Police Citizen Review Subcommittee — Portland, ME
Date: 2025-11-12
Time: 18:00

City of Portland
 Police Citizen Review Subcommittee

 AGENDA
 November 12, 2025
 6:00 PM


1. Zoom information


 a. You are invited to a Zoom webinar!
 When: Nov 12, 2025 06:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada)
 Every month on the Second Wednesday
 Nov 12, 2025 06:00 PM
 Please download and import the following iCalendar (.ics) files to your calendar system.
 Monthly: https://portlandmaine-gov.zoom.us/webinar/tZ0vceuvqTIqE9HKOlWkciIwYZ-
 fhrAkphxx/ics?icsToken=DGOvQ-Xd-MOKBygBUQAALAAAACgZuug5fr3DuvxduCr-A-
 ZxBwTOm_cW8NcyYf9xZLkkw8U0DhSVWGY70HMIXF8NCNnEib2o3c8x0h5VJzAwMDAwMQ
 Topic: Police Citizen Review Subcommittee

 Join from PC, Mac, iPad, or Android:
 https://portlandmaine-gov.zoom.us/j/89262779095?pwd=aw06dPv2xDaD6bbrbG3TNSqhNiJbCK.1
 Passcode:167916

 Phone one-tap:
 +19292056099,,89262779095# US (New York)
 +13017158592,,89262779095# US (Washington DC)
2. Call to Order


3. Approval of the October 8, 2025 meeting minutes


 a. Attachment
4. Update on the new Civilian Police Review Board ordinance


5. Update of the citizen complaint/commendation process (Joey, Walter & Rachel M.)


6. Discussion of final draft of meeting procedures, public comment & vote (Randall)


 Discussion of final procedures for IA case presentation and voting process, public
7.
 comment & vote (Randall)
 a. Attachment
8. Report back re: data sharing needs, concerns and recommendations (Rachel S. & Joey)


9. Discussion of the Annual Report, and what might we want in it (Rachel S. & Joey)


10. Discussion of recommendations re: Professionalism SOP (Randall)


11. Report back re: Behavioral Health Unit & Major King (Xavier)


12. Public comment on agenda items


13. Executive session pursuant to 1 M.R.S. Sec. 405(6)(F) to discuss IA2025-12


14. Public comment on agenda items


15. Next meeting’s date and agenda topics


16. Adjourn

City of Portland
 Police Citizen Review Subcommittee

 AGENDA
 November 12, 2025
 6:00 PM


1. Zoom information


 a. You are invited to a Zoom webinar!
 When: Nov 12, 2025 06:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada)
 Every month on the Second Wednesday
 Nov 12, 2025 06:00 PM
 Please download and import the following iCalendar (.ics) files to your calendar system.
 Monthly: https://portlandmaine-gov.zoom.us/webinar/tZ0vceuvqTIqE9HKOlWkciIwYZ-
 fhrAkphxx/ics?icsToken=DGOvQ-Xd-MOKBygBUQAALAAAACgZuug5fr3DuvxduCr-A-
 ZxBwTOm_cW8NcyYf9xZLkkw8U0DhSVWGY70HMIXF8NCNnEib2o3c8x0h5VJzAwMDAwMQ
 Topic: Police Citizen Review Subcommittee

 Join from PC, Mac, iPad, or Android:
 https://portlandmaine-gov.zoom.us/j/89262779095?pwd=aw06dPv2xDaD6bbrbG3TNSqhNiJbCK.1
 Passcode:167916

 Phone one-tap:
 +19292056099,,89262779095# US (New York)
 +13017158592,,89262779095# US (Washington DC)
2. Call to Order


3. Approval of the October 8, 2025 meeting minutes


 a. Attachment
4. Update on the new Civilian Police Review Board ordinance


5. Update of the citizen complaint/commendation process (Joey, Walter & Rachel M.)


6. Discussion of final draft of meeting procedures, public comment & vote (Randall)


 Discussion of final procedures for IA case presentation and voting process, public
7.
 comment & vote (Randall)




 Page 1
 a. Attachment
8. Report back re: data sharing needs, concerns and recommendations (Rachel S. & Joey)


