoring

untruthful to law enforcement. The deputy was also allegedly operating a
business without the required permission of the DSD. In the second case, the
deputy is alleged to have harassed an inmate. In the third case, the deputy was
alleged to have verbally taunted an inmate. The deputy resigned before a
disciplinary decision was reached in the three cases.
 A deputy had two separate cases alleging misconduct. In the first case, the
deputy was alleged to have taken unauthorized leave in May of 2014. In the
second case, on July 7, 2014, the deputy allegedly failed to follow proper
procedures when counting out his intake cash drawer. Despite being given a
direct order, the deputy also failed to cooperate with IAB investigations related to
both cases. The deputy resigned prior to the completion of either investigation.
 In June 2014, a deputy responded to a medical emergency in an eight-man cell
when he allegedly used inappropriate force against an inmate. The deputy
resigned before a disciplinary decision was reached.
 A sergeant had two cases alleging misconduct. In August 2014, the sergeant
allegedly harassed a deputy. On December 4, 2014 the sergeant allegedly used
inappropriate force against an inmate. The sergeant resigned prior to the
completion of the investigations.

Other Separations, Including Disqualifications
 A deputy had two separate cases alleging misconduct. In the first case, in
January 2014, the deputy loaned a rented vehicle to his girlfriend and her friend.
They were involved in a car accident in another jurisdiction; the deputy was not
present. During a search of the vehicle, drugs and ‘‘drug items’’ were found. In
addition, the deputy’s girlfriend told an officer who responded to the accident that
she allegedly met the deputy while she was an inmate at the Downtown
Detention Center. In the second case, the deputy pled guilty to domestic violence
related harassment charges. As a result of the guilty plea, a Mandatory Protection
Order was issued prohibiting the deputy from possessing a firearm, a violation of
a condition of his employment with the DSD. He was disqualified from his
position before a final decision was made regarding his alleged misconduct,
ending his employment with the DSD.
 On December 17, 2014, a deputy was arrested in another jurisdiction on
domestic violence related harassment and assault charges. A Municipal
Protection Order was issued listing the deputy as the defendant. A provision of

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Chapter 4 :: DSD Monitoring

the Protection Order prohibited the deputy from possessing a firearm or other
weapon. Given that the deputy was unable to possess a firearm, which was a
condition of her employment, she was disqualified from her position, ending her
employment as a DSD deputy.

Other Significant Cases, Including Suspensions for Ten or More
Days
 In September 2013, a deputy (‘‘Deputy A’’) found a deceased inmate in his cell
at 9:56 a.m. Deputies A, B, and C all worked in the inmate’s housing unit in the
hours between when the inmate was last seen alive and the discovery of his death
hours later. During her shift, Deputy A failed to turn on the housing unit lights
at 6:00 a.m., as required, and did not turn them on until shortly before the inmate
was discovered. Deputy A also failed to conduct two of her required rounds to
check on the inmates and failed to document her rounds and the reason why some
rounds were not completed. Deputy A was suspended for six days.
Deputy B also failed to turn on the housing unit lights when required, failed to
document which inmates had not left their cells to eat breakfast, failed to conduct
multiple rounds, failed to document his rounds, and abandoned his post, leaving
the unit unattended. Deputy B was suspended for ten days. Deputy C also failed
to complete multiple rounds, failed to document why rounds were missed, and
abandoned her post, leaving the unit unattended. Deputy C was suspended for
ten days.
 An inmate submitted two written requests, also known as ‘‘kites’’----one to his
attorney and another requesting a move due to unsanitary conditions in the
housing unit. On October 6, 2013, video surveillance revealed a deputy opening
and removing these kites from the kite box, reading them and then walking
directly to the inmate’s cell. The deputy is seen knocking on and standing at the
cell window. The video shows him speaking to the inmate and then tearing up
the kites at the window and walking away. The deputy was suspended for 30
days. The deputy filed an appeal and a Career Service Hearing Officer modified
the suspension to ten days.
 A sergeant working as an instructor at the department’s academy made sexually
inappropriate and harassing comments to a number of new recruits in 2014. The
sergeant was suspended for 38 days, and appealed that decision. The case was
resolved with a settlement agreement with the EDOS that reduced his suspension
to 24 days, with 5 additional days held in abeyance.
70

Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 4 :: DSD Monitoring

 Two deputies were working in a unit at the jail that houses mentally ill inmates,
as well as inmates in segregation or in corrective custody. Some of these inmates
are designated ‘‘sep all,’’ which means that they are not permitted to have physical
contact with other inmates at any time. On February 19, 2014, one deputy
allowed the cell doors of two ‘‘sep all’’ inmates to be opened concurrently while
two other inmate workers were also near the cells. This allowed the ‘‘sep all’’
inmates to have contact with each other and with the inmate workers. While the
deputy was distracted, one of the ‘‘sep all’’ inmates entered the cell of the other
and physically attacked him, causing injury. The deputy was suspended for 16
days, and has appealed this decision. A second deputy allegedly failed to write a
required report after being present when force was used on an inmate; he was
terminated on an unrelated case prior to the completion of this investigation (see
‘‘Deputy A’’ in first termination case).
 On March 14, 2014, a deputy from a neighboring jurisdiction was at the
Denver County Jail to transport an inmate to the other jurisdiction. While the
deputy was attempting to take custody of the inmate, the inmate refused to
cooperate and became involved in a physical struggle with the deputy. A DSD
deputy who was standing in close proximity failed to offer any assistance during
the struggle, which lasted for at least three minutes. The DSD deputy was
suspended for ten days, and has appealed that decision.
 In June 2014, a deputy used a racial epithet multiple times when referring to an
inmate.141 This was overheard by other inmates who began yelling at the deputy,
causing unrest in the housing unit. In writing a report about the incident, the
deputy failed to include the derogatory comment or the related disturbance in the
housing pod. The deputy instead attempted to blame the inmate to whom the
comment was made for the unrest. The deputy was suspended for 30 days, and
has appealed this decision.
 In July 2014, a deputy was working in a housing unit at the jail while a nurse
dispensed medication to inmates in the unit. An inmate became upset with the
nurse, cursed at her several times and threatened, ‘‘I’m going to get you.’’ The
inmate then approached the nurse aggressively and raised his arms, knocking
items from the nurse’s medical cart before walking away. During the altercation,
the deputy remained seated at his desk several feet away and failed to provide aid
to the nurse. By remaining seated, the deputy was also not in a position to
observe the inmate’s mouth to make sure that he had swallowed his medication.
The deputy was suspended for ten days.

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Chapter 4 :: DSD Monitoring

 In July 2014, while being tasked with providing courtroom security during a
murder trial, a deputy was instead seated, with her head down, looking at two cell
phones and visiting internet sites. The deputy was suspended for ten days, and
has appealed this decision.
 In August 2014, two deputies transporting juvenile inmates from the
courthouse to the juvenile detention center failed to notify dispatch at the
beginning and end of the trip, as required. Upon arrival at the juvenile detention
facility, the deputies failed to secure their firearms in storage lockers and instead
stored them in the side compartments of the driver and passenger side doors of
the transport van. While the deputies were unloading the inmates, a juvenile
inmate escaped from custody. Each deputy was suspended for ten days.
 In October 2013, an inmate who had made a threat of suicide was brought to
the medical unit and placed on suicide watch. The following day, the inmate was
taken off suicide watch, and was instead reclassified as ‘‘X03a’’ (which includes
inmates who are deemed ‘‘psychotic and disorganized mentally ill’’ and who are
‘‘violent and pose imminent risks to others or themselves,’’ but who are not on
suicide watch).142 He was returned to a single-man cell that was under video
surveillance in a special management unit so that he could be closely monitored.
While in that cell, the inmate engaged in a series of troubling behaviors. The
inmate told one of the two deputies assigned to the unit that he had a razorblade
inserted in his penis, and threatened self-harm. The deputy notified a nurse of
this threat, and the inmate was put on a sharps restriction, but he was not
searched for the razorblade. The inmate later began to throw feces and smear it
on his cell’s walls and windows. He also covered the cell camera’s lens with feces,
obscuring the deputies’ views of his actions. Both deputies were aware of this
behavior, and one deputy was at the cell window when it began. The deputy
instructed the inmate to clean the cell camera. The cell’s water supply had
previously been turned off, and the camera remained obscured for approximately
94 minutes. According to the deputies, they conducted rounds during this period,
but the rounds were not documented.
The inmate eventually uncovered the camera and began making cutting gestures
on his arm within view of the camera. One of the deputies said that he saw the
inmate ‘‘rub on his arm’’ but did not see blood at that time. The deputy did not
check on the inmate until he conducted a routine round through the housing unit,
17 minutes after the cutting behavior began. By that time, the inmate was
bleeding and the floor was covered with blood trails left during the inmate’s

Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 4 :: DSD Monitoring

repeated pacing of the cell. The inmate was removed from the cell and treated for
minor injuries by medical staff.
Under DSD policy, housing deputies are responsible for the care, custody, and
supervision of the inmates assigned to their housing units.143 They are also
charged with checking for unusual behavior, and taking immediate corrective
action upon discovering any safety or security breach.144 The OIM was concerned
that this inmate, who was supposed to be closely monitored, and had made a
threat of suicide and stated that he had a razor with which to carry out the threat,
was allowed to remain in a cell with an obscured camera for approximately 94
minutes. The OIM was also concerned by the length of time it took to respond
to his self-cutting behavior after the camera was uncovered. In July 2015, the
OIM recommended that discipline be imposed on the deputies for their failures
to take sufficient corrective action to address the inmate’s dangerous behaviors, a
recommendation that was not accepted.145 The deputies, who had been issued
P.R.I.D.E. awards by the DSD for their actions during this incident,146 received
written reprimands for failing to properly document their rounds in August 2015,
and no further disciplinary action was taken.

Appeals on Significant Discipline Cases Closed Prior to January 1,
2015, and Decided or Pending With the Career Service Board in
2015147
 In July 2012, a deputy called a supervisor an inappropriate derogatory name
while on duty and in the presence of other DSD staff. The deputy also acted in
an insolent manner after the supervisor questioned the deputy about it. The
deputy was suspended for ten days and appealed the decision. In July 2015, a
Hearing Officer modified the deputy’s discipline to a four day suspension. Both
the deputy and the Office of the EDOS appealed that decision and in February
2016, the Career Service Board further reduced the deputy’s discipline to a
written reprimand.
 In October 2012, a deputy managing a housing pod in the jail violated a
number of departmental rules, including failing to do required rounds, failing to
do roll calls, bringing cigarettes into an unauthorized area, allowing inmates to
watch music videos on the deputy’s computer, letting inmates disobey the dress
code, and leaving the housing lights off. The deputy also had an extensive history
of violating other departmental rules. The deputy was terminated, and a Hearing
Officer upheld the termination. She appealed that decision to the Career Service

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Chapter 4 :: DSD Monitoring

Board, which upheld her termination in July 2015. The deputy has appealed that
decision to the District Court.
 In December 2012, a deputy used inappropriate force when he struck an
inmate in the face after the inmate pushed a phone towards him on the desk. The
deputy then wrote a misleading and inaccurate report about why he used force
and the amount of force used on the inmate. In a criminal investigation, the
deputy also made a deceptive statement by stating that the inmate picked up a
phone and threw it at him, striking him in the shoulder. The deputy also failed to
state that he struck the inmate in the face. Video footage showed that the
statements that the deputy made in both the administrative and criminal
investigations were deceptive and/or misleading. The deputy was terminated,
appealed, and the disciplinary decision was upheld by a Hearing Officer. He then
appealed to the Career Service Board, which upheld his termination in January
2015. He has appealed that decision to the District Court.
 On February 28, 2013, a deputy bumped into an inmate with his shoulder and
then grabbed the inmate by the neck after the inmate called him names. The
deputy was suspended for ten days, appealed, and the disciplinary decision was
upheld by a Hearing Officer. The deputy appealed this decision to the Career
Service Board, which upheld his suspension in 2015. The deputy has appealed to
the District Court.
 On July 21, 2013, a deputy in a housing pod made racist remarks towards an
African-American female inmate. The comments upset a number of inmates and
another deputy, resulting in racial tension in the pod, which the deputy failed to
note in her log books. The acting captain did not ask the deputy to write a report
before the end of the shift, and allegedly told the deputy that no report was
needed. When the deputy was questioned by IAB about the incident, she made
deceptive statements. The deputy was terminated in September 2014 and
appealed. In February 2015, a Hearing Officer modified the discipline to a six
day suspension. The Office of the EDOS appealed and the Hearing Officer’s
decision was upheld by the Career Service Board. The case is now pending in the
District Court. The acting captain retired from the department before a
disciplinary finding was made.
 In September 2013, a deputy used inappropriate force when he applied pressure
to an inmate’s neck or upper chest, causing the inmate to collide with a wall prior
to coming to a seat on a sally port bench. The force was used to punish the
inmate for comments the inmate made in the housing unit and for not complying

Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 4 :: DSD Monitoring

with the deputy’s order to sit down. The deputy was suspended for ten days,
appealed, and the disciplinary decision was upheld by a Hearing Officer. He then
appealed to the Career Service Board, which upheld his suspension in February
2015. He appealed that decision to the District Court, and the Court denied his
appeal.
 In September 2013, a sergeant entered a cell with other deputies to confront
an emotionally distraught inmate who had been repeatedly striking his head
against the cell wall and not complying with orders to stop. Once the deputies
and sergeant entered the cell, the inmate remained seated on the bench. The
sergeant ordered the inmate to stand up, turn around and put his hands behind
his back so they could place him in a restraint chair. The inmate did not comply,
and the sergeant ordered the deputies to tase the inmate. Video footage shows that
the inmate was still seated when the deputies were ordered to tase him and was
not engaging in conduct that could reasonably be viewed as attempts to hurt
himself or others. The sergeant was suspended for ten days, appealed, and the
discipline was upheld by a Hearing Officer. He then filed an appeal with the
Career Service Board, which upheld his suspension in September 2015.
 On July 13, 2014, a deputy (‘‘Deputy A’’) was having an animated discussion
with an intoxicated and seated inmate for several minutes while performing
other duties. He walked across the room towards the inmate, and as he got
closer, dropped a container from his right hand. The inmate stood up, and
without hesitating or breaking stride, the deputy raised his right arm up,
struck the inmate in the face, and knocked him to the floor.
In a written report, Deputy A stated that he defended himself because the
inmate got up and approached him in an aggressive manner. However, video
evidence showed that the inmate did not advance or present himself in a
threatening manner. Although another deputy (‘‘Deputy B’’) witnessed the use
of force, he did not immediately report it to his supervisor as required by DSD
policy. When Deputy B prepared a written report at a later time, he did not
report that he saw Deputy A strike the inmate, and he made similarly
inaccurate and deceptive statements to IAB. In September 2014, both deputies
were terminated and appealed the decisions. In March 2015, a Hearing Officer
upheld Deputy A’s termination, and modified Deputy B’s termination to a six
day suspension. Deputy A appealed the Hearing Officer’s decision to the Career
Service Board. In September 2015, the Board reversed Deputy A’s termination
and reinstated him. The Office of the EDOS has appealed that decision to the
District Court. Regarding Deputy B, the Office of the EDOS appealed the

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Chapter 4 :: DSD Monitoring

Hearing Officer’s decision to modify his termination to a six day suspension. The
Career Service Board upheld the Hearing Officer’s decision, and the matter was
not appealed further.

Timeliness
Timeliness in the investigation and disciplinary review of misconduct complaints
is critical for ensuring public confidence in the ability of a department to hold
itself accountable. Allowing administrative investigations to languish may prevent
a department from acting to quickly correct or deter deputy misconduct, may
lower morale, and tends to undermine public and department trust in the
complaint process.
Table 4.5 shows mean and median processing times, in days, for different case
types for cases recorded by the DSD in 2015.148,149 On average, IAB cases
recorded in 2015 were closed within 153 days. Complaints still open at the time
the OIM extracted data for this report had an average age of 181 days.
Table 4.5: Mean and Median Processing Days, by Case Type
Case Type

Mean

Median

All IAB Cases

153

147

Declined/Informal/Referred/
Resolved/Mediation

Full Formal Investigations

102

Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 4 :: DSD Monitoring

Complainant Demographics and Complaint Filing
Table 4.6 presents the demographic characteristics for the 104 unique inmate and
community complainants whose complaints against sworn members of the DSD
were recorded in 2015. Complainants who filed multiple complaints were
counted only once in this table. Table 4.6 also reports the number of community
members with multiple complaints against DSD deputies recorded in 2015.
Most complainants filed only a single complaint (96%) while four complainants
filed two or more complaints.
Table 4.6: Complainant Demographic Characteristics
Gender

Count

Percent

Male
Female
Missing
Total
Race
Black

76
23
5
104
Count
28

73%
22%
5%
100%
Percent
27%

25
19
0
2
30
104

24%
18%
0%
2%
29%
100%

Age
0 - 18
19 - 24
25 - 30
31 - 40
41 - 50

Count
0
6
12
29
8

Percent
0%
6%
12%
28%
8%

51+
Missing
Total
Filed More than One Complaint?
One Complaint
Two or More

16
33
104
Count
100
4

15%
32%
100%
Percent
96%
4%

104

100%

White
Hispanic
Asian
American Indian
Missing
Total

Total

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Chapter 4 :: DSD Monitoring

Deputies Receiving Multiple Complaints
Complaints per Deputy
Approximately 73% of DSD deputies had no complaints recorded against them in
2015 (this analysis excludes a number of complaints where IAB did not identify
the subject deputy or the subject deputy was unknown). Approximately 20% of
DSD deputies received one complaint and nearly 7% of deputies had two or more
complaints.
Table 4.7: Number of Complaints Recorded Against Deputies by Year Received
Number of Complaints

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

73%

74%

62%

73%

19%

20%

21%

24%

20%

4 or More

< 1%

Total Sworn Officers*

726

717

707

722

690

*Note: Counts of DSD sworn employees provided by the DSD administration

Force Complaints per Deputy
Approximately 6% of DSD deputies received one or more complaints that
included an inappropriate force allegation in 2015 (see Table 4.8).
Table 4.8: Deputies Receiving Inappropriate Force Complaints by Year Received
Number of Complaints

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

99%

98%

96%

88%

94%

10%

< 1%

3 or More

< 1%

Total Sworn Officers*

726

717

707

722

690

*Note: Counts of DSD sworn employees provided by the DSD administration

Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 4 :: DSD Monitoring

Sustained Complaints per Deputy
The majority of DSD deputies (88%) had no sustained complaints in 2015, while
11% had one sustained complaint. Fewer than 2% had more than one sustained
complaint in 2015 (see Table 4.9).
Table 4.9: DSD Deputies with Sustained Complaints by Year Closed
Number of Complaints

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

82%

89%

86%

93%

88%

13%

10%

12%

11%

3 or More

< 1%

Total Sworn Officers*

726

717

707

722

690

*Note: Counts of DSD sworn employees provided by the DSD administration

Commendations and Awards
Table 4.10: Commendations Awarded to DSD Deputies in 2015
Commendations

Number

Percent

P.R.I.D.E. Award (Personal Responsibility in Delivering
Excellence)

40%

Letters of Appreciation (from Supervisors/Sheriff)

36%

Employee Of The Month

12%

Other

Commendations (from Supervisors/Sheriff)

GOALS Award

Employee Of The Quarter

Deputy Of The Year

198

100%

Total
*Note: Columns may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Chapter 4 :: DSD Monitoring

Highlighted Commendations
LETTER OF APPRECIATION
Three deputies, a sergeant, and a major received letters of appreciation for
volunteering their time to represent the DSD at Mayor Michael B. Hancock’s
‘‘Cabinet in the Community’’ meeting. The event gave community members an
opportunity to interact with DSD staff as well as the Mayor, the EDOS, and
members of City Council.

LETTER OF APPRECIATION
Two sergeants, three deputies, and a civilian employee received a letter of
appreciation for volunteering their time to participate in the ‘‘Read Across
America’’ event held at an elementary school. The event gave students an
opportunity to positively interact with DSD representatives and to strengthen the
department’s relationship with the community.

LETTER OF COMMENDATION
A sergeant received a commendation from his supervisor for brainstorming a
creative fix after an inmate destroyed the nurse call button in his cell, leaving an
exposed electrical box that created a safety concern. The sergeant collaborated
with other staff to determine a solution, which ensured the safety of the inmate.

LIFE SAVING AWARD
On July 27, 2015, an inmate was observed vomiting and appeared to be having a
seizure. Once the inmate stopped seizing, two deputies observed that the inmate
was not breathing and did not have a heartbeat. The deputies began CPR and
continued for approximately ten minutes while responding medical staff provided
additional treatment. Prior to the inmate being removed from the cell by
paramedics the deputies were able to restore the inmate’s heartbeat with the
assistance of medical staff.

Office of the Independent Monitor

Critical Incidents
Introduction and Overview
Officer-involved shootings and deaths in custody (collectively ‘‘critical
incidents’’) can have a profound impact on the lives of both officers and
community members, and on the overall relationship between law
enforcement and the community. All investigations into critical incidents
should be completed thoroughly and efficiently, with a goal of
determining whether the incidents were handled lawfully and according to
Departmental policy. To promote transparency in the investigation and
review of critical incidents, the OIM publishes regular reports regarding
the status of investigations into critical incidents.
In all critical incidents, DPD’s Major Crimes Unit and the Denver
District Attorney’s Office immediately respond to the scene to begin an
investigation to determine whether any person should be held criminally
liable. The OIM also generally responds to the scene for a walk-through
and debriefing from command staff. Major Crimes detectives interview
civilian witnesses and involved officers, and obtain video and documentary
evidence. The OIM monitors all interviews by video and may suggest
additional questions at the conclusion of each officer interview. After the
criminal investigation is complete, the administrative review process
begins.

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Chapter 5 :: Critical Incidents

Patterns in Officer-Involved Shootings
On pages 85-89 of this chapter, we summarize every 2015 shooting and examine
those that have been through the administrative review process for adherence to
Departmental policy. Prior to describing each individual shooting, we examine
patterns in the number of intentional shootings (‘‘Officer-Involved Shootings’’ or
‘‘OISs’’) of citizens by the DPD and DSD annually, as well as key characteristics
of shootings that occurred in 2015.
Figure 5.1: DPD and DSD Officer-Involved Shootings by Year
12
10

8
DSD

6
4

DPD

6
2

0
2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

In 2015, there was an increase in the number of OISs among DPD officers
compared to previous years (see Figure 5.1). There were ten shootings involving
DPD officers, and no shootings involving DSD deputies. The DPD completed
its critical incident administrative review for five OISs from 2014 and three OISs
from 2015, and all were found to be within policy. Table 5.1 presents
characteristics of officers and subjects involved in the intentional shootings that
occurred in 2015, as well as other summary data about these incidents.

Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 5 :: Critical Incidents

Table 5.1: 2015 Officer-Involved Shooting Characteristics
Intentional Shootings (OISs)
Total Officer-Involved Shooting Incidents
Citizens Involved
Officers Involved
Results of Shots Fired
Citizen Fatalities
Citizen Non-fatal Injuries
No Injury
Rank of Officers
Officer
Technician
Detective
Years of Service of Shooting Officers
0-5 years
6-10 years
11-15 years
16-20 years
20+ years
Assignment of Shooting Officers
District 1
District 2
District 4
District 5
District 6
Gang Section
Metro/SWAT
Vice/Drug Section
Race/Gender of Shooting Officers
White Male
Hispanic Male
Hawaiian /Pacific Islander Male
Black Male
Location of Shooting Incidents
District 1
District 2
District 4
District 5
District 6
Race/Gender of Subject Citizens
White Male
Black Male
Hispanic Male
Native American Male
Hispanic Female

10
10
15
4
5
1
10
4
1
2
7
1
4
1
1
3
1
1
2
2
4
1
8
2
1
4
2
3
2
2
1
3
3
2
1
1

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Chapter 5 :: Critical Incidents

Critical Incidents: Denver Police Department
Administrative Review of Critical Incidents Involving DPD Officers
Once the District Attorney’s Office has made a decision regarding the filing of
criminal charges against anyone involved in an incident, the Major Crimes Unit
reports are submitted to DPD IAB to commence the administrative review. The
OIM confers with IAB to determine whether further investigation is necessary to
assess potential violations of Department policy. Once all relevant evidence is
gathered, the case is submitted to a DPD Use of Force Review Board to
determine whether there were any violations of the DPD’s use of force policies.
The OIM is present at all Use of Force Review Board proceedings and
deliberations.
If the Use of Force Review Board finds that the officer’s actions were in
compliance with DPD policy (‘‘in-policy’’), the case is forwarded to the Chief of
Police. If the Chief and the OIM agree that there were no policy violations in
non-fatal shootings, the case is closed and no further administrative action is
taken. In fatal shootings, the EDOS makes the final determination.
If the Use of Force Review Board finds that the officer’s actions were in violation
of any Department policy (‘‘out-of-policy’’), the officer is given an opportunity to
respond to the allegations and provide mitigating evidence at a Chief’s Hearing.
Both the Chief’s disciplinary recommendation and that of the OIM are forwarded
to the EDOS for his or her consideration.
If the OIM disagrees with a recommendation made by the Use of Force Review
Board or the Chief of Police, the OIM recommendation will be forwarded to the
EDOS, who makes the final decision regarding critical incidents.

Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 5 :: Critical Incidents

DPD Officer-Involved Shootings (OISs) in 2015
Incident #1
On January 9, 2015, officers from the Gang Unit began to follow a Jeep after it
was seen running a stop sign. The Jeep drove erratically, including stopping in
multiple driveways. Based on the stop sign violation and the unusual activity of
pulling into driveways, the officers decided to conduct a traffic stop.
Three officers approached the Jeep from different sides, requested the driver’s
identification, and asked him to exit after he failed to provide identification. The
driver turned the engine on and Officer A opened the driver’s door to attempt to
remove him. With the door open, and Officers A and B stuck inside the wedge
area between the door and the body of the car, the driver began driving in reverse.
Officer A fired four rounds at the driver, and was then forced into the push
bumper of his police vehicle. The Jeep continued in reverse, and Officer A found
himself in front of the suspect’s vehicle. Officer A believed the driver attempted
to shift gears and drive forward to strike him, and he fired one more round at the
driver. The driver exited the vehicle and fled on foot. Officers B and C chased
him and captured him shortly thereafter. The driver survived the shooting.
The Denver District Attorney reviewed the incident and declined to file charges
against the involved officer. The DA prepared a detailed letter reviewing the
shooting, which can be found here.150 The Use of Force Review Board met on
July 27, 2015, and evaluated the shooting under the policy on shooting into
moving vehicles that was in effect at the time of the shooting, which has since
been significantly modified (see Chapter 1 of the OIM’s 2015 Semiannual
Report). The Use of Force Review Board determined the shooting to be inpolicy. While noting tactical concerns about the shooting, the OIM concurred
with that assessment. The Board did not send the case to the Tactics Review
Board since the tactics had been addressed by the change in policy regarding
shooting into moving vehicles.

Incident #2
On January 26, 2015, two DPD officers responded to a 911 call regarding a
suspicious vehicle in an alley in the Park Hill neighborhood. When the officers
approached the vehicle, it began to move. One officer perceived that the vehicle
was driving at him at a high rate of speed. Both officers fired multiple shots at
the driver, who died as a result of her gunshot wounds. None of the other
passengers in the vehicle were struck. The Denver District Attorney reviewed the
ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Chapter 5 :: Critical Incidents

incident and declined to file charges against the involved officers. The DA
prepared a detailed letter reviewing the shooting, which can be found here.151
The case is currently under administrative review.

Incident #3
On March 20, 2015, two DPD officers responded to a report of a man with an
outstanding warrant who possibly wanted the police to kill him. When the
officers approached the suspect, he resisted their commands and efforts to get him
out of the car and he began making a pulling motion from his waistband as if he
was going to draw a weapon. The officers reportedly saw a silver metal object
come out from the front of his jacket. One officer deployed OC spray, but it was
ineffective. Believing the silver object to be the barrel of a gun, the other officer
fired one shot, striking the suspect in the right shoulder/arm area. The suspect
survived. The Denver District Attorney reviewed the incident and declined to file
charges against the officer. The DA prepared a detailed letter reviewing the
shooting, which can be found here.152 The Use of Force Review Board met on
November 3, 2015, and determined the shooting to be in-policy. The OIM
concurred with this assessment.

Incident #4
On May 25, 2015, shortly before midnight, two District 6 police officers in
separate vehicles responded to a 911 call related to a man brandishing a semiautomatic pistol at bystanders in downtown Denver. The officers spotted the
suspect and Officer A exited his vehicle and moved around to the rear passenger
side of the police car for cover. The officer drew his service weapon and yelled,
‘‘Police, drop the gun!’’ He saw the suspect raise his gun hand up and then Officer
A heard a gunshot. Both he and Officer B (the cover officer) returned fire, and
the suspect ran away. Minutes later, other officers apprehended the suspect. The
individual sustained a gunshot wound in the lower right arm. The suspect
survived. The Denver District Attorney’s office declined to press charges against
the two officers; the DA decision letter can be found here.153 The case is currently
under administrative review.

Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 5 :: Critical Incidents

Incident #5
On July 12, 2015, officers responded to a 911 call that a mentally ill man had used
a knife to poke his relative in the neck. The police made contact with the relative
and were following her to her home when she saw the man and pointed him out.
The officers attempted to make contact with him and he ran away. The officers
pursued him into a trailer park where kids were present outside. The man
eventually stopped, turned, and started walking towards the officers, while
holding a knife to his own neck. One of the officers retreated as the man got
closer to him. Once the man got close, this officer fired his service weapon three
times, striking the man twice in the chest. The man died from his gunshot
wounds. The Denver District Attorney’s office declined to press charges against
the officer who fired his weapon; the DA decision letter can be found here.154 On
December 16, 2015, the Use of Force Review Board met and determined the
shooting to be in-policy. As the OIM has noted in prior reports, including the
2013 Annual Report, the OIM is concerned about potential patterns in officerinvolved shootings involving mentally ill individuals, and ensuring that
appropriate training and tools are being provided to officers to avoid such
shootings, when possible. Notwithstanding these concerns, the OIM did not
believe that the Use of Force Review Board’s assessment of this particular
shooting as in-policy was unreasonable.

Incident #6
On August 22, 2015, Officer A, while driving an unmarked police car, observed a
vehicle commit a traffic infraction. The officer learned that the vehicle had been
forcibly stolen at gun point earlier that morning in a carjacking. The officer drove
into an alley and saw the suspect vehicle in the alley heading toward him. The
officer called for police assistance and a marked police car with two officers soon
pulled into the alley behind the suspect vehicle, boxing the car in. The suspect
vehicle backed into the marked unit, hitting it. Three males then quickly exited
the suspect vehicle, with one allegedly pulling out a gun as he ran towards Officer
A. All the officers had exited their vehicles, and Officer B saw one of the suspects
pull out a gun and point it in the direction of Officer A. Officer B yelled ‘‘gun!’’
Officer A recognized the object in the male’s hand as a gun and both Officers A
and B fired their service weapons at the suspect. The male was shot, but survived.
The Denver District Attorney’s office declined to press charges against the two
officers; the DA’s decision letter can be found here.155 The shooting is currently
under administrative review.

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Chapter 5 :: Critical Incidents

Incident #7
On November 22, 2015, officers responded to a 911 call of a family disturbance.
After attempting to negotiate with a man who was in possession of a gun, the
officers breached the door of the location and exchanged gunfire with him. The
man was struck, and pronounced dead at the scene. The Denver District
Attorney’s office declined to press charges against the officers; the DA’s decision
letter can be found here.156 The shooting is currently under administrative review.

Incident #8
On December 2, 2015, while officers were attempting an arrest on a warrant, an
officer-involved shooting occurred. Both an officer and the suspect were shot.
The officer was wounded but survived, and the suspect did not survive. The
shooting is currently under review by the District Attorney.

Incident #9
On December 8, 2015, in the late morning, an officer (who was subsequently
promoted to sergeant) initiated a vehicle stop. The driver came to a stop in a
liquor store parking lot, exited his vehicle, and began shooting at the officer. The
officer was shot six times----first in his chest, where the bullet was stopped by a
ballistic vest, then in his arms and legs. Despite being forced to the ground by his
wounds, the officer moved to a position near or behind his car and returned fire,
shooting the driver in the ankle. The driver drove away, abandoned his car, fled
on foot to a bank, and carjacked a vehicle. He then drove away in the carjacked
vehicle, and two cover officers who had established a perimeter successfully
stopped him. The driver was taken into custody, transported to Denver Health,
and survived. The officer sustained life-threatening injuries and survived, possibly
due, in part, to another officer placing a tourniquet on his leg while they waited
for an ambulance to arrive.
The Denver District Attorney reviewed the incident and declined to file charges
against the involved officer. The DA prepared a detailed letter reviewing the
shooting, which can be found here.157 The incident is currently under
administrative review.

Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 5 :: Critical Incidents

Incident #10
An officer-involved shooting occurred on December 14, 2015, after officers
responded to a 911 call at an apartment. The incident is currently under review
by the District Attorney.
The DPD Expands Tourniquet Training to Promote Officer Safety

Within a one-week period in December 2015, two DPD officers were shot and
wounded during two separate encounters with armed suspects (see incidents 8
and 9, above). Both officers’ lives were saved when other officers applied
tourniquets to their legs to prevent them from bleeding out while being
transported to the hospital.158
Recognizing the life-saving potential of
tourniquets, the DPD enlisted Denver Health to conduct a ‘‘crash course’’ to
quickly train as many DPD officers as possible on the use of tourniquets.
Throughout the week of December 14, trainings were held every 30 minutes
for three days, and 375 officers were trained. To complement this training, the
Denver Police Foundation generously donated over $50,000 worth of gunshot
trauma kits for the DPD to make available to front-line officers.159 These
initiatives are commendable, as they better prepare officers to save lives when
officers or citizens are critically injured.

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Chapter 5 :: Critical Incidents

DPD Accidental Shootings in 2015
Accidental Shooting #1
On May 4, 2015, an officer responded to a report of a domestic violence assault.
The reporting party stated that the suspect was last seen inside the residence and
that he always carried a knife. While searching the residence, the officer
accidentally discharged his service handgun, striking a closet door. The Use of
Force Review Board met on November 5, 2015 and determined the shooting to
be out-of-policy. The OIM concurred with this assessment. The officer was
disciplined two days of fined time.

DPD In-Custody Deaths in 2015
2015 Incident #1
On February 15, 2015, officers responded to an armed robbery call at a store.
The responding officers observed a party matching the description of the suspect
and pursued him into a parking garage. The suspect pointed his weapon at the
officers and the officers ordered the suspect to drop the weapon. The suspect shot
himself and died as a result of the gunshot wound. The incident was reviewed by
the DPD and it was determined that the involved officers did not violate any
DPD policies or procedures.

2015 Incident #2
On August 22, 2015, the DPD was involved in a vehicle pursuit. The male
suspect crashed his vehicle and then shot himself. The suspect died as a result of
the gunshot wound. The incident was reviewed by the DPD and it was
determined that the involved officers did not violate any DPD policies or
procedures.

Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 5 :: Critical Incidents

2014 DPD Critical Incidents Closed in 2015
2014 Incident #1
On January 2, 2014, the DPD assisted the Thornton Police Department in a
vehicle pursuit to arrest an armed individual who was allegedly involved in a
domestic violence incident earlier that day. Information was aired over police
radio that a shot had been fired at officers. The pursuit continued through several
Denver police districts and municipalities outside of Denver. The pursuit
terminated when police utilized a vehicle immobilization maneuver on the
suspect’s car, which resulted in the suspect’s car hitting a police car. After the
crash, the approaching officers saw the suspect rise up in his seat holding a gun.
Three officers, including two DPD officers, fired on the suspect, hitting him
multiple times, resulting in his death. Toxicology reports later indicated that the
suspect had methamphetamine and alcohol in his system at the time of the
encounter.
The District Attorney for Broomfield and Adams Counties reviewed the incident
and declined to file charges against the involved officers. The Adams/Broomfield
DA prepared a detailed letter reviewing the shooting, which can be found here.160
The Use of Force Review Board met on April 10, 2015 and determined that the
shooting was in-policy. The OIM concurred with this assessment.

