Loading...
Independent Police Auditor (IPA) - April 2025 Report Michael Gennaco Stephen Connolly City of Rohnert Park Independent Police Auditor’s Review of Complaint Investigation Process: Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety April 2025 P a g e | 1 OIRGroup.com 2 | P a g e Table of Contents Introduction .......................................................................................................... 3 Review of Investigations ...................................................................................... 6 Investigation Summaries ................................................................................... 13 Conclusion.......................................................................................................... 29 P a g e | 3 Introduction This Report represents a new step in transparency and accountability for the City of Rohnert Park. In response to evolving public expectations that have influenced law enforcement agencies all over the country, the City recently moved forward in bringing a model of independent oversight to the Department of Public Safety for the first time. It focuses on a process that has historically been confidential and restricted with regard to outside scrutiny: namely, the internal investigation by Police Services management of misconduct complaints lodged against its officers. State law requires all police agencies to have a mechanism for the investigation of civilian complaints about officer conduct. The inner workings of that process, though, have been largely shielded from public view – in part because of officer privacy rights that are also framed by state statute. One consequence of that dynamic is an undercurrent of skepticism in some circles about the legitimacy of both individual investigations and broade r concepts of officer accountability. Against the national backdrop of high -profile controversies involving the police, and a re-examination of longstanding inequities in the justice system, the movement toward greater outside engagement over matters of misconduct and internal discipline has grown stronger in recent years. A number of different approaches toward achieving this goal have emerged. Each has its own strengths and limitations, and an assessment of what's "best" for a given jurisdiction is subject to a variety of location-specific factors. And all the developing oversight mechanisms are obligated to align with the rights and protections to which officers remain entitled. 4 | P a g e The option chosen by the City of Rohnert Park balances different priorities. It brings unprecedented outside scrutiny to the relevant investigative process, while also recognizing the importance of a police agency's internal commitment to compliance with policy and the redress of lapses in employee performance. Accordingly, the City chose an independent auditor to evaluate a first installment of case files that were completed by the Department in response to civilian complaints from 2023. The review was undertaken by Michael Gennaco and Stephen Connolly of OIR Group, a team of experts in police practices with more than twenty years of experience in the oversight and monitoring of law enforcement agencies. And its purpose was twofold: an assessment of the rigor, completeness, objectivity, and fairness o f the completed investigations, and a systemic evaluation of the process itself, with an eye toward recommendations for potential improvement in the future. The audit was comprised of eight separate cases that covered a range of alleged misconduct issues. None of them resulted in sustained findings of a policy violation. These outcomes all seemed reasonable to us, based on the available evidence. Certainly, the existence of body-worn camera ("BWC") recordings has changed the landscape for complaint investigations in terms of both efficiency and decisiveness of result. In the cases we looked at, analysis of recordings played a key role. We also found the Department's investigations to be undertaken in good faith. Complaints (and complainants) were taken seriously and investigated with an appropriate level of objectivity. Timeliness of completion also appeared to be an agency priority; this is, in our view, an important element in an effective discipline process for multiple reasons. In short, the fundamental legitimacy of the process – and the fairness of the results it produces – form an encouraging foundation for both internal accountability and public trust. But we also noted potential ways that Police Services can strengthen its approach. The se include better communication with complainants, enhanced documentation of the different steps of an investigation, and new approaches to allegations of bias. P a g e | 5 We discuss below the strengths and limitations of the process through the prism of each individual case that we reviewed. The purpose is not to offer a belated "thumbs up/thumbs down" as to the substance of the Department's findings and decision-making. Instead, it is to use the specific examples as a jumping off point for identifying process issues, reinforcing effective practice, and offering specific suggestions for improving the quality of investigations . The larger goal is to enhance the effectiveness of Department operations in the field and the internal investigations themselves, as well as the public's confidence in officer accountability in Rohnert Park. 6 | P a g e Review of Investigations When it comes to officer accountability through an internal discipline process, the fundamental question for an outside observer is the extent to which that process has legitimacy: that allegations are framed appropriately, that investigations are thorough and objective, and that results are responsive to the weight of the available evidence. The presence of these key elements within the system itself makes it likely that the "right" outcomes will be