9. Discussion of the Annual Report, and what might we want in it (Rachel S. & Joey)


10. Discussion of recommendations re: Professionalism SOP (Randall)


11. Report back re: Behavioral Health Unit & Major King (Xavier)


12. Public comment on agenda items


13. Executive session pursuant to 1 M.R.S. Sec. 405(6)(F) to discuss IA2025-12


14. Public comment on agenda items


15. Next meeting’s date and agenda topics


16. Adjourn




 Page 2
 MINUTES
 POLICE CITIZEN REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE
 October 8, 2025
 Meeting Held In-Person (City Hall – room 24)

Members present: Kaylin Kerina, Chair; Joey Brunelle, Vice-Chair; Xavier Botana; Randall Kilty;
Rachel Schlein; and Walter Bihumugani

Members absent: none

Staff present: Associate Corporation Counsel Rachel Millette; Major Dan Hondo; and Tracy Boyd

6:04 Call to order and introductions.

 Motion was made by Joey and seconded by Xavier to approve September 10, 2025
 meeting minutes. Passage 5-0, Kay abstaining.

 Update on the new Civilian Police Review Board ordinance:

 Rachel shared that the Health and Human Services & Public Safety Committee is
 meeting next week on October 14, 2025 at 5:30 p.m. via Zoom to discuss the CPRB and
 that she anticipates that the same topic will be discussed again in a future meeting. Rachel
 will be presenting to the committee as to where the ordinance stands now and looking for
 clarity from the counselors as to what areas need particular attention in the current draft so
 that they can focus on those specific areas in future discussions.

 Discussion of the citizen complaint recommendation process:

 Walter and Joey did not have any new information. Joey plans to connect with
 Rachel M. for guidance as to whom they should forward their recommendations to.

 Discussion of revised draft of meeting procedures:

 Randall revised the document with suggestions from the subcommittee members
 and shared those revisions which the subcommittee discussed. Randall will send out a final
 draft to subcommittee members ahead of the next meeting.

 Present draft procedures for IA case presentation and voting process:

 Randall revised the document with suggestions from the subcommittee members
 and shared those revisions which the subcommittee discussed. Randall will send out a final
 draft to subcommittee members ahead of the next meeting.

 Check in on complaint data sharing:




 Page 3
 Rachel S. forwarded a list of the subcommittee’s concerns around data sharing to
 Rachel M., who, in turn, forwarded the list to the City Manager’s office, the Police
 Department, and the IT department. She has not received a response at this time. Among
 the concerns is the lack of protocols around data sharing. Joey offered to reach out to the
 Cambridge MA police oversight committee to inquire as to what protocols, if any, they
 have in place.

 Discussion of recommendations from Randall:
 Randall did not have suggestions prepared, however, he re-capped that this topic
 was around the definition of professionalism and recommending changes (both specific
 and general) to PD. Randall asked Major Hondo what the recommendation process would
 look like and Major Hondo replied that the subcommittee is free to make recommendations
 to the PD and the PD will respond as to whether they accept the recommendation or not
 with an explanation.


 Overview of Portland Police Department Behavioral Health Unit (BHU) for
 PCRS Training:

 Major King provided an overview of the BHU to Rachel S. which he felt was sufficient to
 fulfill the BHU training requirement. Major King will also make himself available if any
 subcommittee members have any further questions. Rachel S. will check in with
 subcommittee members next month regarding their progress towards the required training
 requirements.

 Public comment:
 George Rheault, Bayside, spoke on the need for training and education in the PD's
 Behavioral health unit. https://portlandme.portal.civicclerk.com/event/8155/media (19:35-
 19:44)

 Next meeting’s date and agenda topics:

  � Update on the new Civilian Police Review Board ordinance
  � Update of the citizen complaint/commendation process (Joey & Walter & Rachel M.)
  � Discussion of final draft of meeting procedures, public comment & vote (Randall)
  � Discussion of final procedures for IA case presentation and voting process, public comment
 & vote (Randall)
  � Report back re: data sharing needs, concerns and recommendations (Rachel S./Joey)
  � Discussion of the Annual Report, and what might we want in it (Rachel S./Joey)
  � Discussion of recommendations re: Professionalism SOP (Randall)
  � Report back re: Behavioral Health Unit & Major King (Xavier)

7:56 Motion was made by Joey and seconded by Walter to adjourn. Passage 6-0.




