Opinion ID: 472982
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Top officials' unfamiliarity with complaints

Text: 33 Police Chief Turner, plaintiffs showed, was unaware of several civil rights suits naming him as a defendant 7 and Lieutenant Jones, NTF supervisor, did not know of several citizen (administrative) complaints and lawsuits lodged against officers in his unit. Administrative complaints and lawsuit allegations are not readily available for a supervisor's surveillance, plaintiffs observed. Pending lawsuits are not noted in police officers' personnel files; moreover, the personnel files of NTF officers are not kept at the NTF. These facts, plaintiffs urge, support an inference of deliberate indifference by upper echelon officials to police misconduct that dishonors the constitutional rights of the citizenry. 34 Again, we find plaintiffs' case too thin to warrant submission to a jury. Chief Turner explained that all court complaints against officers, including the Chief, upon service, are referred to the MPD's General Counsel, who does keep the suit on file, but petitions the Corporation Counsel to provide the officer's representation. Tr. 901, 989. Complaints of all kinds eventually go to the Office of Community Relations for review. That Office watches out for officers who repetitiously get complaints, or need closer supervision, in-service training, or to get off the force. Tr. 989. By law, the filing of a complaint may not be noted in an officer's personnel file, but adverse action taken against him is recorded there. Tr. 901, 989. Because NTF officers are only detailed to that unit, their files remain in their home districts. Tr. 776-77. 35 The personnel and complaint handling procedures brought out at trial may fall some distance from the ideal, but, as the district court correctly indicated, they do not spell a deliberate see no evil policy.