reached on a case-by-case basis. The sampling of Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety cases we evaluated offers a number of reasons to be confident in the Department's ability to address concerns effectively and with integrity. On the whole, complaints were indeed taken seriously, and were investigated with objectivity and fairness. (The body-worn camera recordings of the actual incidents in dispute also showed the Department's officers to be notably professional and courteous in dealing with the public, even in the context of arrests.) Additionally, and thanks in large part to dispositive body-worn camera recordings, the resolutions were efficient and convincing. Looking at the audit cases collectively, one of the more striking elements was the promptness with which RPDPS addresses complaints. While state law allows for up to a year after notification for an agency to complete a case and impose discipline (where applicable), there are downsides to a protracted process. Most significantly, it delays the arrival of performance -based corrections that might be warranted, extends the uncertainty of involved personnel, and lessens public confidence. Clearly, RPDPS seeks to avoid any such foibles. The investigations we looked at were generally completed within a few weeks – if not days. Supervisors responded promptly when allegations arose and completed their workups in a very timely fashion. And, importantly, the subsequent reviews by agency executives were similarly prompt, and led at times to requests for further information. P a g e | 7 The flip side of speed, of course, is the possibility that it comes at the cost of thoroughness. We do not consider this to have been the situation in Rohnert Park – in part because most of the cases were themselves so straightforward and effectively resolved through body-worn camera evidence. (When interviews of officers are needed, for example, that inevitably requires additional time for scheduling and subsequent evaluation. No formal interviews were conducted in these cases). Although we do make note below of individual instances in which more investigative effort was perhaps merited, we did not consider those gaps to be the result of improper "rushing." There was one instance in which haste did seem a bit detrimental: it involved the premature sharing of a case result with an officer who had been the subject of a complaint. The initial handling supervisor quickly (and, in our view, accurately) determined that no misconduct had occurred. However, the Department's process calls for review at two higher rank levels within the agency. Both of these managers concurred with the original determination. However, this review and approval process occurred after the supervisor had communicated his finding to both the complainant and the involved officer. The premature disclosure of a result to involved parties creates an obvious procedural problem. As noted in RPDPS’s policy relating to personnel investigations, the chain of command can modify any initial determination and/or send the matter back for further investigation. However, such an option is likely forestalled should the disposition already be communicated to both the complainant and the involved officer. As a result, the benefit of a robust review process is undermined since it would be practica lly impossible to reverse course on the disposition once the disposition had been communicated to the interested parties. While this sequencing issue apparently did not compromise the results in this case, the better practice is to finalize the different steps of a review before other action is taken. RECOMMENDATION ONE: RPDPS should advise its supervisors entrusted with personnel investigations to defer notice of dispositions to complainants and involved officers until the outcome has been reviewed and adopted by the chain of command. 8 | P a g e Complainant Outreach Another overarching comment relates to the notification letters that state law requires law enforcement agencies to provide to complainants at the conclusion of complaint investigations. The relevant statute obliges agencies to let the complainant know the ultimate finding of the review, but does not provide further guidance. In fact, detailed disclosures are overtly limited by other statutes that promote the privacy and confidentiality of involved officers' personnel records. As a result, many California agencies have taken a "minimalist" approach to meeting this obligation. Communications in this paradigm tend to be very terse, meeting the letter of the notification requirement while providing little insight into the agency's investigative efforts – and, presumably, little satisfaction to the recipient. While we understand the presumed advantages to such an approach (which include simplicity, uniformity, and avoidance of improper sharing of information), some agencies rely on it to the potential detriment of the complainant's confidence in the outcome and the process that produced it. Rohnert Park's letters fall into this category. They are brief, impersonal, and lacking in the kind of additional detail that would be instructive and still compliant with officer privacy rights. We have long taken the position that "being taken seriously" matters to the average complainant, and that an unwelcome result is more palatable if the agency shows that it understood the relevant concerns and made a valid effort to investigate. A personalized summary of the complaint's key allegations, along with a description of specific investigative steps that the Department took in reaching its conclusion, obviously goes further in accomplishing this than a form letter that could be applicable to anyon e. While writing a more customized and satisfying letter takes more time and thoughtfulness, it is an investment worth making, and one that seems especially "do-able" in light of the relatively modest