Transcription
CIVILIAN POLICE REVIEW BOARDOFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDSApril 13, 2021MEETING MINUTESI.II.CALL TO ORDER – 10:04ROLL CALLMichael Graham, ChairpersonChairperson GrahamCPRB MEMBERSOPS STAFFATTENDANCEMichael Graham, ChairMichael HessMary ClarkKen MountcastleErnest TurnerAshley MostellaRoslyn QuartoDavid GatianGerri Butler, Staff CounselLeeAnn Hanlon, SecretaryATTENDANCERoger Smith, AdministratorArt Bowker, investigatorJulie Delaney, InvestigatorDavid Hammons, InvestigatorAnitra Merritt, InvestigatorBarbara Williams-Bennett, InvestigatorKevin Wynne, InvestigatorIII.APPROVAL OF MINUTESIV.PUBLIC COMMENTV.PRESENTATION OF INVESTIGATIONSVI.ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONSVII.OPS REPORTAdministrator SmithAdministrator SmithA. REVIEW OF CHIEF DISCIPLINARY DECISIONSB. REVIEW OF DIRECTOR DISCIPLINARY DECISIONSVIII.POLICY UPDATESIX.COMMITTEE REPORTSX.UNFINISHED BUSINESSXI.NEW BUSINESSA. SUBPOENA REQUESTXII.ADJOURNMENTNext Meeting: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 at 10:00 am
III.APPROVAL OF MINUTESMs. Quarto made a motion to approve the minutes. Motion seconded by Ms. Clark and themotion to approve the minutes passed with one abstention by Mr. Gatian.IV.PUBLIC COMMENT – Mr. Graham reminded everyone of the three (3) minute time limit.Dave Lima, SURJ –Last month I spoke about police high-speed vehicle pursuit policies knowing that thehigh-speed pursuit case resulting in the death of Tamia Chappman was to be heard. TheBoard deferred hearing the case until this month. Last month I referred to the CDP'spolicy that clearly states “no assignment shall be of such importance that theprinciples of safety become secondary”. I also referred to the federal policy that clearlystates that the most important reason for an effective pursuit policy is to protect lifeand property - the basic police mission.Cleveland.com reported in May, 2020 that the CDP had determined that the chaseresulting in the death of Tamia Chappman was conducted properly within departmentprotocol after a “thorough and comprehensive” investigation. The Chief goes on to saythat, and I quote, “We did our due diligence”. I decided to do a deeper dive into thedivision's investigation, conclusion and disciplinary decision in this case by searching foradditional information. I found the court record in a case involving the Commander ofthe 4th District that provided a more detailed description of the findings of theinvestigation. Two officers were found to have violated vehicle pursuit and wearablecamera system policies and given written reprimands and non-disciplinary letters ofreinstruction despite the aggravating factor of the death of a citizen. It wasn't until Mayof 2020 that Division's disciplinary decision was announced to the public despite the factof having been announced internally in March of 2020. Without the search throughcourt records a member of the public would unlikely have access to this information. Imention this to point out what appears to be a pattern of delay, concealment and lackof transparency by the Division in controversial cases that shed a negative light on theDivision. It also has procedural consequences when two investigations are conducted atthe same time about the same case, one internally by the Division and one externally byOPS. Differing outcomes would only serve to confuse the public and cast doubt on theefficacy of both organizations. It would seem that the consent decree monitoring teamwould have a role in providing clarification concerning the process, especially processesthat could potentially interfere with investigations conducted by OPS.Fortunately, a complaint filed with OPS provides us, the public, with the opportunity tohave access to an impartial investigation, an investigation conducted by an organizationoutside the organization being investigated. I look forward to the presentation ofevidence by the OPS investigation and the deliberation of this Board. The transparentpublic process conducted by OPS and the CPRB where all voices are heard has thebenefit and advantage of shining a light on critical incidents with fairness andimpartiality enhancing public trust in procedural justice.Next Meeting: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 at 10:00 am