2014 Incident #2
On May 14, 2014, District 4 officers transported a handcuffed suspect, who had
been searched several times, to the District 4 police substation for processing.
When officers attempted to remove the suspect from the rear seat of the vehicle,
he started to slide back and forth to prevent the officers from removing him. As
the officers went into the car to get the suspect, who was handcuffed behind his
back, the suspect fired a handgun that he had produced from an unknown
location at them. Officers retreated from the car and took cover, and other
officers quickly arrived. The suspect discharged the weapon two times before it
jammed. An officer fired one shot, which struck the suspect. The suspect was
treated and survived. He was later found to have been hiding bags containing
more than three grams of methamphetamine in his rectum.
The Denver District Attorney reviewed the incident and declined to file charges
against the involved officers. The DA prepared a detailed letter reviewing the
shooting, which can be found here.161 The Use of Force Review Board met on

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Chapter 5 :: Critical Incidents

January 21, 2015 and determined that the shooting was in-policy. The OIM
concurred with this assessment.

2014 Incident #3
On July 2, 2014, a sergeant from the Metro/SWAT unit was involved in a
buy/bust narcotics operation in Overland Park with an alleged high-level narcotics
and weapons dealer. The sergeant drove his team into the park’s parking lot in
order to arrest the suspect. When the team exited their vehicle and approached,
the suspect apparently locked eyes on the sergeant, reached for his pocket, and
pulled out a handgun. The sergeant fired several shots at the suspect, resulting in
his death. The encounter lasted less than 10 seconds from the time the sergeant’s
team pulled into the parking lot.
The Denver District Attorney reviewed the incident and declined to file charges
against the involved officer. The DA prepared a detailed letter reviewing the
shooting, which can be found here.162 The Use of Force Review Board met on
May 18, 2015 and determined that the shooting was in-policy. The OIM did not
believe that this conclusion was unreasonable, but voiced three concerns related to
the incident. First, the OIM was concerned about the choice of arrest time and
location. The potentially high-risk arrest was executed in a well-used park in the
middle of a summer afternoon, which could have compromised public safety.163
Second, the OIM was concerned that the sergeant had been issued a
commendation in this case before the Use of Force Review Board reviewed the
shooting, or made a determination of whether it was in- or out-of-policy. Third,
while the suspect withdrew a firearm upon being confronted by officers, evidence
suggested that he may have dropped the firearm at the front of a nearby car. Yet,
because the sergeant had to make a split-second decision during a rapidly evolving
situation, and had already seen the gun, had knowledge of the suspect’s alleged
criminal behavior and access to firearms, and was approaching the suspect from a
vantage point across the hood of a parked vehicle, the OIM could not say that the
sergeant’s perception of imminent danger to himself or fellow officers at the time
of the shooting was objectively unreasonable.

2014 Incident #4
In another incident on July 2, 2014, officers from the Safe Streets Task Force,
Fugitive Unit and Gang Unit contacted a suspect who had felony warrants for a
domestic violence incident and auto theft. The suspect parked a stolen vehicle
outside a funeral home and officers boxed the vehicle into the parking space. The
officers approached the suspect and tried to remove him from the car. In an
92

Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 5 :: Critical Incidents

attempt to escape, the suspect backed his car up at a high rate of speed, hitting an
unmarked police vehicle. A detective on the scene was struck by the car, and
sustained an injury to her hamstring. Shots were fired at the suspect by multiple
officers, resulting in his death.
The Denver District Attorney reviewed the incident and declined to file charges
against the involved officers. The DA prepared a detailed letter reviewing the
shooting, which can be found here.164 On April 10, 2015, the Use of Force
Review Board met and evaluated the shooting under the policy on shooting into
moving vehicles that was in effect at the time of the shooting, which has since
been significantly modified (see Chapter 1 of the OIM’s 2015 Semiannual
Report). The Use of Force Review Board found that the shooting was consistent
with that policy, and the OIM concurred with this assessment.
A separate internal review was conducted to determine whether the decisions of
the sergeant who was acting as the operations supervisor before the shooting were
within DPD policy. Under DPD policy, when supervising tactical, high-risk or
covert operations, an operations supervisor must ‘‘continually assess the risks and
hazards involved in allowing the operation to continue, and make a decision to
allow the operation to continue or order it terminated.’’165 DPD policy further
requires an operations supervisor to ‘‘authorize or cancel the operation, based on
all available information and the provisions of Denver Police Department
Policy.’’166 DPD policy notes that when planning high risk or tactical operations,
‘‘The safety of the participating officers, general public, and suspect(s) is of
paramount importance.’’167
The suspect had parked his vehicle in a lot full of cars and people, which was
observable to the sergeant prior to the decision to make the arrest. Additionally,
the suspect was a known flight risk, and was still sitting inside a running car when
officers contacted him, potentially increasing the risk of flight in a crowded
parking lot. The OIM recommended that a specification be sustained against the
sergeant. The EDOS and DPD did not accept this recommendation, and the
sergeant was exonerated of any wrongdoing.

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Chapter 5 :: Critical Incidents

2014 Incident #5
On November 20, 2014, DPD officers joined Aurora police officers in a vehicle
pursuit, during which the driver made several attempts to elude. DPD officers
finally stopped the vehicle in Commerce City and the driver did not comply with
commands to stop the vehicle and show his hands. Several officers were
positioned between the truck and a patrol car when the driver of the suspect
vehicle shifted into reverse and accelerated towards the officers. A fourth officer
was in a cover position and fired three rounds through the passenger’s side of the
truck, fearing for the safety of the other officers. The driver was shot once, struck
in both his right arm and right chest area, and the passenger was shot twice. Both
survived. The driver was charged with Attempted Assault in the First Degree and
Driving After Revocation Prohibited.
The District Attorney for the 17th Judicial District declined to press charges
against the officer who fired his weapon; the DA’s decision letter can be found
here.168 The Use of Force Review Board met on July 27, 2015 and evaluated the
shooting under the policy on shooting into moving vehicles that was in place at
the time of the shooting, which has since been significantly modified (see Chapter
1 of the OIM’s 2015 Semiannual Report). The Use of Force Review Board
determined the shooting was in-policy; the OIM concurred with that assessment.
The Board did not send the case to the Tactics Review Board because the tactics
involved were addressed by the recent change in policy regarding shooting into
moving vehicles.

Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 5 :: Critical Incidents

Critical Incidents: Denver Sheriff Department (DSD)
In-Custody Death Investigation and Review Protocol
Similarly to situations involving the DPD, in all DSD critical incidents, DPD’s
Major Crimes Unit responds to the scene to begin an investigation to determine
whether any person should be held criminally liable. If the incident warrants it,
the OIM also responds to the scene of the incident for a walk-through and
debriefing from command staff. Major Crimes detectives interview all witnesses
and every involved officer, and obtain video and documentary evidence. The
OIM monitors all interviews conducted by the Major Crimes Unit and may
suggest additional questions at the conclusion of each interview. After the
criminal investigation is complete, the administrative review process begins.

Administrative Review of Critical Incidents Involving DSD Deputies
Once the District Attorney’s Office has made a decision regarding the filing of
criminal charges against anyone involved in the incident, the Major Crime Unit’s
reports are submitted to DSD IAB to commence the administrative review. The
OIM confers with IAB to determine whether further investigation is necessary to
assess whether there have been violations of Departmental policy. If, after
reviewing the investigation, the Conduct Review Office finds that the involved
deputy’s actions were in compliance with DSD policy (‘‘in-policy’’), the case is
forwarded to the Sheriff. If the Sheriff agrees there were no policy violations, the
case is closed. The OIM reviews the Conduct Review Office’s findings and
makes recommendations to the Sheriff and the EDOS.
If the Conduct Review Office finds that the involved deputy’s actions violated any
Department policy (‘‘out-of-policy’’), the case is referred to the Sheriff for a ‘‘PreDisciplinary Hearing.’’ The OIM observes the hearing and the deliberations of
the Command Staff. At that hearing, the involved deputy is given the
opportunity to present his or her side of the story, including mitigating evidence,
if any. After hearing from the involved deputy, the OIM makes disciplinary
recommendations to the Sheriff. Both the Sheriff’s recommendations and that of
the OIM are forwarded to the EDOS for consideration. The EDOS determines
whether the deputy’s actions were in-policy or out-of-policy and the appropriate
level of discipline, if any.

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Chapter 5 :: Critical Incidents

DSD In-Custody Deaths in 2015
In-Custody Death #1
On November 11, 2015, a mentally ill inmate was involved in a physical
altercation with several deputies. During the incident the inmate became
unresponsive and was transported to Denver Health Medical Center. The inmate
died several days later. The Denver District Attorney reviewed the incident and
declined to file charges against the involved deputies. The DA prepared a
detailed letter reviewing the incident, which can be found here.169 The incident is
currently under administrative review.

In-Custody Death #2
On December 7, 2015, a 54-year old man who was being treated for a terminal
disease while serving a sentence at the Downtown Detention Center was found
unresponsive. He was given CPR, transported to Denver Health Medical Center,
and was pronounced dead shortly thereafter.

In-Custody Death #3
On December 25, 2015, a deputy discovered a male hanging by a bedsheet inside
his cell at the Downtown Detention Center. The inmate was transported to
Denver Health Medical Center, where he died several days later. The incident is
currently under review.

DSD Accidental Shootings in 2015
Accidental Shooting #1
On March 27, 2015, a deputy accidentally discharged her weapon while
participating in required firearms training. She fired a round into the floor in
front of her, but no bystanders were struck. She was suspended for two days for
carelessly handling her firearm.

Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 5 :: Critical Incidents

DSD 2013 Critical Incidents Closed in 2015
2013 Incident #1
On May 11, 2013, around 9:00 p.m., a nurse discovered an unresponsive inmate
while administering medications at the Downtown Detention Center. The
inmate was transported to the Denver Health Medical Center, where she died the
following day. A deputy sheriff working in the medical unit that evening was
responsible for conducting and documenting a minimum of two rounds each
hour. That deputy failed to conduct and document multiple rounds between the
hours of 6:00 and 8:00 p.m. The deputy resigned in a settlement agreement with
the EDOS based on this incident, and another case.

2013 Incident #2
On November 28, 2013, an inmate became unresponsive in the back of a DSD
scout van while being transported from a DPD district station to the Downtown
Detention Center. The DSD deputies transported the inmate to Denver Health
Medical Center, where he later died. The case was reviewed and the department
found that neither deputy involved had violated DSD policy.

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Endnotes

Endnotes
Sworn DSD staff, including supervisors, are collectively referred to as ‘‘deputies’’ throughout this
report, unless otherwise noted.

See OFFICE OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR, 2013 SEMIANNUAL REPORT 5-33,
https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/Portals/374/documents/Semiannual_Report_
Final_2013-12-02.pdf.
2

See, e.g., Sadie Gurman, Denver Sheriff Revamps Policy on Inmate Grievances After Harsh Report,
DENVER POST (Dec. 6, 2013), http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_24666682/denver-sheriffrevamps-policy-inmate-grievances-after-harsh.
3

See Noelle Phillips, Move to Strengthen Denver’s Independent Monitor Advances, DENVER POST
(Feb. 3, 2015), http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_27451882/move-strengthen-denversindependent-monitor-advances.
4

See DENVER REV. MUN. CODE art. XVIII, §2-388, §2-389.

See id. §2-390.

See id.

