Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutIndependent Police Auditor (IPA) Report CITY OF ROHNERT PARK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY POLICE AND FIRE SERVICES Tim Mattos, Director 500 CITY CENTER DRIVE  ROHNERT PARK, CALIFORNIA  94928-2118 Phone (707) 584-2600 Fax (707) 584-2683 The City of Rohnert Park takes seriously complaints regarding the Department of Public Safety’s service and conduct of its members. In 2022, the City adopted an Independent Police Auditor program, the purpose of which was to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the Department of Public Safety’s process for handling investigations into complaints by a member of the public. The City retained OIR Group, led by Michael Gennaco and Stephen Connolly, to act as its initial Independent Police Auditor (“IPA”). The IPA’s first report was published in 2025. The IPA has since evaluated a second installment of case files that were completed by the Department in response to civilian complaints. The IPA’s report has been published on both the Council’s and Department of Public Safety’s pages linked here: https://www.rpcity.org/634/Council-Priorities and https://www.rpcity.org/366/Transparency. The Independent Police Auditor agreed with the Department’s final determination reached in each of the nine investigations reviewed. The IPA found that the Department’s investigations were appropriately objective and the conclusions evidence-based. Moreover, the IPA report does not state that members of the Department used unreasonable or excessive force in any of the cases reviewed. The Department recently released data concerning its use of force in 2025 which included 33,655 officer contacts. The Department reported that it did not use lethal or deadly force in any of those contacts, did not show or use force 99.95% of the time, and there were only sixteen incidents involving residents of Rohnert Park where the Department showed or used force. The IPA’s report also provides seven recommendations on ways the Department can improve its complaint investigation processes. The Department of Public Safety takes these recommendations seriously and is evaluating implementation of these recommendations for future investigations. Guidelines for the reporting, investigation, and disposition of complaints regarding the conduct of the members of the Department of Public Safety are set forth in the Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety Policy Manual, Personnel Complaints Policy. I encourage you to review the Department’s policies which can be found on the Department’s transparency webpage linked here: https://www.rpcity.org/366/Transparency. Sincerely, Chief Tim Mattos Michael Gennaco Stephen Connolly City of Rohnert Park Independent Police Auditor’s Review of Complaint Investigation Process: Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety March 2026 O ) O OIRGroup.com Page|1 P a g e | 1 OIRGroup.com 2 | P a g e Table of Contents Introduction .......................................................................................................... 3 Misconduct Investigations: Overview of the RPDPS Process ........................... 6 Investigation Summaries ..................................................................................... 9 Conclusion.......................................................................................................... 23 P a g e | 3 Introduction This is our second Report for the City of Rohnert Park, as part of a new oversight mechanism that developed by the City in 2024 to monitor the Department of Public Safety ("DPS"). We issued our first Report in February of 2025. The model adopted by Rohnert Park starts with the recognition that public misconduct complaints about law enforcement activity are an especially sensitive area of police-community relations. The ability of agencies to investigate their own personnel with objectivity, and to hold officers appropriately accountable for misconduct, is of paramount importance to organizational health. At the same time, those investigations occur against a backdrop of public concern – or even skepticism – as to whether agencies are willing and able to "police themselves" in light of their internal allegiances. Different jurisdictions have contended with this reality in different ways – including by doing nothing in the way of formal oversight. But Rohnert Park has chosen to add a layer to the existing DPS complaint review process by enlisting OIR Group to conduct independent evaluations of completed cases, and to report publicly on our findings. Based in southern California, OIR Group is a team of experts in police practices. We have provided independent civilian oversight of law enforcement in a variety of capacities since 2001, and for jurisdictions throughout California and in other states.1 1 Learn more about OIR Group at our website, oirgroup.com. 4 | P a g e Our protocol in Rohnert Park is to receive the confidential investigation files associated with the civilian complaints of officer misconduct that are investigated internally by DPS management. Th e contents of these files are various, and – importantly – include body-worn camera recordings associated with the events in question. This last category of evidence has been hugely influential in contributing to the efficiency and conclusiveness of such investigations. Our first review cycle concluded earlier this year, and our resulting report covered eight different complaint cases. We summarized each, and shared our impressions that the investigations had been conducted with appropriate thoroughness and fairness. We concurred with the findings that none of the individual allegations of wrongdoing had been supported by the evidence. Meanwhile, we also took the opportunity to use those cases and their specific circumstances as a basis for making systemic recommendations to RPDPS. These ideas, based on our extensive experience and familiarity with best practices from numerous