V.PRESENTATION OF INVESTIGATIONSa. 20-028: Mason. Ms. Mason’s attorney, Mr. Stanley Jackson, spoke on the Complainant’sbehalf. From the report that we at least heard today, what we found out today is thatthere are some serious, glaring issues with the Cleveland Police Department. What welearned today is that is seems as though the supervising Sgt. Chapman had no idea whatwas going on during this chase. He was not prepared, nor was he properly trained prior tothat moment. The main thing that we were concerned about is that there wasn’t any AVL,and that no one even took the time to even check to make sure that it worked. How couldthe Cleveland Police Department operate a police department without knowing wheretheir officers were, and what they were doing at any given time, not even including thischase? How can you hold officers accountable if you don’t know where they are and whatthey’re doing, outside of this process? We believe that this situation happened becausethere was no accountability, no care, from the top of the department all the way down tothese officers.Sgt. Chapman #9232Allegation: Improper ProcedureRecommendation: SustainedMotion: GrahamSecond: QuartoMotion passed with one abstentionAllegation: Vehicle Pursuit: Excess SpeedRecommendation: SustainedMotion: ClarkSecond: MountcastleMotion passed with one abstentionAllegation: Vehicle Pursuit: AVLRecommendation: UnfoundedMotion: GrahamSecond: QuartoMotion passed with one abstentionAllegation: Emergency Response DrivingRecommendation: SustainedMotion: GrahamSecond: QuartoMotion passed with one opposed and one abstentionAllegation: Vehicle Pursuit: Multiple CarsRecommendation: UnfoundedMotion: GrahamSecond: ClarkMotion passed with one abstentionNext Meeting: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 at 10:00 am
P.O. Stipkovich #40Allegation: Vehicle Pursuit: InitiationRecommendation: SustainedMotion: GrahamSecond: HessMotion passed with one abstentionAllegation: Vehicle Pursuit: Failure to YieldRecommendation: SustainedMotion: GrahamSecond: GatianMotion passed with one abstentionAllegation: Vehicle Pursuit: Excess SpeedRecommendation: **Determined to be a duplicative allegation and not voted on**Allegation: Emergency Response DrivingRecommendation: SustainedMotion: GrahamSecond: QuartoMotion passed with one abstentionP.O. Singh #1381Allegation: Vehicle Pursuit: InitiationRecommendation: ExoneratedMotion: QuartoSecond: ClarkMotion passed with two opposed and one abstentionAllegation: Vehicle Pursuit: Excess SpeedRecommendation: **Determined to be a duplicative allegation and not voted on**Allegation: Emergency Response DrivingRecommendation: UnfoundedMotion: GrahamSecond: QuartoMotion passed with one abstentionP.O. Miller #1583Allegation: Self-Dispatch ViolationRecommendation: SustainedMotion: GrahamSecond: MountcastleMotion passed with one abstentionNext Meeting: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 at 10:00 am
Allegation: Emergency Response DrivingRecommendation: SustainedMotion: GrahamSecond: TurnerMotion passed with one abstentionP.O. Sabolik #1021Allegation: Self-Dispatch ViolationRecommendation: UnfoundedMotion: GrahamSecond: QuartoMotion passed with one abstentionDet. Warnock #1719Allegation: Self-Dispatch ViolationRecommendation: UnfoundedMotion: GrahamSecond: GatianMotion passed with one abstentionDet. Crivel #1767Allegation: Self-Dispatch ViolationRecommendation: UnfoundedMotion: GrahamSecond: GatianMotion passed with one abstentionP.O. Dunn #1583Allegation: Self-Dispatch ViolationRecommendation: UnfoundedMotion: GrahamSecond: MountcastleMotion passed with one abstentionP.O. Staskevich #942Allegation: Self-Dispatch ViolationRecommendation: UnfoundedMotion: GrahamSecond: QuartoMotion passed with one abstentionNext Meeting: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 at 10:00 am