number of cases the Department generates annually. We encourage RPDPS to explore ways to enhance these communications. P a g e | 9 RECOMMENDATION TWO: RPDPS should take steps to strengthen the detail and effectiveness of its notification letters at the conclusion of the citizen complaint process. Investigative Completeness One area of potential improvement in the investigative process relates to completeness -- both in terms of the case files (which were sometimes missing key components such as recordings of communications with complainants, or relevant evidence from the underlying encounter) and responsiveness to peripheral issues that emerged from the investigation. The value of compiling all relevant materials under the "roof" of an investigative file is sound practice – and certainly better facilitates outside review of the Department's work. For example, in assessing the eight cases from this year's audit, we saw at least one instance in which the 911 calls from the underlying incident would have provided important context, but were not part of the investigative package. And the total set of body-worn camera recordings from involved officers were not always initially provided.1 RECOMMENDATION THREE: When conducting a complaint investigation of an incident initiated by a call for service, RPDPS should include all 911 recordings that instigated the police response in the investigative file. RECOMMENDATION FOUR: RPDPS should ensure that all involved officers’ body -worn camera footage be retrieved and reviewed as part of a complaint investigation. While none of these gaps were "fatal" to our sense that the right outcomes had been reached in these cases, there are both procedural and substantive 1 Upon our request, the Department provided the relevant 911 calls and body worn camera footage for our review. 10 | P a g e benefits to a practice of comprehensive information -gathering in the context of administrative investigations.2 Holistic Review As for the supplemental "issue-spotting" and responsive action that RPDPS could potentially pursue more robustly, we consider complaint cases to be a valuable feedback loop for a police organization. Certainly, the bottom-line question of whether a complainant's allegations are both true and indicative of misconduct should be of primary importance. But agencies should also be open to the identification of additional conduct concerns that may emerge in the course of an investigation, some of which may implicate policy. Moreover, performance issues that don't rise to the level of a policy violation, and may even be tangential to the complainant's specific concerns, can nonetheless serve as learning opportunities and bases for improvement. However, taking full advantage of the review process to holistically assess officer actions – and provide constructive interventions where applicable did not appear to be a regular part of the Department's approach. We noted several cases in which some form of additional or "extra" supervisory response seemed warranted, beyond the framing of the complaint itself, but did not seem to have occurred. In reviewing recordings from the various encounters, we observed the following examples: • An unprofessional and unhelpful comment made in the course of engaging with a woman who would go on to become a complainant. • Late activation of body-worn camera by an involved officer. • Failure to retrieve or learn whether a witness officer had activated his body-worn camera • Damaged property belonging to a subject who was taken into custody. 2 We make a similar point below in discussing a case that was missing documentation as to contacts with the complainant. See Recommendation Fourteen. P a g e | 11 • Cases in which the Department's stated preference for same sex searches of arrestees if practicable was not apparently followed or assessed. Ideally, each of these topics (which were components if not core features of the encounters that gave rise to a public complaint) would be identified and considered during the review process. If the concern merited additional attention (whether formal or informal), then the responsive action item would be documented and added to the file – a step that helps ensure that good intentions lead to meaningful follow through. In this way, the Department would be deriving the maximum utility from the time and effort it already invests its addressing complaints. The goal is not to nitpick, or to find fault for its own sake; there were certainly cases in our audit pool that were quite straightforward and/or featured effective officer performance.3 But continuous improvement is a worthy goal for any organization, and the review process is a natural forum for advancing it. RECOMMENDATION FIVE: RPDPS's complaint review process should, where applicable, extend beyond the specific allegations listed by the complainant and encompass other identified policy or performance issues that may emerge. RECOMMENDATION SIX: RPDPS should advise its supervisors entrusted with a personnel investigation to consider remedial actions short of discipline to address non-policy-related shortcomings that are identified. We also take this opportunity to highlight an additional example along these same lines, which related to a case in which some physical effort by officers to overcome resistance was required as they took a subject (and later complainant) into custody and placed her into handcuffs. Our assessment of 3 We also think there is value in the affirmation of the good work that comes to the attention of management through an agency's internal review mechanisms. 