 Page 4
 Doc #: SOP-XXXX
 Standard Operating Procedure Rev #: ###

 Effective Date: dd-MMM-yyyy

 Title: PCRS IA Investigation Presentation
==

1.0 INTRODUCTION

 The purpose of this procedure is to provide describe a process for reviewing, presenting,
 and voting on Portland, ME Police Department (PD Internal Affairs (IA)IA investigations
 and voting on their dispositions. Police Citizen Review Subcommittee (PCRS) members
 are encouraged to do their best to review IA investigations impartially and to find ways the
 Portland, ME Police Department (PD) can improve the investigation process to better serve
 the residents of Portland, ME. PCRS members should work cooperatively with PD and city
 staffers to continue to build trust between the community, PCRS, and PD.

Note on case presenter to try to keep neutral – do want to have some responsibility on taking
note of questions/concerns/comments or follow-up actions

Can have responsibility to track default to the case presenter, but open to volunteers

General awareness on presenting with people first language – be aware of trigger language

Want to add option for having ‘no staff’ section of executive session as an option (in order to
hash out major divergences within PCRS members)

State statute 1 MRS section 402 and 30A MRS 2702 personnel record – Use these for definition
of private/sensitive information

NOTE: also some records around criminal confidentiality (Rachel M can help) – Randall to
email Rachel M to request/remind about it

Examples for Fair and objective instead of continuing to define them – Randall can make sure
the definition matches the intention/definition from PD

Make sure that it is useful from a reviewers perspective (not from PD perspective would be
executing)

Joey notes: Complainant is a person with feelings and should be considered

Expand upon the intro/purpose of the IA process to add context



2.0 SCOPE

 This document applies to PCRS IA investigation review, presentation, and voting. PCRS
 members should focus their reviewing and voting on the IA investigation process (not on
 PD disciplinary actions, etc.). on the dispositions of IA investigations.


 SOP Template Page 1 of 13

 Page 5
 Doc #: SOP-XXXX
 Standard Operating Procedure Rev #: ###

 Effective Date: dd-MMM-yyyy

 Title: PCRS IA Investigation Presentation
==
3.0 RESPONSIBILITIES


 Role Description of Responsibilities
 • Assigns or dDelegates IA cases to PCRS members as appropriate
 Chair
 • Informs PCRS members that they are assigned to present an IA case
 Vice-Chair • Fills in for Chair’s responsibilities when Chair is absent
 Voting PCRS • Participate in discussions and vote on IA investigations dispositions
 Members • Present IA case investigations when volunteered or assigned
 Non-voting • Participate in discussions
 members • Present IA case investigations when volunteered or assigned


4.0 DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS

 Term Definition
 As defined in state statute Title 1 MRS section 402 and Title
 30A MRS section 2702
 Sensitive Information
 Note: there are also rules around criminal confidentiality that
 should be followed
 All members of the PCRS (voting and non-voting) and all
 Meeting Attendees members of supporting city staff (including police
 departmentPD) who are attending the current PCRS meeting
 Any attendees that are not members of PCRS, city staff, or
 Guest Attendees
 Police Department
 Public meeting instance where Meeting Attendees and Guest
 Public Session
 Attendees both attend
 Private meeting instance where no Guest Attendees do not
 Executive Session
 attend due to discussion of private or sensitive information
 PD Portland, ME Police Department
 IA Internal Affairs (of the Portland, ME Police Department)
 PCRS Police Citizen Review Subcommittee

5.0 EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS
 • N/A


 SOP Template Page 2 of 13

 Page 6
 Doc #: SOP-XXXX
 Standard Operating Procedure Rev #: ###

 Effective Date: dd-MMM-yyyy

 Title: PCRS IA Investigation Presentation
==
6.05.0 PROCEDURE

 6.15.1 General Etiquette
6.1.1 All Meeting Attendees and Guest Attendees will use and adhere to Robert’s Rules of Order to
the best of their ability (see Section 7: Resources for link).

 6.25.2 Assigning and Preparing for IA Investigation Presentations
6.2.1 If an IA investigation is sent to PCRS for review in between PCRS meetings, the Chair will assign a
PCRS member to be responsible for presenting the IA investigation at the next meeting.
6.2.1.1 The Chair can use a list of PCRS members to rotate through who will be assigned (the member
list published online?). (e.g. the member list published online). See Section 6.0 References.
6.2.1.2 The list of PCRS members should have newer members at the bottom of the list.
6.2.1.3 It is recommended that new members should not present an IA investigation until they have
experienced at least one IA investigation presentation from another PCRS member
6.2.1.4 When possible, a PCRS member will volunteer or be assigned to act as a backup presenter for
the IA investigation.