agencies, were meant to be applicable on a going - forward basis as attainable enhancements to current procedures. There were 15 recommendations in all. They covered topics relating to investigative thoroughness and completeness, better communication with complainants, and "holistic" approaches2 to complaint analysis and resolution. As with any agency with which we work, our hope is that the Department will see these suggestions as constructive, give them due consideration, and adopt many if not all of them into its operations. Whether that paradigm will apply in Rohnert Park remains to be seen. While it is true that many of the issues that we flagged in our first Report continued to be present in this year's cases, any disappointment in that result would be premature. This is primarily a function of timing: the nine cases that formed this year's "pool" were all completed before the finalization of our initial audit, and therefore could not have been affected by the recommendations even if 2 The idea here is to go beyond the bottom-line question of whether policy was violated, and use the review process as a potential learning opportunity to also identify and address performance , systemic, or supervisory issues in a non- disciplinary context. P a g e | 5 RPDPS leadership embraced them in full. We discuss this dynamic below as it applies to the individual cases we looked at this time, and look forward to seeing if future cases reflect any changes. Along with an initial overview of the process, the body of the Report provides a brief summary of each individual case: the nature of the complaint itself, the findings of RPDPS, and our own independent evaluation of that investigative process. This transparency is meant to give the public a window into how the Department handles misconduct allegations when they arise. As with last year, we found the process to be fundamentally sound and the outcomes to be legitimate and supported by the evidence. We encourage the Department to reinforce the effective practices we cite below, and to make the suggested refinements in order to further enhance this important element of agency accountability. 6 | P a g e Misconduct Investigations: Overview of the RPDPS Process As was the case with our initial audit Report, we concurred with the outcomes in each of the investigations that were included in this year's grouping. In eight of the nine cases, the allegations of misconduct were not supported by the evidence, and we considered these findings to align with our own assessment of the materials. Once again, body-worn camera recordings were central to the process in most of the cases and contributed to its efficiency. Interviews with accused officers – once a cornerstone of misconduct investigations – are often no longer needed, since the recordings provided a sufficiently clear picture of what actually occurred. To the extent we noted shortcomings, they were primarily in three areas. The first is the effectiveness of the "standard" notification letters that the Department provides at the end of the process. The next is the completeness of the investigative files, in terms of capturing all the component parts of the investigation (such as recordings of intake interviews with complainants). Lastly, our sense is that there continue to be opportunities for the Department to derive more benefit from the complaint pro cess in terms of flagging and addressing the peripheral issues that investigation brings to light. Each of these issues was identified in our first audit cycle; we reiterate them here as a reminder and reinforcement, and encourage RPDPS and the public to refer to that Report for a more complete discussion of the concepts. Complainant Feedback As well as being a forum for officer accountability and an occasion for assessing officer performance in the context of specific encounters , the P a g e | 7 complaint process is a chance to engage with a member of the public and – ideally – promote that person's sense of being heard and taken seriously. We recognize that some complainants are determinedly antagonistic toward law enforcement, or are difficult to satisfy because of challenges they themselves are navigating. In our experience, though, most of them are sincere in their assertions and open to constructive communication. Along with the initial intake process, the "back end" notification is a crucial part of each complainant's overall experience. State law requires agencies to let complainants know about the outcome of the case, and RPDPS of course complies with this obligation. But the letters we reviewed were, for the most part, notably terse and impersonal.3 They don't reflect the individual attention that went into reaching the resolution, and don't take full advantage of the opportunity to connect by acknowledging the complainant's perspective. We mentioned last year that officers' privacy protections are an understandable reason for the concision with which most agencies have approached this task. But there is room for sharing more without running afoul of privacy rights, and we encourage RPDPS to explore its options. Investigative Completeness As we said last year, and as held true in this year's cases, "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." We again identified places where items that we expected to see – such as recorded interactions with complainants – were not available in the case files (and in some instances not created in the first place). Holistic Review In our oversight experience across multiple jurisdictions, one "best practice" that appears across the most effective internal review processes is a commitment to holistic review. Every complaint investigation is ultimately a 3 We discuss one significant exception below (Case 4). 