12 | P a g e the body camera footage showing the detention is that the Department's "use of force" reporting requirements were implicated by the facts here – but the relevant struggle was neither documented nor evaluated as force. While we did not consider the actions excessive or otherwise inappropriate, the use of physical force always merits both acknowledgement and scru tiny. RECOMMENDATION SEVEN: RPDPS should ensure that all sworn personnel recognize what is considered a use of force under current policy through a briefing on the topic. RECOMMENDATION EIGHT: RPDPS should ensure that any use of force is appropriately documented and evaluated. P a g e | 13 Investigation Summaries Individual case discussions follow below. The details that are provided are intended as a way to offer the public a window into the kinds of things that people allege as complaints, the nature of the Department's review process and findings, and the bases for the additional systemic recommendations we offer. Case 1: Complaint of Racially Biased Contact Factual Summary A Black man came to the Department to complain in the early evening after being contacted by Rohnert Park officers as he sat in his car in a parking lot. He resented being asked about his parole/probation status, and said that a white person parked similarly nearby had not been approached. A supervisor had an extended conversation with the man in the lobby area of the police station. The complainant was initially quite upset, but they were nonetheless able to have a detailed discussion of what occurred. By the man's own account, the contact was brief and had ended when the officers accepted his desire not to identify himself or speak with them. His basic contention was that the officers had focused on him without justification because of his race. Rohnert Park PD Review: The body-worn camera recordings from involved personnel established that no misconduct had occurred. Officers were apparently responding to a call regarding a "suspicious vehicle" in the parking lot. Although the man was clearly affronted by the encounter, the officer who initially spoke with him at his car took a very low-key approach and seemed mindful of the limits of police authority in this context. They contacted the complainant politely, had an exchange with him that included a discussion over whether he was obligated to provide identification, and disengaged without incident when he made it 14 | P a g e clear he did not wish to speak with them. The entire exchange was approximately one minute long. IPA Review and Analysis: We agreed with the finding that the officers had not violated policy. From the outset of the brief encounter, the officers treated the man respectfully and ultimately deferred to his preference not to share information in the context of their efforts at consensual questioning. For the most part, we were also impressed with the supervisor who met the man at the station. He showed considerable empathy and patience, and was able to develop an effective rapport in the face of the complainant's voluble unhappiness with what had occurred. He listened attentively and explained the man's options with regard to the complaint process. We did, however, have a couple of minor caveats regarding this "intake interview." One relates to those moments in which the supervisor sought to explain aspects of the officers' behavior. These included mentioning that he himself had heard the initial call over the radio (which did not assuage the complainant's concerns that the interest in him had been unjustified)4, and describing the tactical reasons for some of the driving and positioning maneuvers the officers had used. While the supervisor was both accurate and well-intentioned in these instances, we have taken the position that "less is more" when it comes to the early stages of a complaint process. Even when the supervisor is right, unsolicited clarifications or justifications can come across as defensive. This in turn can undermine confidence in the objectivity of any ensuing investigation that the Department conducts. Ideally, 4 Nor was this assertion confirmed by any documentation in the case file. P a g e | 15 the focus during intake will be on ensuring that the Department has a detailed sense of the complainant's issues and perspective.5 RECOMMENDATION NINE: RPDPS should encourage supervisors to emphasize listening to a new complainant's concerns and explaining the nature of the review process, while refraining from offering opinions or explanations regarding the disputed conduct. We also note that the conversation occurred entirely as the man stood and walked about in the Department lobby. This seemed fine with the complainant, and there were no other members of the public present. As a rule, though, finding a more private and comfortable setting for such a conversation has obvious advantages. RECOMMENDATION TEN: RPDPS should consider routinizing a complaint intake process that provides a private and comfortable environment for persons who have come to the Department to express concerns. As for the review of the allegations, the body-worn camera recording showed that the officers' interactions with the man had been extremely brief, polite and reasonably responsive to the circumstances (including his strong desire not to cooperate with them). But given the element of racial bias concerns in the man's complaint, it would have been worthwhile for some additional context and investigative effort to have occurred. This might have included, for example, details to confirm the reason for the officers' outreach. Although the officers were working a special detail and looking for public alcohol violations, the memo did not clarify the specific nexus to the complainant (as opposed, for example, to the other, uncontacted person allegedly in the lot). Instead, the Department seems to have taken a minimalist approach. The case file we received does not include a copy of the written complaint form 5 In fairness, we reiterate that the supervisor's overall handling of the exchange with the man was commendable, and provided considerable latitude for the complainant to share his version of the story. 