 6.2.25.3 When a PCRS member is assigned to present an IA investigation, they will
 prepare a presentation with the following information before the next scheduled
 PCRS meeting:


 • IA Investigation Summary:
 • Timeline: date of incident, date of complaint, date of categorization, date
 disposition was completed, date sent to command for review, and date disposition
 notification was sent to complainant and applicable officer/staff
 • Summary of incident (body cam footage, cruiser footage, audio recordings, etc.):
 • Summary of complaint (interview footage, body cam footage, phone recordings,
 etc.):
 • Summary of supporting documents (Incident reports, Intake statements, relevant
 PD standard operating procedures, etc.)
 • Summary of IA disposition (from disposition sheet):
 • Questions for PD (any clarifying questions about the investigation or incident):
 • PD and/or IA Investigation Recommendations (any improvements to IA process that
 could be made to yield better results in the future):
 • Considerations for Complainant satisfaction (any actions that PCRS or PD can take to
 improve public relations):


 SOP Template Page 3 of 13

 Page 7
 Doc #: SOP-XXXX
 Standard Operating Procedure Rev #: ###

 Effective Date: dd-MMM-yyyy

 Title: PCRS IA Investigation Presentation
==
 6.35.4 Presenting IA investigations
6.3.1 While still in the Public Session, the Chair will set the agenda for which IA investigations will be
presented and discussed in an Executive Session.
6.3.2 After Meeting Attendees have entered the Executive Session, the Chair will guide the meeting
through the agenda of IA investigation presentations and resulting discussions.
6.3.3 PCRS members will present the IA investigation summary information that they prepared in
advance(per (see section 6.2.3) while remaining as neutral as possible, using people-first language, and
avoiding trigger words where possible.while remaining as neutral as possible.
6.3.4 If there are questions or recommendations for the PD that contain private or sensitive
information, these should be discussed while PD is present.
6.3.5 PCRS members should discuss their thoughts on the Timeliness, Thoroughness, Fairness, and
Objectivity of the IA investigation.
 The PCRS member presenting the IA investigation will takeing note of questions/concerns/comments or
any follow-up actions discussed.
6.3.6 If there are follow-up actions, PCRS members may volunteer to take responsibility for them. If
there are no volunteers, the IA investigation presenter will take responsibility for the actions. The PCRS
member taking note of questions/concerns/comments or follow-up actions
6.3.7 If needed, PCRS members can ask for a period of ‘no-staff’ discussion time to better align their
ideas. During the ‘no-staff’ discussion, PD will be asked to leave the call.


6.3.8 After all IA investigations on the agenda have been presented and discussed to satisfaction, the
Chair can move the meeting back to Public Session.

 6.45.5 Voting on IA Investigations
6.4.1 Once Meeting Attendees are back in Public Session, the Chair will solicit voting on the
Timeliness, Thoroughness, Fairness, and Objectivity of IA investigations that were presented.
6.4.1.1 If there are any IA investigations that were not presented or discussed to a satisfactory state,
voting on these IA investigations can be postponed as warranted.
6.4.2 Voting mMembers of PCRS will vote on the Timeliness, Thoroughness, Fairness, and Objectivity
of the IA investigation and may use Attachment 1 for additional guidance.
6.4.2.1 Though there is potential overlap in the 4 voting categories, please keep voting focused on that
category only. Examples below:
6.4.2.2 Timely –was the investigation completed within ~45 business days or were affected parties
notified of disposition within ~60 business days?
6.4.2.3 Thorough – was did the IA investigation thorough (followed all the normal steps ) according to
police procedures (see attachment 1)?
6.4.2.4 Fairness – do the facts presented in the IA investigation exceed 50% certainty that the exact
definition of a PD policy was violated (or not)?
 6.4.2.4.15.5.1.1.1 If greater than 50% certain that violation of PD
 policy did occur, was the disposition not cat U?
6.4.2.5 Objectivity –– do the facts presented in the IA investigation exceed 50% certainty that there was
any bias in the IA investigation?