8 | P a g e question of whether an allegation of policy-violating misconduct has been established by the evidence. But it can also be a chance for supervisors to look at real-world examples of officer performance, identify defects in training, equipment, and supervision, and provide a constructive feedback loop based on the insights and observations that may emerge. We noted a few places where things could have been handled differently or better – even when the underlying allegations were not proven. And, in an echo of our earlier point about case file comprehensiveness, one incident prompted a worthwhile point by the reviewer about how officer positioning could have been enhanced in controlling a subject. This was encouraging – but we also noted that there was nothing in the file to reflect any related follow - up or action items. We do not discount that RPDPS management may actually be engaging in constructive issue-spotting on a regular basis. But promoting that as an expectation will have beneficial effect on the mindset of supervisors, and thorough documentation will help ensure that good ideas lead to concrete interventions and enhanced performance. P a g e | 9 Complaint Investigations: Case Summaries Cases 1 and 2: Complaint Relating to Treatment at Traffic Stop Factual Summary A woman in her 70's filed a complaint about the way she was treated at an early morning traffic stop, including an allegation of excessive force. As established by the body-worn camera recordings, the woman initially attracted the attention of two partner officers by repeatedly honking her horn in what turned out to be frustration with another motorist. When the officers sought to pull her over, she did not respond, and instead continued driving for a short while to her intended destination – the parking lot of her fitness center. As officers approached her, they found her to be confused, agitated, and somewhat uncooperative, to the point where they decided to remove her from the vehicle. They eventually used control holds to extract her, and she fell momentarily as she emerged. She later alleged wrist pain as a consequence of the contact. From there, officers detained her for further investigation. Backups arrived, along with a sergeant who was effective in communicating with her. The officers conducted field sobriety tests and found she was not under the influence. They also checked with the fitness center staff, who were familiar with her and confirmed that her excitable behavior was not unusual. The officers eventually resolved the detention by giving her a DMV re - examination form. She filed her complaint later that same day . 10 | P a g e Rohnert Park PD Review: The sergeant who had responded to the scene conducted the Department's investigation and found that no policy violations had occurred. The determination was based on the body-worn camera recordings of involved officers. The central finding was that the force used by the officers had not been excessive. However, the sergeant noted that, in his view, the woman's fall could have been avoided if the officers had used the relevant techniques more effectively. Second Complaint re Same Incident and Other Concerns More than a year later, the same individual submitted a second complaint that overlapped to a large extent with the first, while adding other concerns. She continued to maintain that the officer who stopped her had done so on the basis of mistaken assumptions. She re-asserted her claims that the initial force involved in removing her from her car was excessive, and said she had suffered further harms (including an eye injury) during the handcuffing process when the handcuffs struck her head due to officer negligence. She added allegations of bias and said that the referral to the DMV had been unjustified. Based in large part on the analysis that had been performed at the time of the woman's initial complaint, the supervisor determined there had been no wrongdoing in the physical contact of the woman during the incident. He further found that there was no evidence of bias relating to the traffic stop and that the concerns related to the female’s driving ability were appropriate . IPA Review and Analysis The initial investigation was completed extremely promptly. We concurred with the finding that the officers' actions had not been excessive or otherwise out of policy. On the contrary, the recordings establish that the woman's initial failures to cooperate had made them understandably wary in dealing with her, the physical contact was minimal, and they shifted into a much more patient and conciliatory mode once they established that she was not intending to be confrontational. P a g e | 11 The officers made effective use of their available resources, including by having a different person conduct the sobriety evaluation so as to help defuse any lingering tension from the initial stop. The sergeant was also extremely patient in speaking with the woman and addressing her different concerns in the field. The reviewing sergeant's "extra" observation about potentially preventing the woman's fall made a favorable impression. (The idea was that officers' physical technique in controlling her could have been improved upon.) Complaints from the public provide a feedback loop and, ideally, a chance for agency management to evaluate performance in a comprehensive, holistic manner. Here, the issue-spotting by the supervisor (which did not affect determinations about the policy questions in the case) provided added value to the process as a whole. While this identification of a learning opportunity is commendable, the case materials we received did not include documentation of any specific follow-up counseling or training with the involved officers. It is certainly possible that this occurred without being captured in the file. However, inclusion of such a step in the record of the case would help ensure that useful insights bear fruit in terms of influencing future performance. RECOMMENDATION ONE: RPDPS should continue and reinforce efforts by supervisors to identify non-disciplinary areas of potential improvement in the context of complaint reviews. RECOMMENDATION TWO: When additional identification of issues occurs in the context of complaint review, RPDPS management should make appropriate and documented follow-up a regular feature of the process. Similarly, we found the Department's handling of the supplemental complaint to be reasonable in its assessment of the allegations in light of available evidence. 