16 | P a g e that the man completed at the supervisor's urging (as recorded on body-worn camera), nor does it include a notification letter.6 In fact, the brief write-up by the handling supervisor does not even mention the racial component of the man's allegations. Claims of biased enforcement or racial profiling are notoriously difficult to substantiate because so much turns on the subjective thought process of involved officers; absent an admission (which is highly unlikely), discriminatory intent is challenging to prove. But, where applicable, greater efforts at grappling with the question (such as by delineating relevant race-neutral bases for officer decision-making, or looking at patterns of officer behavior) have become a more commonplace feature of reviews in many agencies. This shows a concern with the issue's importance in a way that the Department should seek to emulate. Our understanding is that, after initial screening, the Department outsources further investigation in cases when the circumstances are deemed potentially concerning and complex; this is to ensure the thoroughness and independence of the review. To be clear, we do not think such an approach was needed here: the body-worn camera recording in this case showed an encounter that was very brief in duration and very responsive to the complainant's express desire not to be bothered. The officers were certainly professional in their demeanor. And, as we mention above , the supervisor's subsequent interactions with the complainant were commendably empathetic and patient. But more rigor in documentation and follow -up was nonetheless warranted. RECOMMENDATION ELEVEN: RPDPS should impress upon its supervisors of the need to include complaint forms and other investigative materials in the file. 6 The Department apparently does not have contact information for the complainant in the file, though the video evidence suggested that a complaint form had been completed. (Had it been missing, it would have been incumbent upon the supervisor to expressly endeavor to obtain such contact information in order to advise the complainant of the outcome). P a g e | 17 RECOMMENDATION TWELVE: RPDPS should make sure to properly document allegations of racial profiling, and should overtly address them, when they are featured in a public complaint of misconduct. RECOMMENDATION THIRTEEN: RPDPS should consider ways of supplementing its investigative efforts when allegations of racial bias are part of a complaint, such as by detailing the basis for the contact and/or putting individual encounters in a larger context. Case 2: Complaint about Traffic Citation Factual Summary A Black woman filed an in-person complaint in the aftermath of receiving a traffic citation and losing her case in court due to a failure to appear . The officer had stopped her, evaluated her for possible impairment, and ultimately gave her a ticket in spite of the woman's explanations and requests for lenience. She said in her complaint that the officer had been rude, and had been engaging in profiling when she stopped her. Rohnert Park DPS Review: The supervisor who took the original complaint conducted a review of the body-worn camera recording from the traffic stop. It lasted approximately thirteen minutes. The supervisor determined that the officer had acted professionally and that the complainant's allegations were not supported. Based on this initial review, the complaint was closed with a recommendation of "unfounded." 18 | P a g e IPA Review and Analysis: The materials provided by the Department were missing a couple of important elements. First was a recording of the complaint intake interview itself, which was summarized in a memo but would have been helpful to review in its entirety. And second was a copy of any written notification to the complainant as to the outcome of the Department's review – a step the RPDPS apparently did not take in spite of its being required under California law regarding the citizen complaint process. (Penal Code 832.7.)7 These interactions are obviously an important part of the process, and best practice is to document them as assiduously as possible. RECOMMENDATION FOURTEEN: RPDPS should prioritize the documentation and inclusion of interactions with complaints as part of the file for its administrative review, and should record interviews or other conversations related to the process. As for the substance of the case, we agreed that the body-worn camera recording of the encounter established that the allegation of rudeness was refuted by the objective evidence. The recording showed that the officer was, in fact, quite patient about listening to the woman's extensive commentary on several subjects. The officer also refrained from penalizing the woman for being unable to produce proof of insurance, and made a number of encouraging, affirming comments. The complainant was clearly upset b y the ultimate outcome of the stop, and was disappointed that she had not been 7 An important caveat to the "back end" gap was that the supervisor wrote in his memo that he had contacted the complainant by telephone at the end of the process. This type of personalized outreach is not required, but certainly shows respect for the complainant and the process that is commendable. Unfortunately, though, unlike similar outreach in Case 7, that conversation was apparently also not recorded and thus not included in the case file. Ideally, any conversations with complainants would occur on a recorded line or be recorded using the officer’s body -worn camera. P a g e | 19 given a "pass" for the moving violation – but never disputed the legitimacy of the observations that had led to her being pulled over. Unfortunately, the racial profiling allegation did not seem to be addressed directly by the Department. Though it is included as an issue raised by the complainant, the analysis of the body-worn camera recording does not focus specifically on