 SOP Template Page 4 of 13

 Page 8
 Doc #: SOP-XXXX
 Standard Operating Procedure Rev #: ###

 Effective Date: dd-MMM-yyyy

 Title: PCRS IA Investigation Presentation
==
6.4.3 If there are any PCRS members that vote ‘no’ to the Timeliness, Thoroughness, Fairness, and
Objectivity of an IA investigation, it is recommended that they give rationale for why they are voting that
way.
 NOTE: If the rationale(s) for voting and/or recommendation(s) to PD include
 sensitive and/or private information, these should be discussed in an executive
 session and not in a public session

6.4.4 If there are any recommendations for the PD that do not contain private or sensitive
information, these should also be presented in the Public Session.
6.4.4.1 For any official recommendations to PD, PCRS should draft a written recommendation that can
then be voted on by the PCRS.


7.06.0 REFERENCES
 Website Title Link
 Robert’s Rules of
 https://robertsrules.org/index.html
 Order
 List of PCRS
 https://onboard.portlandmaine.gov/board/4371
 members



8.07.0 ATTACHMENTS

 Attachment 1: Additional guidance for voting on Timely, Thorough, Fair, and Objective

 Timely (per PPD SOP Policy # 90):
1. For in-person complaints, Supervisor must meet with complaint within 30min of arrival at
 department (if resources allow)
2. Shift commander shall contact complainant within 24 hours or forward to Major for follow-
 up
3. Investigation by lieutenant completed within 3 days or referred to IA,
4. Investigations completed with professional standard review within 45 days,
5. Notification to PD employee of investigation/rights/duties within 5 business days, unless, in
 the opinion of the Chief of Police, the release of this information could impede the
 investigation.



 SOP Template Page 5 of 13

 Page 9
 Doc #: SOP-XXXX
 Standard Operating Procedure Rev #: ###

 Effective Date: dd-MMM-yyyy

 Title: PCRS IA Investigation Presentation
==
6. Command review within 10 days (of receipt of investigation?),
7. PD employee advised of outcome of investigation within 60 business days,
8. Professional standards lieutenant to notify PD employee status/delay within 15 days of
 completion of investigation and submission to staff for review,
9. Determination whether a complaint can be mediated or if it will require an investigation is
 required within 7 days (cooperative resolution)


 Thorough (per PPD SOP Policy # 90):
1. Shift commander will meet and interview all complainants unless no merit, then proceed as
 inquiry instead of a complaint
2. Review option of formal complaint or cooperative resolution (and forwarded appropriate
 form)
3. Shift commander classification is utilized as follows:
 . Category 1: conduct has negative impact on operations or image (investigated by officer
 lieutenant OR IA)
 a. Category 2: conduct involves serious abuse or misuse of authority, unethical behavior, or
 serious adverse impact on officer/public safety (investigated by IA)
 b. Category U: unfounded or within PD policy
4. After complaint is logged, Professional standards lieutenant will:
 a. Verify the Allegation Category assigned by the receiving shift commander;
 b. Review the subject officer’s IA history;
 c. Notify the chain of command, to include the Chief of Police;
 d. Notify, in writing, within five (5) business days, any employee who is the subject of an
 internal investigation and provide them with a copy of their rights and duties. The notice will
 include the name of the complainant and the nature of the allegations unless, in the opinion
 of the Chief of Police, the release of this information could impede the investigation.
 e. Notify the complainant, in writing, of the receipt of any complaint filed electronically or
 by mail.
 f. Refer the complaint to the subject officer’s Lieutenant or an Internal Affairs investigator
 in accordance with the guidelines below.