12 | P a g e We did, however, note that some of the correspondence from the complainant that was compiled in the investigation included references to potential mistreatment by another local law enforcement agency. While it was obviously not incumbent upon RPDPS to investigate this issue itself, it is not clear whether notifications to that agency were forwarded – or whether the complainant was at least notified that she would need to take up any peripheral matters with the appropriate authorities. Ideally, an effec tive "customer service" approach would have incorporated that step. RECOMMENDATION THREE: RPDPS should make an effort to ensure that any mis-directed complaints of officer/agency misconduct are addressed by the relevant entity. Case 3: Complaint re Sufficiency of Police Response Factual Summary A woman contacted RPDPS and wished to report criminal activity. An officer contacted her by phone and spoke with her for approximately a half hour, and recorded this on his body-worn camera. He found it difficult to discern indications of criminality in the specific incidents and behaviors that she was referencing. (These related in part to being approached by different men whom she didn't know but who seemed to know her. She had claimed to have similar encounters in a few adjoining jurisdictions as well, and believed they were related to a former boyfriend who was subject to a restraining order. She also thought people were conspiring to steal her recreational vehicle.) After approximately 25 minutes, the conversation deteriorated, and the woman eventually became angry and insistent, accusing the officer of racism for his seeming recalcitrance in acknowledging criminality. At her insistence , the officer explained that he would document their conversation in an "event report." (He did not believe her recounting included allegations for which a crime report would be appropriate.) He gave her the file number that was generated, and the call ended soon thereafter. P a g e | 13 She later received a copy of the documentation. This prompted her to submit a complaint form that asserted she was being wrongly ignored in her efforts to provide an amended report (presumably to address inaccuracies and other shortcomings) in the officer's entries about the matter. Rohnert Park DPS Review: The officer's initial conversation with the woman was recorded on body-worn camera, and that evidence formed the basis of a supervisor's analysis of the situation. The supervisor found that the officer had been correct in his assessment of the evidentiary significance of the woman's statements, and that no crime had been articulated. Accordingly, the complaint was resolved as "unfounded." Subsequently (and several weeks after the Department sent out a notification letter as to the complaint outcome), the woman sent additional correspondence to the "Records Division" of the DPS. She included a copy of the officer's report with her own annotations, along with a written "amendment" that featured additional information as well as copies of outreach to other agencies. While the agency added this material to the complaint's case file, it is unclear whether other action was taken in response to i t. IPA Review and Analysis: We agreed with the finding that the woman's description of events had not established an allegation of criminal conduct. The recording of the initial conversation with the complainant, in conjunction with the documentation that was subsequently completed, showed that the matter had initially been handled in a reasonable fashion by the subject officer. In spite of his understandable difficulty in tracking the actionable elements of the information that was provided, the officer made periodic and constructive efforts to re-focus the conversation. He also subsequently reached out to one of the locations where an encounter had allegedly occurred, and learned that the woman was familiar to management at that fitness facility as well as others in the area.) Finally, as captured in his report, he determined through further investigation that her claim about being protected by a restraining order was not supported by the evidence. 14 | P a g e This established a solid foundation for the officer's decision -making. But the Department's emphasis on this reality in its review was not quite congruent with responsiveness to the complaint. The woman's stated frustration was with the report that had been created – a copy of which she had received and apparently found wanting. In fairness to the Department, the nature of her specific contentions was not clear from the very terse complaint form she submitted. (As stated above, her efforts to "amend" – presumably at the suggestion of Records personnel – via more extensive written correspondence were not received until well after the complaint was finalized.) But the lack of initial clarity cuts in the other direction as well, raising questions about why the investigator apparently did not contact her for any sort of follow-up intake interview. The woman's efforts at being heard through the "amendment" she submitted, did not, in our view, suggest the need to change any outcomes. Apart from this, though, there was also potential value to be found in a closer administrative scrutiny than RRDPS management seems to have offered here. As we have said before, "room for improvement" is often different from a violation of policy, but nonetheless merits attention in a robust review process. For example, the officer's documentation of the incident begins by noting that the complainant "rambles on" – a characterization she did not subsequently flag but that suggested dismissiveness in an unfortunate way. We also noted the moments in which the officer engaged