this alleged concern but instead seems to take the groundlessness of the claim for granted. Nor is it evident that the intake interview with the complainant pursued the matter, such as by asking the woman to elaborate on why she had that perception. To the extent the officer's behavior and motivations are discernible, we agree that no misconduct occurred.8 Again, though, as in "Case 2" above, a more rigorous approach to these allegations is recommended. Case 3: Complaint about Accuracy of Officer Testimony Factual Summary: This case came from a man who was arrested by the Department at the end of a long vehicle pursuit and a standoff that lasted for approximately a half hour. Reports established that the incident had begun with an encounter between the complainant and private security in the parking lot of a shopping area. As the first Rohnert Park officer arrived on scene, the man was driving away, and initial attempts to pull him over were ignored. A six-mile pursuit ensued. Body-worn camera recordings showed that, after finally reaching a dead end of sorts and being hemmed in by police vehicles (one of which struck his car at low speed as he again tried to depart the scene), the man remained behind the wheel and ignored police commands for several minutes before finally deciding to surrender. The Department presented a number of criminal charges for potential prosecution. 8 That a Vehicle Code violation had transpired in the first place was not captured in a recording; however, as mentioned above, it does not seem to have been challenged by the complainant. 20 | P a g e The man's complaint stemmed from the preliminary hearing in his court case. In its aftermath, he went to the station to meet with a supervisor. His allegation was that the officer who had pursued him at the outset of the incident had misrepresented certain key facts during his testimony at the hearing. These were specifically related to defensive maneuvers that were allegedly needed in response to the complainant's actions of throwing items from his vehicle during the pursuit. Rohnert Park DPS Review: The supervisor who spoke with the complainant handled the ensuing review. He looked at the relevant body-worn camera recording of the pursuit and also reached out to the prosecutor in the case regarding the issues raised by the complainant. The handling supervisor then obtained the transcript of the hearing in question, and attached it to the case file. Based on this evidence, the Department determined that the allegation was "unfounded." IPA Review and Analysis: The dispute in this case related to whether the officer's testimony about responding to the objects tossed by the complainant was accurate. The complainant's specific allegations are briefly summarized in the case memo, but there is no recording of the conversation in the file. This would have been helpful as a way of determining whether the complainant's concerns were a mere matter of semantics – or a more significant concern about a material misrepresentation that affected the charges against him. We accordingly reiterate our earlier recommendation about recording interactions with complainants and including them in the case file. Although the reviewing supervisor makes note of the body-worn camera recording, it is itself non-dispositive as to the nature and severity of evasive actions that the officer took. (The fact that objects were thrown at all – which the supervisor makes a point of confirming based on radio traffic – was seemingly not being questioned by the complainant.) P a g e | 21 More to the point was the outreach to the prosecutor, which supported the Department's ultimate finding. And the transcript, which we were able to review, is even more helpful as "best evidence" of what transpired in the courtroom. It includes the officer's exact responses to the specific questions that were asked on the subject by both the prosecutor and the cross- examining defense attorney. Oddly, though, the case memo does not delve into its particulars, but seemingly allows it to speak for itself. In our view, the officer's description was in fact more precise and modulated than the complainant apparently believed. But a more thorough analysis (including quotations from the hearing) would have added to the persuasiveness of the Department's assessment – and might have lent itself to worthwhile feedback for the subject officer. Case 4: Complaint about Treatment by Arresting Officer Factual Summary This case involved a complainant who was arrested on vandalism charges. A couple of months after being taken into custody, the man submitted a written complaint to the Department. He alleged that the officer who took him into custody had intentionally hit his head on the door frame when seating him in the police car, and claimed that this had triggered a collapse he experienced while walking to an ambulance for medical treatment. He also took exception to comments the officer allegedly made, and said the officer had been "extremely unprofessional." Rohnert Park DPS Review: This was a case that the Department resolved through review of body-worn camera recordings that showed the relevant officer's encounters with the complainant. The recordings did not corroborate the allegations. They show him getting in and out of the car without apparently striking his head, and his medical complaints related more to pain from handcuffing (which was addressed by the officer) and his concern about access to needed prescriptions. Nor were the officer's interactions with the man problematic in terms of being discourteous or otherwise unprofessional. 