See, e.g., OFFICE OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR, 2013 SEMIANNUAL REPORT, supra note 2,
at 5-33; Letter from Independent Monitor Nicholas E. Mitchell to the Honorable Paul D.
Lopez, Safety and Wellbeing Committee Chairman (Sept. 10, 2014) (on file with author).
8

Mayor Hancock Sets New Leadership and Top-to-Bottom Review of Sheriff Department, CITY &
CNTY. OF DENVER (July 21, 2014), http://www.denvergov.org/content/denvergov/en/mayorsoffice/newsroom/2014/mayor-hancock-sets-new-leadership-and-top-to-bottom-review-ofsh.html.
9

See HILLARD HEINTZE, NEW VISION, BRIGHTER FUTURE: THE DENVER SHERIFF
DEPARTMENT (May 21, 2015).
10

Sheriff Department Reform, OFFICE OF DENVER MAYOR MICHAEL B. HANCOCK,
http://www.denvergov.org/content/denvergov/en/mayors-office/programs-initiatives/sheriffdepartment-reform.html (last accessed Feb. 26, 2016).
11

See OFFICE OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR, 2014 ANNUAL REPORT 4,
https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/Portals/374/documents/2014_Annual_Repor
t%20Final.pdf.
12

See CENTER FOR APPLIED RESEARCH IN HUMAN DEVELOPMENT, UNIVERSITY OF
CONNECTICUT, EFFECTIVE POLICE INTERACTIONS WITH YOUTH: TRAINING EVALUATION
(Mar. 2008), http://www.ct.gov/opm/lib/opm/cjppd/cjjjyd/jjydpublications/police_eval_full_
report_final_september_2008.pdf.
13

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Endnotes

See OFFICE OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR, 2015 SEMIANNUAL REPORT 32,
https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/Portals/374/documents/OIM_2015_Semian
nual_Report_FINAL.pdf; OFFICE OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR, 2014 ANNUAL REPORT
84.
14

The OIM reports on deaths that begin or occur while the inmate is in the custody of any DSD
jail. When inmates die in custodial facilities at Denver Health of natural causes (such as cancer
deaths occurring in hospice), the OIM has not historically reported on those deaths.
15

Due to security concerns, the DSD has not historically mediated complaints filed by inmates.
DSD mediations typically involve staff member complaints lodged against other staff.
16

85% of complainants completed a mediation survey, and 93% of officers completed a mediation
survey.
17

PRESIDENT’S TASK FORCE ON 21ST CENTURY POLICING, FINAL REPORT OF THE
PRESIDENT’S
TASK
FORCE
ON
21ST
CENTURY
POLICING
(2015),
http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce/taskforce_finalreport.pdf.
18

Id. at 19.

Id. at 20.

Id. at 35.

Id. at 45.

Id. at 42.

Id. at 26.

See OFFICE OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR, 2014 ANNUAL REPORT 7-35.

See id. at 10.

See id. at 34-35.

The DPD did not issue a written response to the OIM’s recommendations.

OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR, CITY AND CNTY. OF DENVER, AUDIT OF POLICE OPERATIONS DISTRICT
PATROL
39
(2016),
https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/
Portals/741/documents/Audits_2016/PoliceOperationsDistrictPatrol_AuditReport_Jan2016.pdf.
29

See id. at 39-40 (discussing the DPD Command Staff’s assessment of the implementation status
of each of the nine recommendations made by the OIM).
30

Jesse Paul, Civil Rights Groups Criticize New Denver Police Policy on Body Cameras, DENVER
POST (Sept. 8, 2015), http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_28776598/denver-police-releasedraft-body-camera-policy-public; Noelle Phillips, Denver Police Moving Toward Body Camera Use
for Moonlighting Officers, DENVER POST (Sept. 22, 2015), http://www.denverpost.com/
news/ci_28859368/denver-police-moving-toward-body-camera-use-moonlighting; Letter from
31

100

Office of the Independent Monitor

Endnotes

Citizen Oversight Board to Mayor Michael Hancock and Members of Denver’s City Council
(Sept. 21, 2015) (on file with author).
Noelle Phillips, Denver Police Officers to Wear Body Cameras While Working Off-Duty Security
Jobs, DENVER CHANNEL (Sept. 24, 2015), http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/localnews/denver-police-officers-to-wear-body-cameras-while-working-off-duty-security-jobs.
32

Marshall Zelinger, Denver Police Chief Robert White Changes Mind, Says Sergeants Should Wear
Body Cameras, DENVER CHANNEL (Oct. 13, 2015), http://www.thedenverchannel.com/
news/local-news/denver-police-chief-robert-white-changes-mind-says-sergeants-should-wearbody-cameras.
33

See U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, INVESTIGATION OF THE CLEVELAND POLICE DEPARTMENT 16http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/
17
(2014),
2014/12/04/cleveland_division_of_police_findings_letter.pdf; Denver Police Department, Moving
Vehicle Response Training (on file with author).
34

See, e.g., Findings Letter from the U.S. Dep’t of Justice to Mayor Richard J. Berry at 32-33
(Apr. 10, 2014), http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2014/04/10/ apd_findings_410-14.pdf (regarding the investigation of the Albuquerque Police Department).
35

Letter from Independent Monitor Nicholas E. Mitchell to Denver Police Chief Robert
White (Jan. 27, 2015) (on file with author) (regarding OIM Review of DPD Policy on
discharging firearms at moving vehicles).

Marshall Zelinger & Phil Tenser, Denver Conducting Two Reviews of Police Department Policies
for Shooting at Suspects in Moving Cars, DENVER CHANNEL (Jan. 28, 2015),
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/denver-conducting-two-reviews-of-policedepartment-policies-for-shooting-at-suspects-in-moving-cars01282015.
37

This analysis excluded incidents in which the use of deadly force was prompted by a threat
other than a moving vehicle (e.g., an incident in which one or more passengers fired shots from
a moving vehicle was excluded).

See OFFICE OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR, 2015 SEMIANNUAL REPORT 1-14.

While we have referred to the new rule as a ‘‘prohibition’’ on shooting into moving vehicles, the
revised policy acknowledges that it ‘‘may not cover every situation’’ and ‘‘ ... deviations shall be
examined rigorously and on a case-by-case basis.’’ See DENVER POLICE DEPARTMENT,
OPERATIONS
MANUAL
§
105.05(5)
[hereinafter
DPD
OMS],
https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/Portals/720/documents/OperationsManual/
OMSBook/OM_Book.pdf (revised June 2015).
40

See, e.g., SAMUEL WALKER & CAROL A. ARCHBOLD, THE NEW WORLD OF POLICE
ACCOUNTABILITY 146-155 (2d ed. 2014).
41

See, e.g., United States v. City of Albuquerque, 14-CV-1025, at 68-71 (D.N.M. Nov. 14, 2014);
United States v. City of Seattle, 12-CV-1282, at 45-46 (W.D. Wash. July 27, 2012).

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

101

Endnotes

Letter from Independent Monitor Nicholas E. Mitchell to Denver Police Chief Robert White
(June 13, 2013) (on file with author).
43

Noelle Phillips, Denver Officer’s Long List of Public Complaints Triggers Change, DENVER POST
(Mar. 2, 2015), http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_27621823/denver-officers-long-list-publiccomplaints-triggers-change.
44

DPD OMS 508.00 (revised April 2015 and July 2015).

See Denver Police Department, PAS Review Workgroup Suggestions (on file with author).

See Denver Police Department, Performance Development Unit Presentation (on file with
author); Email from Denver Police Lieutenant John MacDonald to OIM Policy Director Jennifer
Fratello (Feb. 10, 2016) (on file with author).

OFFICE OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR, 2014 ANNUAL REPORT at 42; see U.S. DEP’T OF
JUSTICE, GUIDANCE FOR FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES REGARDING THE USE OF
RACE, ETHNICITY, GENDER, NATIONAL ORIGIN, RELIGION, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, OR
GENDER
IDENTITY
(Dec.
2014),
http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/
files/ag/pages/attachments/2014/12/08/use-of-race-policy.pdf.
48

DPD OMS 118.02. (pre-June 2015).

Id. (post-June 2015).

NCIC is a federal database maintained by the FBI that helps law enforcement track fugitives,
locate missing persons, identify terrorists, and recover stolen property, including vehicles. CCIC
is the conduit by which Colorado law enforcement agencies obtain access to NCIC and other
federal and international information databases.
51

Specifically, the NCIC database currently consists of 21 files. There are seven property files
containing records of stolen articles, boats, guns, license plates, parts, securities, and vehicles.
There are 14 persons files, including: Supervised Release; National Sex Offender Registry; Foreign
Fugitive; Immigration Violator; Missing Person; Protection Order; Unidentified Person;
Protective Interest; Gang; Known or Appropriately Suspected Terrorist; Wanted Person; Identity
Theft; Violent Person; and National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Denied
Transaction. National Crime Information Center, FED. BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ncic (last accessed Feb. 25, 2016).
52

Id.

James Jacobs & Tamara Crepet, The Expanding Scope, Use, And Availability of Criminal Records,
11 N.Y.U. J. OF LEGIS. & PUB. POL’Y 177, 187-89 (2008).
54

See generally id.

See DPD OMS 102.8(4) (pre-November 2015 revision). In November 2015, after the OIM
raised concerns about the appropriateness of reprimands for misuse of NCIC/CCIC in its review
of several cases, the DPD revised this provision. It now includes a restriction on the dissemination
of information from NCIC/CCIC for any non-official purpose. Around this same time, the
56

102

Office of the Independent Monitor

Endnotes

DPD also issued an alert in the DPD’s Daily Bulletin reminding officers that ‘‘per Operations
Manual Section 102.08(4) - Use of NCIC and CCIC, . . . Department personnel will not use the
CCIC/NCIC system to obtain information, criminal or otherwise for personal use, gain, benefit,
or remuneration and will not provide any information derived from this system to any other
person unless connected to their official duties.’’ See Denver Police Bulletin (Nov. 19, 2015) (on
file with author). Neither the policy revision nor the bulletin update addressed the OIM’s
concerns regarding the need for stronger discipline for officers who misuse NCIC/CCIC.
57

See DPD OMS 102.08(7)(d).

See id. 116.30.

In the last case, no discipline was imposed at all, and the OIM’s recommendation that the DPD
and EDOS sustain the allegations against the officer was rejected.

The data reported in this section were extracted from the DPD's Internal Affairs database
("IAPro") on January 20, 2016. The DPD tracks ‘‘specifications’’ that capture the rule under
which an officer might be punished rather than the detailed allegations made by complainants.
Violations of NCIC are addressed by RR-102.1 Duty to Obey Departmental Rules and Mayoral
Executive Orders -- Operations Manual § 102.08 -- Use of NCIC and CCIC. As such, the OIM
identified relevant cases by searching for references to the DPD OMS 102.08 that were linked to a
named subject officer. The OIM is not an IAPro administrator, however, and cannot certify that
the particular complaint specifications are what they would be if the OIM were making these
decisions or that its analysis identified all complaints related to NCIC misuse.
60

The OIM identified 42 unique complaints alleging NCIC/CCIC misuse. One of the
complaints identified two subject officers who misused NCIC. The analysis in this chapter
therefore treats that complaint as two allegations of NCIC/CCIC misuse.

Two of the 43 allegations do not have an outcome because the subject officer resigned prior to a
final discipline decision.
62

‘‘Conduct Prejudicial’’ is conduct that is detrimental ‘‘to the good order and police discipline of
the Department of conduct unbecoming an officer.’’ See DENVER POLICE DEPARTMENT
DISCIPLINE HANDBOOK: CONDUCT PRINCIPLES AND DISCIPLINARY GUIDELINES, Appendix
https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/Portals/744/
G,
at
7
(RR-105),
documents/handbooks/DPD_Handbook_Revised_9-6-2012.pdf [hereinafter DPD DISCIPLINE
HANDBOOK].
63

Id. § 11.2.

Id. § 15.1.4.

Id. § 26.2.

Id. § 26.1.3.

See id., Appendix F, at 2 (RR-802).

See id., Appendix F, at 3 (RR-126).

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

103

Endnotes

See id., Appendix F, at 3 (RR-309.1).

See id., Appendix F, at 3 (RR-607).

See id., Appendix F, at 6 (RR-302).

See id., Appendix F, at 4-7 (RR-142).

See id., Appendix F, at 6 (RR-203).

See id., Appendix F, at 4-7 (RR-138).

See id., Appendix F, at 4-5 (RR-140.2).

See id., Appendix F, at 6 (RR-114).

See, e.g., id. § 11.3.

See, e.g., id. § 11.3.2.

See id. § 11.3.5.