in other conversations and activity (while on mute) while the woman continued speaking. As challenging as the woman was to engage with, high standards of patience and professionalism should presumably always be the goal. The complaint could have been a forum for reinforcing this important idea. Case 4: Complaint about Traffic Citation /Vehicle Impound Factual Summary A RPDPS officer conducted a second vehicle stop on an adult woman after observing her driving in an unsafe manner – and after admonishing her on the P a g e | 15 first stop that she was not eligible to operate her car and that would need to get a ride from someone. (Her license had been revoked, and the officer had found her asleep behind the wheel in a parking lot with the car running when contacting her initially.). After providing assurances that she understood, the woman had driven off, and the officer pulled her over to address the situation. As established by the officer's body-worn camera recording, he worked painstakingly over the course of the next ninety minutes to gain her cooperation with the citation process and other administrative details. He was backed up by CHP officers, who also tried to overcome the woman's extreme reluctance to cooperate and her repetitive insistence that she was being mistreated. The officer also requested and received the assistance of a sergeant (who had past familiarity with the woman) and the City's S.A.F.E team (an alternate response option that provides non -enforcement supports across a range of contexts). Ultimately, the woman received a citation and her car was impounded. In the days following this encounter, the woman sent several emails to the officer and contacted RPDPS leadership by voicemail as well. She was adamant that the officer had acted inappropriately and with a lack of compassion for her disabilities. This prompted the Department to initiate a complaint investigation as to the officer's actions. Rohnert Park DPS Review: An evaluation of the stop itself (through the officer's lengthy body-worn camera recording and his written report) established both the validity of the enforcement actions and the reasonableness of his efforts to communicate, de-escalate, and facilitate. Within days of the incident itself, the Department had determined that any allegations of wrongful miscondu ct were "exonerated." They sent the woman a notification letter to that effect. Unfortunately, the woman's anger over the event persisted. Her rhetoric became increasingly belligerent and threatening, but did not alter the outcome of the original complaint review. 16 | P a g e IPA Review and Analysis: We found the Department's decision to treat the woman's initial outreach as a complaint to be both appropriate and commendably pro -active. Similarly, the detailed notification letter reflected an effort to provide clear, constructive explanation – a welcome contrast with other letters that we have noted and a good example of the potential for this correspondence. Our own review of the case materials confirmed the legitimacy of the outcome. While obviously frustrating and impactful for the complainant, the officer's decision-making was entirely justified. Additionally, we noted that the woman's acknowledged disabilities (and her seemingly extensive history of difficult interactions with law enforcement) were significant obstacles to the efficient resolution of the traffic stop. The officer's efforts to accommodate this reality were extensive and professional. Case 5: Complaint about Handling of Possible Collision Factual Summary An RPDPS supervisor responded to a call for service after two men were involved in a dispute over a driving incident. His body-worn camera recording depicted the particulars of the conflict: one man (who would go on to become the complainant) insisted that the other had rear-ended him; the other maintained that he had applied his brakes in time (in spite of the other driver's sudden entry into his path) and that no collision had occurred. The supervisor ultimately agreed that there was no indication that the second vehicle had struck the first. Accordingly, he said he would not be completing a traffic collision report, in spite of the complainant's vehemence and assertion that his back had been injured. The supervisor remained on-scene for approximately 10 minutes and facilitated an exchange of information between the drivers, so that the complainant could pursue the matter with his insurance company (and the other driver's interests would also be protected.) Another RPDPS officer also arrived within minutes and attempted to assist. P a g e | 17 Soon after the incident, the complainant contacted the Department by phone to complain about the way the call had been handled, and alleged the officers were discourteous. Rohnert Park DPS Review: Within two weeks, the Department completed its evaluation. Based on the body-worn camera recordings, the officers' actions were found to have been a reasonable response to the evidence – with the exchange of insurance information providing an effective co mpromise measure. The allegation of discourtesy was also rejected as "unfounded." The supervisor who took the complaint and conducted the review attempted to contact the man to inform him of the outcome and provide further information about the possible insurance options. The complainant hung up on him. IPA Review and Analysis: We reviewed available body-worn camera recordings and concurred with the Department's analysis. The physical evidence supported the contentions of the other driver, whose account of events was convincing (particularly against the backdrop of other party's behavior on-scene. The complainant was unusually antagonistic, contentious, profane and disagreeable. Understandably, there were separate moments when each of the RPDPS representatives allowed their respective irritation with the man to manifest itself in responsive comments to him. But even these instances did not rise to the level of a policy violation, or detract from the overall sense that they had handled a challenging interaction with professionalism. The investigation cited two phone calls: an initial call from the complainant about the incident, and then the follow-up by a supervisor which, reportedly, was abruptly ended by the complainant.4 While neither was essential to the outcome, a recording of both would have contributed to the completeness of the case file. We reiterate our recommendation that RPDPS take an inclusive approach to capturing all the steps of the complaint process. 