22 | P a g e The complaint was accordingly unfounded. IPA Review and Analysis: We reviewed available body-worn camera recordings and concurred with the Department's analysis. While the interactions became mildly contentious at times (particularly when the officer sought more information about the man's assertion of medical concerns), they were also frequently quite benign. Nor did the recordings show the sort of head injury the man alleged. Case 5: Complaint about Handling of Sexual Assault Allegation Factual Summary This complaint was submitted by a third -party advocate on behalf of a woman who said she had been sexually assaulted by an acquaintance. The advocate was engaged with the RPDPS investigation from the time of the initial response, and connected with Department representatives on several occasions during the pendency of the criminal investigation. Several weeks into the process, he submitted a written complaint that raised a number of individual concerns. These related to different aspects of the woman's treatment by RPDPS during initial questioning and subsequent follow -up steps – including but not limited to the overall efficacy of the investigation. Rohnert Park DPS Review The Department addressed this complaint in methodical fashion, itemizing the different concerns that were raised and covering each in relation to available evidence. It found that no violations of policy had occurred. In reaching this conclusion, the Department cited relevant supportive details in connection with each allegation. The body-worn camera recordings showed an appropriate level of both due diligence and professionalism as patrol officers responded to the original call for service after the incident. While the arrest of the woman herself (which had occurred after a medical exam at the P a g e | 23 hospital) understandably seemed like an incongruous result to the advocate, records showed that she had an active warrant from another jurisdiction . The handling of her subsequent time in custody (another issue raised in the complaint) was outside the Department's control. And the investigative efforts into the assault allegation were well-documented and seemingly thorough in the ensuing days and weeks – including follow-up interviews with the victim and the advocate himself. In all, the review determined that no violations of Department policy had occurred, and that the handling of the case by involved personnel had been appropriate. IPA Review and Analysis This was one of the more in-depth reviews that was conducted, and the investigation into the complainant's different concerns was effective. Case 6: Complaint Relating to Manner of Police Interview Factual Summary This case involved a complainant who was concerned about a telephone call he received from a RPDPS police officer. The officer was investigating an allegation relating to a potential violation of a court order relating to a custody dispute. The complainant alleged that different aspects of the call were inappropriate. Rohnert Park DPS Review: The matter was reviewed by a supervisor who reviewed the body-worn camera tape recording of the call and found that the involved officer was professional and had not violated policy in handling the outreach. Upon making that determination, the supervisor called the complainant about the ongoing child custody dispute and offered to update the system to facilitate more efficient communications. The supervisor then advised the complainant 24 | P a g e that he had reviewed a recording of the telephone interview between him and the officer and had not found any violations of policy. IPA Review and Analysis The IPA also reviewed the body-worn camera footage and agreed that the officer was not rude, discourteous, or unprofessional during the telephone call. The follow-up call that the supervisor made to the complainant was also a positive gesture and appeared to somewhat allay the complainant’s concerns about the earlier contact. Case 7: Complaint Relating to Handling of Mental Health Response Factual Summary A female filed a complaint with the Office of the City Manager against a RPPDS officer and supervisor regarding the way they handled a call for service involving a welfare check. The incident began after RPPDS received 911 calls about a woman who was knocking on doors in the neighborhood. Eventually, the woman (who ended up filing the complaint) was detained by the two officers on a mental health hold and transported to a local medical center for observation. The woman alleged in her complaint that the officers were antagonizing, had lied to her, and improperly placed her on a men tal health hold. Rohnert Park DPS Review The investigator assigned to the matter reviewed the body-worn camera footage of the extended discourse between the woman, the initial responding officer and the supervisor who arrived soon after the initial officer. A review of the footage did not support the complainant’s allegations and that the two officers comported themselves with patience and professionalism during the P a g e | 25 encounter, in dealing with a subject who was not coherent. (The SAFE9 team was also called to the location but could not make any progress in dealing with the woman.) The recordings showed that the responding officers used de-escalation techniques and even decided to walk away after not making any progress in their initial encounter with the woman. However, several minutes later, the officers again encountered the woman in a nearby park . At that point, she was displaying a pepper spray canister. Because of concern for the well -being of the woman and others in the park, the officers decided to detain her on a mental health hold. The Department ultimately concluded that the officers did not use force, but deployed control holds to handcuff and detain the woman. IPA Review and Analysis IPA reviewed the body-worn camera of the footage of the initial responding officer and was accordingly able to ascertain that, for the great majority of the encounter, the officers performed with patience and effectively used de - escalation strategies such as maintaining distance from the woman. The officers also repeatedly asked the woman to explain how they could assist, offered her water, and called the SAFE team to assist on the call. However, there were other investigative and substantive issues worthy of additional consideration. 