 SOP Template Page 6 of 13

 Page 10
 Doc #: SOP-XXXX
 Standard Operating Procedure Rev #: ###

 Effective Date: dd-MMM-yyyy

 Title: PCRS IA Investigation Presentation
==
5. Allegations deemed Category U by the receiving shift commander will be handled as follows
 and the Professional Standards Lieutenant will:
 a) A) Review the complaint form and Shift Commander’s intake form and concur with the
 classification or recommend reclassification.
 b) Forward the complaint and intake forms up the chain of command to the Chief of Police
 or designee for review.
 c) If the chief or designee concurs that the complaint meets the definition of a Category U
 allegation, notify the complainant and subject officer.
 d) If the chain of command determines the complaint has merit, reclassify the allegations
 and process the complaint in accordance with the new category.
6. Investigations by a Lieutenant are as follows
 . At a minimum, a Lieutenant assigned to investigate a Category 1 Allegation should
 interview the complainant and the subject officer and review relevant reports, documents,
 and video.
 a. If a Lieutenant determines the incident is of greater complexity, or the investigation
 cannot be completed within 3 business days, he/she can refer the investigation back to
 Internal Affairs with the concurrence of the Major or higher authority.
 b. Upon completion of the investigation, the Lieutenant will summarize their findings and
 recommendations, in writing, and forward up the chain of command for review.
7. Investigations by Internal Affairs Investigators
 a. Review the initial complaint and compile all related reports and materials in the
 department’s custody.
 b. Ascertain the specific allegations, note the member(s) involved and the date, time, and
 location of the incident. Identify any other witnesses to the incident, noting their name(s),
 address(es) and contact information.
 c. Compile all relevant reports, statements, and transcriptions for inclusion in the case file.
 d. Forward the transcription (if any) of each interview to the Professional Standards
 Lieutenant for review upon its completion.
 e. Maintain and update the Internal Affairs database for each assigned case.
8. Command will review investigation and reach reviewer will provide written recommendation
 and justification for action
9. Chief of PD will review all internal investigations and may request additional info



 SOP Template Page 7 of 13

 Page 11
 Doc #: SOP-XXXX
 Standard Operating Procedure Rev #: ###

 Effective Date: dd-MMM-yyyy

 Title: PCRS IA Investigation Presentation
==
10. IA will maintain/index all complaints
11. IA will track and analyze complaints to identify training, improve policies, annual state
 audits, annual reports, notify chief of patterns


 Fair:
1. Was the IA investigation process impartial and balanced?
 . Did everyone who took part in the investigation have a proportional input?
2. Does the IA disposition match the facts of the investigation?
3. Examples of being NOT fair:
 a. Body camera footage shows PD acting in a way that breaks PD policy, but the IA
 disposition concludes that PD did not break any PD policy.
 b. Multiple PD personnel performed interviews and investigations, but only the conclusions
 from one person are represented in the IA disposition.
 c. There is evidence of PD acting in a way that matches the filed complaint, but the IA
 disposition categorizes the investigation as Cat U.




 Objective:
1. Was the evidence viewed, analyzed, and balanced in an unbiased manner?
 d. Was there no evidence of bias during the IA investigation?
2. Examples of being NOT objective:
 a. There is evidence that a complainant insulted the PD or made their job difficult and the
 IA investigation reflects a bias against the credibility of the complainant.
 b. There is evidence that a member of PD has a personal connection with the complainant or
 a material witness in the IA investigation.
 c. There is evidence that PD profiled or discriminated against someone based on their skin
 color, faith, gender, sexuality, or any other personal identifier.




 SOP Template Page 8 of 13

 Page 12
 Doc #: SOP-XXXX
 Standard Operating Procedure Rev #: ###

 Effective Date: dd-MMM-yyyy

 Title: PCRS IA Investigation Presentation
==
9.08.0 APPROVALS
 Contributor
 Signature Date
 (Authored/Approved by)

 Author
 [Insert Resource
 NameRandall Kilty]
 Reviewer
 [Insert Resource Name]


 Approver
 [Insert Resource Name]




10.09.0 REVISION HISTORY
 DCO
 Revision Description of Change Date
 Number

 A 00001 New Document ????




 SOP Template Page 9 of 13

 Page 13
 Doc #: SOP-XXXX
 Standard Operating Procedure Rev #: ###

 Effective Date: dd-MMM-yyyy

Title: PCRS IA Investigation Presentation
==
 Attachment 1: Guidance for voting on Timely, Thorough, Fair, and Objective (Page 1
 of 3)

 • Timely per policy # 90:

 • Supervisor must meet with complaint within 30min of arrival at department (if
 resources allow)

 • Shift commander shall contact complainant within 24 hours or forward to Major
 for follow-up

 • investigation by lieutenant completed within 3 days or referred to IA,

 • investigations completed with professional standard review within 45 days,

 • notification to PD employee of investigation/rights/duties within 5 business days,
 unless, in the opinion of the Chief of Police, the release of this information could
 impede the investigation.