See, e.g., U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, INVESTIGATION OF THE FERGUSON POLICE DEPARTMENT
85 (Mar. 4, 2015), http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/
2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf.
81

See PHOENIX POLICE DEPARTMENT, OPERATIONS ORDER 3.18, Addendum A, §
(2)(B)(1)(d).
82

See, e.g., Ryan Boetel, APD Officer Improperly Used NCIC Database, ALBUQUERQUE JOURNAL
(Jan. 19, 2016), http://www.abqjournal.com/708365/news/apd-officer-improperly-used-ncicdatabase.html (Albuquerque police officer suspended for 40 hours for misuse of NCIC); David
Chang, Cop Uses Police Database to Find Woman on Facebook: Police, NBC PHILIDELPHIA (July 23,
2012), http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Cop-Uses-Police-Database-to-Find-Woman
-on-Facebook-Police-163474046.html (Voorhees Township officer suspended for using NCIC to
find a woman’s information to friend her on Facebook); Danielle Todesco, Did an APD Officer Get
Fired for Using his Lapel Camera Too Much?, KOB (Feb. 12, 2016),
http://www.kob.com/article/stories/s4047060.shtml (Albuquerque police officer terminated for
misuse of NCIC).
83

Chris Halsne & Chris Koeberl, Denver Police Accused of Using Excessive Force, Illegal Search, FOX
DENVER (Nov. 24, 2014), http://kdvr.com/2014/11/24/denver-police-accused-of-excessive-forceillegal-search/.
84

Letter from Independent Monitor Nicholas E. Mitchell to Denver Police Chief Robert White
(Jan. 11, 2016) (on file with author).
85

See DPD OMS 105.03(4)(d)(6)(d)(3).

See Email from DPD Training Academy instructor to OIM Deputy Monitor Nate Fehrmann
(Nov. 25, 2015) (on file with author).
87

104

Office of the Independent Monitor

Endnotes

The ACT Manual describes arrest and control techniques and defense tactics that can be used
by DPD officers. The ACT Manual is not a publicly available document.
88

See Michael, C. DiMarino, MD, Foreign Bodies in the GI Tract, MERCK MANUAL,
http://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/gastrointestinal-disorders/bezoars-and-foreignbodies/foreign-bodies-in-the-gi-tract (last updated June 2013) (‘‘Of the foreign bodies that reach
the stomach, 80 to 90% pass spontaneously, 10 to 20% require nonoperative intervention, and ≤
1% require surgery. Thus, most intragastric foreign bodies can be ignored.’’); see also Carolina A.
Klein, MD, Intentional Ingestion and Insertion of Foreign Objects: A Forensic Perspective, 40 J. AM.
ACAD. PSYCH. L. , Jan. 2012, at 119, 123 (‘‘In most cases, asymptomatic patients can be
managed conservatively until drug packets are spontaneously passed through the GI tract.’’).
89

See Marshall Zelinger, Law Enforcement Nationwide Track ‘Use of Force’ Differently; Based on SelfReporting by Officers, DENVER CHANNEL (Nov. 20, 2015), http://www.thedenverchannel.com/
news/front-range/denver/law-enforcement-nationwide-track-use-of-force-differently-based-onself-reporting-by-officers (data reported up to Oct. 16, 2015).
90

Strikes include all uses of force where officers indicated in use of force reports that they used at
least one of the following types of force: strike, fist, thrust/kick, or feet/leg (data extracted from
IAPro on January 8, 2016).
91

See generally R. Alan Thompson & Jerry L. Dowling, Police Use of Force Against Drug Suspects:
Understanding the Legal Need for Policy Development, 25 AM. J. CRIM. JUST. 173, 188 (2001)
(noting that these techniques may risk ‘‘unnecessary injury to officers, who are frequently bitten or
otherwise assaulted by a physically combative suspect who is resisting the extraction of evidence
from the oral cavity’’).
92

See SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT MANUAL §8.200(2) (detailing when uses of force are
prohibited).

See U.S. v. City of Seattle, No. 12-CV-1282 (W.D. Wash. filed Aug. 30, 2012) (approving the
settlement agreement and stipulated order of resolution); SEATTLE POLICE MONITOR, FOURTH
SEMIANNUAL REPORT 19 (December 2014), http://static1.squarespace.com/static/
5425b9f0e4b0d66352331e0e/t/548f45e6e4b0767ae18867c4/1418675686394/Fourth+Semiannual
+Report.pdf.
94

In addition, the DPD’s Body Worn Camera Policy provides scheduled discipline for first and
second violations of the recording requirements set forth in the policy, with a written reprimand
for the first violation and one fined day for a second violation. See DPD OMS 111.11(9).
95

The data reported in this chapter were extracted from IAPro. The OIM is not an IAPro
administrator and has limited control over data entry into the database. The OIM does not
conduct governmentally approved audits of the database for accuracy. As a result, the OIM is
unable to certify the accuracy of the DPD’s Internal Affairs data. Finally, because the OIM is not
the final arbiter of what allegations to record in IAPro and against which officers, the OIM cannot
certify that the data presented (with respect to specific complaint allegations) are what they would
be if the OIM were making these decisions. Since the data were drawn from dynamic, live

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

105

Endnotes

databases, the recorded complaint, allegation, and outcome numbers will fluctuate over time and
are subject to revision. The figures reported in this chapter do not include complaints against
DPD civilian employees, or service complaints that were not linked to any subject officer in
IAPro.
97

The data included in this chapter were last retrieved from IAPro on February 3, 2016.

Because of changes in coding and/or analysis of complaints, allegations, findings, and discipline,
there may be slight discrepancies between historical data presented in this report and data
presented in previous OIM reports.
98

The total number of internal complaints recorded in 2015 includes 30 cases alleging violations
of the section of the DPD’s Secondary Employment Policy that places restrictions on eligibility for
secondary employment. See DPD OMS 114.01(3)(a)-(c). These cases were identified through a
one-time ‘‘Telestaff Audit,’’ and were closed informally and without review by the OIM.
99

Many reports related to police oversight and IAB processes refer to complainant allegations. In
this chapter, ‘‘allegations’’ refer to assertions, in a complainant’s own words, of particular kinds of
purported misconduct by an officer. The DPD does not systematically track the detailed
allegations made by complainants in its Internal Affairs database. Instead, it tracks ‘‘specifications’’
that are based upon the departmental rules and disciplinary policies implicated by a complaint.
Thus, a specification captures the rule under which an officer might be punished, rather than the
precise allegations communicated in the complaint.
100

101

DPD DISCIPLINE HANDBOOK, Appendix G, at 9 (RR-127).

Formal investigations may not receive a finding in cases where an officer resigns or retires prior
to the completion of the investigation and/or a final finding determination. Such cases fall into
the ‘‘Declined/Administrative Review’’ category in Figure 3.2.
102

103

See DPD OMS 114.01(3)(a)-(c).

Note that several cases are under appeal with the Civil Service Commission, as well as the
courts. As a result, these totals are subject to revision until all appeals have been exhausted.

104

The actual number of officers who resigned or retired while an investigation or discipline was
pending is actually higher than the total reported in Table 3.2. The OIM reports only those
resignations and retirements that are likely directly related to a pending investigation or pending
discipline. For example, the OIM does not report resignations or retirements of officers with
pending investigations alleging misconduct that, if sustained, would result in a low-level of
discipline such as a reprimand.
105

Summary data on appeals filed by DPD officers or by the Office of the EDOS regarding DPD
officers were provided to the OIM by the Civil Service Commission on January 26, 2016.
106

In 2013, Denver’s Civil Service Commission approved a set of changes to Rule 12, the
Commission Rules relating to Disciplinary Appeals, Hearings, and Procedures. Prior to these
changes, an officer’s first disciplinary appeal was heard by a three-member panel of Hearing
Officers. Following the changes, that appeal is now heard before a single Hearing Officer. See
107

106

Office of the Independent Monitor

Endnotes

Sadie Gurman, Despite Objections from Cops and Firefighters, Denver Changes Discipline Rules,
DENVER POST (Mar. 1, 2013), http://www.denverpost.com/ci_22697707/denver-civil-servicecommission-changes-police-fire-discipline.
The total discussed here is different from the total presented in Chapter 1, which includes two
mediations of complaints involving DSD staff.
108

Conciliations are complaints that are handled by division commanders, not IAB, and do not
require the complainant to meet face-to-face with the subject officer. See Email from Senior Legal
Analyst, Kansas City Office of Community Complaints, Michael Walker to OIM Senior Analyst
Ena Vu (Feb. 17, 2016) (on file with author).
109

The OIM adopted a new automated method for identifying the age of cases recorded by IAB
to replace manual counts that were used in past reports. This method cannot be applied to cases
received in prior years, however, which limits the OIM’s ability to make timeliness comparisons to
previous years.
110

DPD Timeliness figures were calculated by measuring the number of days between the date a
case was received and the date a case was completed, and subtracting the total number of days the
case was with the OIM for either investigative or disciplinary review. For cases that opened in 2015
but were not yet completed at the time of the analysis, OIM analysts used the date of data
extraction as the end date. Performance measures for the timeliness of OIM investigation reviews
are discussed in the Citizen Oversight Board’s Annual Reports.
111

DPD IAB will sometimes combine multiple complaints made by one individual under a single
case number, particularly if the complainant’s issue stems from issues of mental health or if the
complainant has a significant history of filing numerous false/trivial complaints. Regarding the
‘‘missing’’ data category in Table 3.5, it should be noted that complainants can choose not to
provide their demographic information when filing complaints.
112

Due to a transcription error in the analysis for the 2014 Annual Report, the distribution of
complainant race was reported inaccurately for the Black and White categories. Twenty-two
percent of complainants in 2014 were Black and 38% were White.

113

Due to unresolved discrepancies in the annual sworn officer count provided to the OIM by the
DPD’s Data Analysis Unit in 2014, the figures presented in Tables 3.6, 3.7, and 3.8 are notably
different from those presented in the OIM’s 2014 Annual Report.
114

Because of changes in coding and/or analysis of complaints, allegations, findings, and
discipline, there may be slight discrepancies between historical data presented in this report and
data presented in previous OIM reports.
115

See Noelle Phillips, Denver Sheriff Slashes Backlog of Internal Affairs Investigation Cases, DENVER
POST (Jan. 29, 2015), http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_27420805/denver-sheriff-slashesbacklog-internal-affairs-investigation-cases; Noelle Phillips, Denver Post Review: Lengthy Delays in
Sheriff’s Disciplinary Process, DENVER POST (Aug. 27, 2014), http://www.denverpost.com/
news/ci_26417862/denver-post-review-lengthy-delays-sheriffs-disciplinary-process; Email from
116

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

107

Endnotes

IAB Manager Armando Saldate to OIM Policy Director Jennifer Fratello (Feb. 9, 2016) (on file
with author).
Unless otherwise noted, the data for this chapter were obtained from the Denver Sheriff
Department’s Internal Affairs records management database (IAPro). The OIM is not an IAPro
administrator and has no control over data entry into the database. The OIM does not conduct
governmentally approved audits of the database for accuracy. As a result, the OIM is unable to
certify the complete accuracy of the DSD’s internal affairs data. Finally, because the OIM is not
the final arbiter of what allegations to record in IAPro and against which officers, the OIM cannot
certify that the data presented (with respect to specific complaint allegations) is what it would be if
the OIM were making these decisions. Since the data were drawn from dynamic, live databases,
the recorded complaint, allegation, and outcome numbers will fluctuate over time and are subject
to revision. The figures reported in this chapter include only complaints against sworn DSD
deputies. The data included in this chapter were last retrieved from IAPro on February 4, 2016.
117

Counts of complainant types for complaints recorded in 2011 and 2012 are based on data
extracted from the IAB records management database used prior to IAPro because the data for
these years were not carried over into the new database. The counts for 2011 and 2012 do not
sum to the totals presented in Figure 4.1 because information associated with these complaints
were likely updated by DSD IAB personnel in the years after their initial entry.

118

In 36 of the 232 complaints recorded in 2015, the complainant or complainant type (e.g.,
inmate, employee, etc.) is not recorded in the IAB database so it was not possible to determine the
complaint type.

119

120

OFFICE OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR, 2015 SEMIANNUAL REPORT 31-32.

Letter from IAB Manager Armando Saldate to Independent Monitor Nicholas E. Mitchell
(Oct. 23, 2015).
121

Email from Independent Monitor Nicholas E. Mitchell to EDOS Stephanie O’Malley,
Deputy Director of Safety Jess Vigil, then-Sheriff Elias Diggins, and Major Jodi Blair (Sept. 11,
2015) (on file with author).
122

See Letter from IAB Manager Armando Saldate to Independent Monitor Nicholas E. Mitchell
(Oct. 23, 2015) (on file with author).