9 The Specialized Assistance For Everyone or (“SAFE”) team was created in October 2021 as a new model for responding to crises in the community. The cities of Rohnert Park and Cotati contracted with Petaluma People Services Center to operate the program, which puts together responsive teams comprised of a medic and crisis worker. SAFE is designed to assist people who are under the influence of drugs or alcohol, in need of treatment for mental illness, or who need shelter by providing counseling and transportation to the appropriate location. 26 | P a g e Items missing from the investigative file The officers responded to the area based on calls from neighbors reporting that the woman was knocking on doors. However, the recordings of the 911 calls were not apparently retrieved or reviewed as part of the internal investigation.10 The completeness and effectiveness of the investigation would have been enhanced if the investigator had identified those calls, reviewed them, and included the recordings in the investigative file.11 More significantly, with respect to the initial encounter with the woman, while the body-worn camera footage of the initial officer was referenced and included in the investigative materials, there was no reference to nor inclusion of any body-worn camera recordings from the responding supervisor. This created another gap in the thoroughness of the case file. Case 8: Complaint Relating to Failure of Officer to Use Seat Belt During Transport of Arrestee Factual Summary This incident occurred after the responding officer identified an individual in a store who was found to have an outstanding warrant. The officer arrested the individual and transported him to jail. The individual complained that the arresting officer had not used his own seat belt during the transport to jail. 10 While there is reference in the file to the computer aided dispatch that reflects that calls for service were received, the actual calls provide a context about the nature of the community concern that should be included in the investigative file. 11 IPA requested the 911 calls and received recordings of the call from the initial reporting party (a neighbor) and the woman herself. The calls were helpful in confirming the reason for the call for service and the woman’s interaction with the SAFE team, which were not captured on the officers’ BWC. P a g e | 27 Rohnert Park PD Review The matter was reviewed by the Department, and it was determined that, in part because there was no recording of the transport of the arrestee to jail , it could not be determined definitively whether the officer had engaged his seatbelt during the transport to jail. IPA Review and Analysis Deactivation of Body-Worn Camera IPA reviewed the initial encounter between the officer and the complainant , which confirmed a level of professionalism and courtesy displayed by the officer. However, as noted above, the officer deactivated his body-worn camera during the transport of the arrestee to jail.12 This decision was authorized under current RPDPS policy, which reads as follows: Recording may be stopped during significant periods of inactivity such as report writing, booking or transporting prisoners. (Emphasis added) It has been our experience that it is important to continue to record the transport of detainees as those transports can and have generated complaints of mistreatment or misconduct. In this case, the complainant’s concern about the failure to engage a seatbelt could likely have been proven or disproven had the body-worn camera continued to record the encounter.13 And were officers provided instruction to keep the body-worn cameras activated during transport, more serious allegations of inappropriate comments or conduct by officers could also be either definitively corroborated or refuted. We suggest 12 In fact, as captured by the body worn camera recording, during the initial discourse between the officer and detainee, the officer advised the subject that he was recording the encounter. But the officer did not keep his body-worn camera activated during the transport of the prisoner. 13 Some agencies have outfitted their patrol cars with in -car videos that automatically capture any activity or engagement between arresting officers and arrestees during the transport process. RPDPS does not apparently have such a system. 28 | P a g e a revision of the policy advising officers to keep their body-worn cameras activated during the transport of a prisoner. RECOMMENDATION FIFTEEN: RPDPS should revise its policy and instruct its officers to continue to engage the body-worn cameras during prisoner transport. P a g e | 29 Conclusion Authorization of this audit represents a significant step forward in Rohnert Park's commitment to the transparency, public accountability, and potential systemic improvement of its Department of Public Safety. We appreciate the opportunity to be a part of this important process. While this Report identifies a number of potential adjustments that we hope the DPS leadership will adopt, it is important to remember that close scrutiny is likely to identify imperfections within any organization or process . There is value in embracing the notion of continuous improvement, and we hope the Department will consider the spirit of our recommendations to be as constructive as we intend. Meanwhile, it is also worth reiterating that the audit revealed a number of commendable things about RPDPD operations, both in the legitimacy of the complaint investigations and the glimpse we got into the officers' professionalism in the field. This is a strong foundation for any changes the Department may wish to make, and a strong basis for public trust in the Department's service.