 • command review within 10 days (of receipt of investigation?),

 • PD employee advised of outcome of investigation within 60 business days,

 • professional standards lieutenant to notify PD employee status/delay within 15
 days of completion of investigation and submission to staff for review,

 • determination whether a complaint can be mediated or if it will require an
 investigation is required within 7 days (cooperative resolution)

 • Thorough per policy # 90:

 • Shift commander meet and interview all complainants unless no merit, then
 proceed as inquiry instead of a complaint

 • Review option of formal complaint or cooperative resolution (and forwarded
 appropriate form)

 • Shift commander classification:

 o Cat 1: conduct has negative impact on operations or image (investigated
 by officer lieutenant OR IA)




SOP Template Page 10 of 13

 Page 14
 Doc #: SOP-XXXX
 Standard Operating Procedure Rev #: ###

 Effective Date: dd-MMM-yyyy

Title: PCRS IA Investigation Presentation
==
 o Cat 2: conduct involves serious abuse or misuse of authority, unethical
 behavior, or serious adverse impact on officer/public safety (investigated
 by IA)

 o Cat U: unfounded or within PD policy

 • After complaint is logged, Professional standards lieutenant will:

 a. Verify the Allegation Category assigned by the receiving shift commander;

 b. Review the subject officer’s IA history;

 c. Notify the chain of command, to include the Chief of Police;

 d. Notify, in writing, within five (5) business days, any employee who is the subject of an
 internal investigation and provide them with a copy of their rights and duties. The notice
 will include the name of the complainant and the nature of the allegations unless, in the
 opinion of the Chief of Police, the release of this information could impede the
 investigation.

 e. Notify the complainant, in writing, of the receipt of any complaint filed electronically or
 by mail.

 f. Refer the complaint to the subject officer’s Lieutenant or an Internal Affairs investigator
 in accordance with the guidelines below.

 • 5. Allegations deemed Category U by the receiving shift commander will be handled as
 follows. The

 Professional Standards Lieutenant will:

 a. Review the complaint Form and Shift Commander’s intake form and concur with the
 classification or recommend reclassification.

 b. Forward the complaint and intake forms up the chain of command to the Chief of Police
 or designee for review.

 c. If the chief or designee concurs that the complaint meets the definition of a Category U
 allegation, notify the complainant and subject officer.

 d. If the chain of command determines the complaint has merit, reclassify the allegations
 and process the complaint in accordance with the new category.

 • 1. Investigations by a Lieutenant


SOP Template Page 11 of 13

 Page 15
 Doc #: SOP-XXXX
 Standard Operating Procedure Rev #: ###

 Effective Date: dd-MMM-yyyy

Title: PCRS IA Investigation Presentation
==
 a. At a minimum, a Lieutenant assigned to investigate a Category 1 Allegation should
 interview the complainant and the subject officer and review relevant reports, documents,
 and video.

 b. If a Lieutenant determines the incident is of greater complexity, or the investigation
 cannot be completed within 3 business days, he/she can refer the investigation back to
 Internal Affairs with the concurrence of the Major or higher authority.

 c. Upon completion of the investigation, the Lieutenant will summarize their findings and
 recommendations, in writing, and forward up the chain of command for review.

 • 2. Investigations by Internal Affairs Investigators

 a. Review the initial complaint and compile all related reports and materials in the
 department’s custody.

 b. Ascertain the specific allegations, note the member(s) involved and the date, time, and
 location of the incident. Identify any other witnesses to the incident, noting their name(s),
 address(es) and contact information.

 c. Compile all relevant reports, statements, and transcriptions for inclusion in the case file.

 d. Forward the transcription (if any) of each interview to the Professional Standards
 Lieutenant for review upon its completion.

 e. Maintain and update the Internal Affairs database for each assigned case.

 • Command will review investigation and reach reviewer will provide written
 recommendation and justification for action

 • Chief of PD will review all internal investigations and may request additional info

 • IA will maintain/index all complaints

 • IA will track and analyze complaints to identify training, improve policies, annual state
 audits, annual reports, notify chief of patterns

 • Fair:

 • Does the IA disposition match the facts of the investigation?

 • Did everyone who took part in investigation have a proportional input?

 • Objective:


SOP Template Page 12 of 13

 Page 16
 Doc #: SOP-XXXX
 Standard Operating Procedure Rev #: ###

 Effective Date: dd-MMM-yyyy

Title: PCRS IA Investigation Presentation
==
 • Is there evidence of bias during investigation?

 • Bias definition:




SOP Template Page 13 of 13

 Page 17