123

In previous annual reports, the OIM reported common complaint allegations for the prior five
years. However, the DSD has changed the method by which it records alleged misconduct. The
OIM reports these improved data, but does not present information from previous years because it
is not comparable. This change means that the most common allegations presented in previous
OIM reports, such as improper procedure and improper conduct, do not appear as common in this
report.
124

Because DSD IAB finalizes each case’s specifications during the discipline phase, a late stage in
the investigation/review process, 34 specifications associated with complaints recorded in 2015
were unassigned at the time the OIM extracted data for this report.
125

108

Office of the Independent Monitor

Endnotes

DENVER SHERIFF DEPARTMENT DISCIPLINE HANDBOOK: CONDUCT PRINCIPLES AND
DISCIPLINARY GUIDELINES Appendix F, at 8 (RR 100.10.2). The OIM does not generally
review these complaints.
126

Id., Appendix F, at 16 (RR 300.22, which prohibits ‘‘inappropriate force’’). Prior annual reports
from the OIM used the phrase ‘‘excessive force’’ to refer to such specifications.
127

If the OIM disagrees with a screening decision, the DSD IAB Major is notified. If the OIM
and DSD IAB cannot agree on a screening decision, the OIM will discuss the conflict with the
Sheriff and then, if necessary, with the EDOS.
128

If a case involves allegations of criminal conduct, the investigation is conducted by the DPD’s
IAB. The DPD IAB will investigate the case and present it to the District Attorney’s Office for a
charging decision. If the District Attorney decides to file charges, the case will be retained by
DPD IAB until the conclusion of any criminal proceedings. Once the criminal proceedings are
concluded, or if the District Attorney decides not to file charges, the case will be turned over to
the DSD for completion of the administrative investigation to determine if any internal
procedures or policies were violated.
129

The total number of closed complaints includes all complaints involving deputies that were
closed by IAB with a 2015 completion date; not all cases are reviewed by the OIM.

130

131

See OFFICE OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR, 2015 SEMIANNUAL REPORT 31-45.

The sustained rates for complaints closed in 2011-2013 are based on data extracted from the
IAB records management database used prior to IAPro because the data on complainant type for
these years were not carried over into the new database.
132

Note that several cases are under appeal with the Career Service Board, as well as the courts.
As a result, these totals are subject to revision until all appeals have been exhausted.
133

The actual number of deputies who resigned or retired while an investigation or discipline was
pending is actually higher than the total reported in Table 4.4. The OIM reports only those
resignations and retirements that are likely directly related to a pending investigation or pending
discipline. For example, the OIM does not report resignations or retirements of officers with
pending investigations alleging misconduct that, if sustained, would result in a low-level of
discipline such as a reprimand.
134

In this section, ‘‘deputy’’ refers only to those personnel with the title ‘‘deputy’’ at the time of the
incident. Sworn staff with other titles, such as ‘‘captain’’ or ‘‘sergeant,’’ are noted throughout the
summaries.
135

136

See, e.g., WALKER & ARCHBOLD, supra note 41, at 138.

137

See, e.g., City of Albuquerque, at 68-71; City of Seattle, at 45-46.

Office OF THE INDEPENDENT MONITOR, 2013 SEMIANNUAL REPORT 25; OFFICE OF THE
INDEPENDENT
MONITOR,
2012
ANNUAL
REPORT
12,
https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/Portals/374/documents/2012%20OIM%20A
138

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

109

Endnotes

nnual%20Report-Print%20Version.pdf; Letter from Independent Monitor Nicholas E. Mitchell
to the Honorable Paul D. Lopez, Safety and Wellbeing Committee Chairman (Sept. 10, 2014)
(on file with author).
139

HILLARD HEINTZE, supra note 10, at 165.

DSD Reform Implementation Team, Minutes of the November 16, 2015 Meeting, at 1 (on file
with author).
140

Though the Departmental Order of Discipline states that the deputy used a ‘‘racial epithet,’’
‘‘ethnic epithet’’ may be a more appropriate description.
141

Denver Sheriff Department Van Cise-Simonet Detention Center, Classification/Housing Post
Order, at 16 (2014) (on file with author).
142

143

Id. at 7.

144

Id. at 8.

Email from Independent Monitor Nicholas E. Mitchell to Executive Director of Safety
Stephanie O’Malley and Civilian Review Administrator Shannon Elwell (July 29, 2015) (on file
with author).
145

See P.R.I.D.E. Awards issued to each deputy on October 31, 2013, ‘‘In recognition of …
professionalism, assistance, and ability to maintain your composure during an inmate suicide
attempt on 10/19/13.’’ A P.R.I.D.E. (Personal Responsibility in Delivering Excellence) certificate
is given when an employee has ‘‘demonstrated ‘personal responsibility in delivering excellence’ in
the workplace by going above and beyond their normal course of duty and/or putting forth extra
effort when needed.’’ See Denver Sheriff Department Order No. 2112.1G.

146

Summary data on appeals filed by DSD deputies or by the Office of the EDOS regarding DSD
deputies were provided to the OIM by the Career Service Hearing Office on February 2, 2016.
147

DSD Timeliness figures were calculated by measuring the number of days between the date a
case was received and the date a case was completed, and subtracting the total number of days the
case was with the OIM for either investigative or disciplinary review. For cases that opened in 2015
but were not yet completed at the time of the analysis, OIM analysts used the date of data
extraction as the end date. Performance measures for the timeliness of OIM investigation reviews
are discussed in the Citizen Oversight Board’s Annual Reports.
149

Decision Letter from Denver District Attorney Mitchell R. Morrissey to Denver Police Chief
Robert White (Mar. 5, 2015), http://www.denverda.org/News_Release/Decision_Letters/
2015letterDiManna.pdf (regarding the investigation of the shooting and wounding of Sharod
Kindell).
150

110

Office of the Independent Monitor

Endnotes

Decision Letter from Denver District Attorney Mitchell R. Morrissey to Denver Police Chief
Robert White (June 5, 2015), http://www.denverda.org/News_Release/Decision_Letters/
2015letterJordanandGreene.pdf (regarding the investigation of the shooting death of Jessica
Hernandez).
151

Decision Letter from Denver District Attorney Mitchell R. Morrissey to Denver Police Chief
Robert White (June 16, 2015), http://www.denverda.org/News_Release/Decision_Letters/
2015letterCruz.pdf (regarding the investigation of the shooting and wounding of John Thomas
Clark).
152

Decision Letter from Denver District Attorney Mitchell R. Morrissey to Denver Police Chief
Robert White (July 31, 2015), http://www.denverda.org/News_Release/Decision_Letters/
Decision%20Letter%20Nwandilibe%207-31-2015.pdf (regarding the investigation of the shooting
and wounding of Chisom Nwandilibe).
153

Decision Letter from Denver District Attorney Mitchell R. Morrissey to Denver Police Chief
Robert White (Sept. 14, 2015), http://www.denverda.org/News_Release/Decision_Letters/
Decision%20Letter %20re%20shooting%20death%20of%20Paul%20Castaway.pdf (regarding the
investigation of the shooting death of Paul Castaway).
154

Decision Letter from Denver District Attorney Mitchell R. Morrissey to Denver Police Chief
Robert White (Oct. 28, 2015), http://www.denverda.org/News_Release/Decision_Letters/
Decision%20Letter%20%20regarding%20Officer-involved%20shooting%20--%20August%2022
%202015%20--%20DPD%20Det.%20Jon%20Crowe%20and%20Officer%20Jimmy%20
Sheppard%20.pdf (regarding the investigation of the shooting and wounding of Kylear Antonio
Williams).
155

Decision Letter from Denver District Attorney Mitchell R. Morrissey to Denver Police Chief
Robert White (Feb. 12, 2016), http://www.denverda.org/News_Release/Decision_Letters/
Decision%20Letter%202015%20South%20Alcott.pdf (regarding the investigation of the shooting
death of Miguel Martinez).
156

Decision Letter from Denver District Attorney Mitchell R. Morrissey to Denver Police Chief
Robert White (Feb. 23, 2016), http://www.denverda.org/News_Release/Decision_Letters/
Decision%20Letter%202015%20-%203755%20N%20Federal.pdf (regarding the investigation of
the shooting and wounding of Jason Wood).
157

Noelle Phillips, Denver Health Tourniquet Training has Saved Cops’ Lives, DENVER POST (Dec.
28, 2015), http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29316273/denver-health-tourniquet-traininghas-saved-cops-lives; The Denver Channel.com Team, Commander Tony Lopez Sr., Other Denver
Officers Learn Life-Saving Tourniquet Training After Shootings, DENVER CHANNEL (Dec. 17,
2015), http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/front-range/denver/commander-tony-lopez-srother-denver-officers-learn-life-saving-tourniquet-training-after-shooting.
158

Denver Police Department Gun Shot Trauma Kits, DENVER POLICE FOUNDATION,
http://denverpolicefoundation.org/what-we-do/funded-projects-2/denver-police-departmentgun-shot-trauma-kits/ (last accessed Feb. 25, 2016).
159

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

111

Endnotes

Decision Letter from 17th Judicial District Attorney Dave Young to Thornton Police Chief
Randy Nelson and Denver Police Chief Robert White (Apr. 11, 2014),
http://adamsbroomfieldda.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Decision-letter-re-officer-involvedshooting-Jan.-2-2014.pdf (regarding the investigation of the shooting death of Wesley
Maldonado).
160

Decision Letter from Denver District Attorney Mitchell R. Morrissey to Denver Police Chief
Robert White (June 16, 2014), http://www.denverda.org/News_Release/Decision_Letters/
2014SisnerosLetter.pdf (regarding the investigation of the shooting and wounding of Isaac Vigil).
161

Decision Letter from Denver District Attorney Mitchell R. Morrissey to Denver Police Chief
Robert White (Aug. 29, 2014), http://www.denverda.org/News_Release/Decision_Letters/
Decision%20Letter%20 08-29-2014.pdf (regarding the investigation of the shooting death of
Joseph S. Valverde).
162

163

See id. at 5.

Decision Letter from Denver District Attorney Mitchell R. Morrissey to Denver Police Chief
Robert White (Aug. 8, 2014), http://www.denverda.org/News_Release/Decision_Letters/20144750TejonLet.pdf (regarding the investigation of the shooting death of Ryan Ronquillo).
164

165

DPD OMS 104.55 (7)(c)(2)(b).

166

Id. 104.55(7)(c)(2)(a).

167

Id. 104.55 (7)(b)(1).

Decision Letter from 17th Judicial District Attorney Dave Young to Denver Police Chief
Robert White (Feb. 20, 2015), http://adamsbroomfieldda.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/
November-20-2014-officer-involved-shooting-decision-letter.pdf (regarding the investigation of
the shooting and wounding of Joel and Carlos Jurado).
168

Decision Statement from Denver District Attorney Mitchell R. Morrissey (Jan. 21, 2016),
http://www.denverda.org/News_Release/Releases/2016%20Release/MarshallDecisionStateme
nt.pdf (regarding the investigation of the in-custody death of Michael Marshall).
169

112

Office of the Independent Monitor

Appendix A
Letter Re: DPD Early Intervention System

Appendix B
Letter Re: DPD Use of Force to
Remove Contraband

Appendix C
How to File a
Complaint/Commendation

How to File a DPD Complaint/Commendation
•

•
•
•

•

Postage-paid Complaint/Commendation Forms: The OIM distributes
complaint/commendation forms at government offices, libraries, and police
facilities throughout Denver, and they can be mailed to the OIM at no
charge.
OIM Online Complaint/Commendation Form: Complaints and
commendations may also be filed through online forms on the OIM, COB,
DPD and DSD websites. See www.denvergov.org/oim.
Email and FAX: The OIM and COB also accept complaints and
commendations through email at OIM@denvergov.org and by FAX at 720913-3305.
Walk-ins and Telephone: Community members can drop off
complaint/commendation forms during normal business hours on the 12th
floor of the Webb Municipal building at 201 W. Colfax Avenue. In addition,
every District police station in Denver is required to accept walk-in and
telephone complaints. IAB also accepts complaints by telephone (720-9136019) and walk-in (1331 Cherokee Street), during normal business hours.
Tort and Civil Rights Claims: Investigations may also be initiated when a
community member alleges officer misconduct in a claim or lawsuit filed
against the City.