Lt. Farmer #8487Allegation: Vehicle Pursuit: Excess SpeedRecommendation: SustainedMotion: TurnerSecond: ClarkMotion passed with one abstentionAllegation: Emergency Response DrivingRecommendation: UnfoundedMotion: GatianSecond: ClarkMotion passed with one abstentionb. 20-035: SampsonP.O. Crawford #439Allegation: Improper CitationRecommendation: ExoneratedMotion: QuartoSecond: MostellaMotion passedAllegation: Unprofessional ConductRecommendation: ExoneratedMotion: GrahamSecond: MostellaMotion passedc. 20-109: JohnsonP.O. Lehman #815Allegation: Lack of ServiceRecommendation: ExoneratedMotion: QuartoSecond: GrahamMotion passedP.O. Wagner #1260Allegation: Lack of ServiceRecommendation: ExoneratedMotion: QuartoSecond: GrahamMotion passedNext Meeting: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 at 10:00 am
Sgt. Harhay #9136Allegation: Lack of ServiceRecommendation: ExoneratedMotion: QuartoSecond: GrahamMotion passedd. 2020-0133: ChengP.O. Fronckwiak #401Allegation: Unprofessional Conduct – No Face MaskRecommendation: UnfoundedMotion: GrahamSecond: MountcastleMotion passedAllegation: Unprofessional Conduct – StatementsRecommendation: Insufficient EvidenceMotion: GrahamSecond: QuartoMotion passede. 20-266: AnonymousDispatcher Walker #30Allegation: Social Media Policy ViolationRecommendation: SustainedMotion: GrahamSecond: MostellaMotion passedNext Meeting: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 at 10:00 am
f.20-180: Gibson/Warner/AkersDet. Smith #882Allegation: Improper SearchRecommendation: ExoneratedMotion: QuartoSecond: MostellaMotion passed with one abstentionAllegation: Damaged PropertyRecommendation: Insufficient EvidenceMotion: QuartoSecond: MostellaMotion passed with one abstentionDet. Johnson #802Allegation: Lack of ServiceRecommendation: ExoneratedMotion: QuartoSecond: TurnerMotion passed with one abstentionP.O. Soros #1852Allegation: Lack of ServiceRecommendation: ExoneratedMotion: QuartoSecond: MostellaMotion passed with one abstentiong. 21-008: HugoDet. Fischbach #450Allegation: Lack of ServiceRecommendation: UnfoundedMotion: QuartoSecond: GrahamMotion passedNext Meeting: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 at 10:00 am
VII (A). REVIEW OF CHIEF DECISIONS20-016: CPRB voted to appeal the Chief’s decision to the Safety Director.20-111: CPRB voted to appeal the Chief’s decision to the Safety Director.20-162: CPRB accepted the Chief’s decision.20-168: CPRB accepted the Chief’s decision.VII (B). REVIEW OF DIRECTOR’S DECISION19-142: Director Howard dismissed the allegations of Excessive Force, Improper Citation andImproper Arrest. Director Howard concurred with the CPRB recommendation and issuedCaptain Dziuba a two-day suspension. The CPRB declined to vote for a resolution on this case.20-015: Director Howard reversed the Chief’s dismissal and issued P.O. Estremera #357 a twoday suspension.XI.NEW BUSINESS – SUBPOENA REQUESTChair Graham reviewed the subpoena and signed it for use in Investigator Delaney’s case.XII.ADJOURNMENTMotion to adjourn the meeting made by Mr. Graham and Ms. Clark seconded. Meetingadjourned at 2:50 pm.Next Meeting: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 at 10:00 am
IV. PUBLIC COMMENT - Mr. Graham reminded everyone of the three (3) minute time limit. Dave Lima, SURJ - Last month I spoke about police high-speed vehicle pursuit policies knowing that the high-speed pursuit case resulting in the death of Tamia Chappman was to be heard. The Board deferred hearing the case until this month.