How to File a DSD Complaint/Commendation
•

•
•
•
•

Postage-paid Complaint/Commendation Forms: The OIM distributes
complaint/commendation forms at government offices, libraries, and police
facilities throughout Denver, and they can be mailed to the OIM at no
charge.
OIM Online Complaint/Commendation Form:
Complaints and
commendations may also be filed through an online form on the OIM, COB,
and DSD websites. See www.denvergov.org/oim.
Email and FAX: The OIM and COB also accept complaints and
commendations through email and fax at OIM@denvergov.org and 720-9133305.
Walk-ins and Telephone:
The DSD also accepts complaints and
commendations by telephone (720-865-3888).
Tort and Civil Rights Claims: Investigations may also be initiated as a result
of allegations of deputy misconduct in a claim or lawsuit filed against the City.

Appendix D
Complaint /Commendation
Brochure Locations

City Council Offices
City and County Building, 1437 Bannock St., Room 487:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Rafael Espinoza, District 1 City Councilman
Paul D. Lopez, District 3 City Councilman
Mary Beth Susman, District 5 City Councilwoman
Paul Kashmann, District 6 City Councilman
Jolon Clark, District 7 City Councilman
Wayne New, District 10 City Councilman
Robin Kniech, City Councilwoman At-Large
Deborah Ortega, City Councilwoman At-Large

Other Locations:
•
•
•
•
•

Kevin Flynn, District 2 City Councilman – 3100 S. Sheridan Blvd., Denver,
CO
Kendra Black, District 4 City Councilwoman – 3540 S. Poplar St., Suite 100,
Denver, CO
Christopher Herndon, District 8 City Councilman – Arie P. Taylor
Municipal Building, 4685 Peoria St, Suite 245, Denver, CO
Albus Brooks, District 9 City Councilman – Elbra M. Wedgeworth Building,
2855 Tremont Pl., Suite 201, Denver, CO
Stacie Gilmore, District 11 City Councilwoman – Arie P. Taylor Municipal
Building, 4685 Peoria St., Suite 245, Denver, CO

Government Agencies
•
•
•
•
•
•

Denver Public Library – Central Branch 10 W. 14th Ave. Pkwy. Denver, CO
Denver Public Library – Corkey Gonzalez Library, 1498 N. Irving St.,
Denver, CO 80204
Department of Safety, City and County of Denver –1331 Cherokee St. Room
302, Denver, CO
Human Rights & Community Partnerships – Wellington E. Webb Building,
201 W. Colfax Ave. 2nd Floor, Denver, CO
Office of The Independent Monitor – Wellington E. Webb Building 201 W.
Colfax Ave. 12th Floor, Denver, CO
Parks and Recreation – Wellington E. Webb Building 201 W. Colfax Ave.
6th Floor, Denver, CO

Community-Based Locations
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Barnum Recreation Center – 360 Hooker St., Denver, CO
Centro Humanitario – 2260 California St., Denver, CO
Colorado Progressive Coalition – 700 Kalamath St., Denver, CO
Denver Indian Center – 4407 Morrison Rd., Denver, CO
Greater Park Hill Community Center– 2823 Fairfax St., Denver, CO
Inner City Parish – 1212 Mariposa St., Denver, CO
Meyer Law Firm – 1029 Santa Fe Dr., Denver CO
Mi Casa Resource Center – 360 Acoma St., Denver, CO
Newsed Housing Corporation – 901 W 10th Ave. Suite 2A, Denver, CO
Servicios De La Raza– 3131 West 14th Ave., Denver, CO
Southwest Improvement council– 1000 S. Lowell Blvd., Denver, CO
Su Teatro – 721 Santa Fe Dr., Denver, CO
True Light Baptist Church – 14333 Bolling Dr., Denver, CO

Jails
•
•

County Jail – 10500 E. Smith Rd., Denver, CO
Denver Detention Center – 490 W. Colfax Ave., Denver, CO

Police Stations
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

District 1 Station – 1311 W. 46th Ave., Denver, CO
District 2 Station – 3921 Holly St., Denver, CO
District 3 Station – 1625 S. University Blvd., Denver, CO
District 4 Station – 2100 S. Clay St., Denver, CO
District 5 Station – 4585 Peoria St., Denver, CO
District 6 Station – 1566 Washington St., Denver, CO
West Denver Cop Shop – 4200 Morrison Rd., Denver CO
Police Headquarters – 1331 Cherokee St., Denver, CO

Schools
•
•
•
•
•
•

Bruce Randolph 6-12 – 3955 Steele St., Denver, CO
Center For 21 Century Learning – 1690 Williams St., Denver, CO
Colorado Heights University – 3001 S. Federal Blvd., Denver, CO
East High School – 1600 City Park Esplanade, Denver, CO
Escuela Tlatelolco– 2949 Federal Blvd., Denver, CO
Manual High School – 1700 East 28th Ave., Denver, CO

•
•
•

South High School – 1700 E. Louisiana Ave., Denver, CO
Swansea Elementary School – 4650 Columbine St., Denver, CO
West High School – 951 Elati St., Denver, CO

Courts/Criminal Justice Locations
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Colorado Juvenile Defender Center – 2026 Stout St., Denver, CO
Colorado State Public Defender – Courtrooms 2100 and 2300, 1560
Broadway Suite 300, Denver, CO
Community Re-entry Project – 2505 18th St., Denver, CO
Denver District Court Criminal, Civil & Domestic – City & County Building
1437 Bannock St. Civil & Domestic, Room 256, Denver, CO
Denver Municipal Court General Session – City & County Building 1437
Bannock St. Room 160, Denver, CO
Denver Municipal Court Traffic Division – City & County Building 1437
Bannock St. Civil & Domestic, Room 135, Denver, CO
Lindsay-Flanigan Courthouse – 520 W. Colfax Ave., Denver, CO
Safe City Kids Office – 303 W. Colfax Ave. 10th Floor, Denver, CO

Appendix E
Citizen Oversight Board
Biographies and Meetings

Citizen Oversight Board (COB)
The Citizen Oversight Board (“COB”) is responsible for assessing whether the
Office of the Independent Monitor is effectively performing its duties, making
recommendations regarding policy and training issues, and addressing issues of
concern to the community and other interested stakeholders. The COB will meet
at least quarterly in public with the Manager of Safety, the Chief of Police and
the Undersheriff and will conduct at least three meetings annually for public
comment. The COB will also make an annual report to the public, Mayor and
City Council and may furnish additional public reports as necessary.

2015 COB Members
•

•

Dr. Mary Davis is the Chair of the COB. She has been actively involved in
civic and community-improvement activities since arriving in Denver more
that 30 years ago. She began her career in healthcare as a registered nurse and
moved into the education sector as an undergraduate and graduate faculty
member. Davis was the Director of Administration at the Regional
Transportation District for 10 years prior to launching McGlothin Davis,
Inc., an organizational effectiveness consulting firm in 1995. She has served
on numerous nonprofit boards including the Denver Chapter of the American
Cancer Society, The Denver Hospice, The Learning Source, and Goodwill
Industries of Denver, serving as board chairperson of the latter two
organizations. Other community-based activities include serving on school
accountability committees, nonprofit scholarship committees, higher
education advisory committees, and as director of Children’s Church at two
churches.

Francisco “Cisco” Gallardo is the Vice Chair of the COB. In his teen years,
he joined what has been one of the largest gangs in Denver’s north side. Since
that time, after facing a possible 48 years in prison, he has dedicated his life to
undoing the damage he helped cause. By redefining respect, power and pride
and making a commitment to help the youth heal, he has helped countless
young people, over the past 20 years, to redefine their own lives through his
work in the community.

Nita Gonzales is a native of Denver and the oldest daughter of Rodolfo
“Corky” Gonzales and Geraldine Gonzales. She is the President/CEO of
Escuela Tlatelolco Centro de Estudios, the forty-one year old Chicano school
founded by her father. She received her Bachelor’s of Science in Accounting
and Master’s in Education from Antioch University, in Yellow Springs,

•

Ohio. Her work includes being one of the founders and organizers of the
Chicano/Chicano/Mexicano Education Coalition comprised of 23
community organizations and groups. She has also provided essential
leadership in the All Nations Alliance, a coalition of over 80 social justice
organizations from Denver-Boulder. Ms. Gonzales is the recipient of many
awards and honors for her work in educational and community
empowerment, and she continues to work as a community-builder, visionary,
and mentor across color boundaries, across cultures, and across age groups.
Pastor Paul Burleson is the president-elect of the Greater Metro Denver
Ministerial Alliance. He founded Denver’s Friendship Baptist Church of
Christ Jesus in 1974 and continues to serve as its pastor. He also spent 28
years as an engineer with U.S. West Communication and four years in the
U.S. Air Force. A former dean of the United Theological Seminary’s Denver
Extension, Burleson is experienced in the prevention, identification, and
counseling of individuals and families with substance abuse and other at-risk
behaviors.

Mark Brown is the Agent-In-Charge for the Colorado Department of
Revenue, Division of Racing Events; a regulatory law enforcement agency.
His duties include management of administrative judges, law enforcement
officers, licensing personnel and veterinarian staff. In addition to those duties,
he also conducts firearms and arrest control technique training.

Roger Sherman is chief operating officer of CRL Associates, a Denver-based
government relations, public affairs and strategic communications firm.
Highly respected for his skills in coalition building, community outreach and
public positioning, Roger is experienced at forging links between diverse
interests and groups. He is on the board of directors of SafeHouse Denver,
which serves victims of domestic violence and their children through both an
emergency shelter and a non-residential Counseling and Advocacy Center.
He also is a member of the State Commission on Judicial Performance.
Roger earned a bachelor’s degree in communications from Colorado State
University. He resides in Denver’s Congress Park neighborhood.
Rabbi Steven E. Foster took his first position as an ordained rabbi at Temple
Emanuel in 1970 and became the Senior Rabbi in 1981. He brought to his
rabbinate a deep commitment to social justice, Jewish education and Jewish
continuity. His work in founding the Temple Emanuel Preschool and
Kindergarten, Herzl Day School, Stepping Stones to a Jewish Me (an
outreach program for interfaith families) in addition to his far reaching
community work such as serving on the boards of Planned Parenthood of the

Rocky Mountains, United Way, and Allied Jewish Federation to name a few,
demonstrate his commitment to the Jewish and secular community alike.
Rabbi Foster retired as Senior Rabbi in June, 2010, and now serves as Rabbi
Emeritus of Temple Emanuel as well as chaplain for The Denver Hospice.

Regular COB Meetings
COB meetings are usually held on the first and third Fridays of each month on
the 12th floor of the Wellington Webb Building at 201 W. Colfax Avenue. It is
advised that you call to confirm in advance if you plan to attend to ensure the
Board will be meeting.

2015 Quarterly Public Forums
COB public forums are usually held in the evenings from 7-8:30 p.m. in rotating
police districts in Denver. In 2015 public forums were held on the following
dates and in the following locations:
1. March 19, 2015 – District 1 – Cheltenham Elementary School, 1580 Julian
Street
2. June 4, 2015 – District 3 – Cory Elementary School, 1550 South Steele Street
3. September 24, 2015 – District 4 – Barnum Recreation Center, 360 Hooker
Street
4. December 3, 2015 – District 5 – Rachel B. Noel Middle School, 5290
Kittredge Street

Proposed 2016 Public Forums
1. March 31, 2016 – District 6 – Parr-Widener Room, City and County of
Denver Building, 1437 Bannock Street
2. June 16, 2016 – District 2 – Location to be announced
3. September 22, 2016 – District 1 – Location to be announced
4. December 8. 2016 – District 3 – Location to be announced

DENVER

OFFICE OF THE
INDEPENDENT MONITOR

Office of the Independent Monitor
201 W. Colfax Ave., Dept 1201
Denver, CO 80202
720 913 3306
www.denvergov.org/OIM | oim@denvergov.org
facebook.com/officeoftheindependentmonitordenver

The Habeas Citebook Ineffective Counsel Side