4 We endorse the supervisor's "extra effort" here in contacting the complainant. 18 | P a g e Case 6: Complaint about Unprofessional Commentary Factual Summary A man was involved in a call for service with RPDPS when he had been physically threatened by an acquaintance. The next day, he went to the station to provide additional information to the authorities. While he was in the lobby, his cell phone rang, and he soon realized that he had been inadvertently called by the officer who had responded to his incident the previous day. The man listened as the call went on for several minutes without the officer apparently realizing it. Eventually, the man asked to speak with a supervisor, and made a formal complaint about what had just happened. He alleged that the officer had been extremely disrespectful in talking about him and his family, and had made a number of disparaging, profane remarks. Rohnert Park DPS Review The Department framed its review in relation to two related policy sections relating to unbecoming conduct. The first was a prohibition against discourteous treatment of the public, and the second addressed actions that bring discredit to the involved employee and/or the organization. These allegations were supported by the evidence and sustained. IPA Review and Analysis We agreed with the finding that the complaint's allegations were sustained. The accidental, inadvertent nature of the complainant's exposure to the unfiltered remarks was slightly mitigating. But the alleged remarks were nonetheless disappointing in several respects, and the underlying experience of a misdirected email or text message, or the happenstance of an unintended cell phone call, has become quite commonplace in our current communications environment. It is a good reminder that professionalism at all times and in all contexts is a standard worth upholding. P a g e | 19 We also noted gaps in the case file, including any investigative steps (such as an interview with the subject officer) that were taken by RPDPS in reaching its conclusions. The notification letter to the complainant was also a strong example of the room for improvement that we have cited repeatedly. For example, the first and last name of the complainant were transposed in a way that reinforced the boilerplate, seemingly disengaged nature of the De partment's correspondence. More particularly here, we considered the lack of any apology to be a shortcoming. While state law notification requirements only oblige law enforcement to share the disposition of the case, there certainly is nothing stopping an agency from expressing its regrets for a complainant's negative experience. RECOMMENDATION FOUR: When warranted by the facts, RPDPS should consider making a formal apology part of its response to a complainant as part of the final notification process. Case 7: Complaint of Unavailability Factual Summary An individual complained that when he tried to arrange his required in -person registration as a sex offender, the assigned officer designated to perform the complainant's registration was not available for several days, delaying the man's ability to maintain his status as current. Rohnert Park DPS Review: RPDPS conducted an investigation into this complaint, including a review of the officer’s schedule. During that review, it was learned that the officer was on pre-approved vacation and on training during the days the complainant had tried to contact him to arrange an in-person registration. The investigation further revealed that when the detective returned, the complainant was able to 20 | P a g e complete his registration. RPDPS concluded that the complaint was unfounded. IPA Review and Analysis: We agreed with the finding that the officer had not violated policy. The unavailability of the officer was unfortunate, but explainable by his vacation and training commitments. It may be provident for RPDPS to consider assigning a backup registrant to handle sex offender registration when the officer primarily responsible for the process is unavailable. In terms of “customer service ,” such a backup assignment would redound to the benefit of RPDPS and its community. RECOMMENDATION FIVE: RPDPS should consider designating a backup employee to serve as an alternative point of contact for sex registrants. Case 8: Complaint about Use of Force Pursuant to a Call re Domestic Dispute Factual Summary: Officers responded to a reported domestic disturbance and arrived at an apartment occupied by a couple and a young child. As shown on their respective recordings, the involved officers attempted to interview the male and requested the female to step outside and away from the male. The female declined. The female alleged that one of the responding officers put his hand in her face and grabbed her shoulder to push her away. Eventually, officers were able to interview both the male and female, who each denied any acts of domestic violence. Responding officers then left the location. RPDPS Investigation: P a g e | 21 The investigator assigned to this case reviewed the body-worn camera footage from all officers on scene. A review of that footage revealed that one of the officers on two separate occasions requested the female to step away so that they could speak to the male separately, and placed their hands on the female’s shoulder to prevent the female from returning to where the male was standing. RPDPS concluded that the female’s complaints of unnecessary force or battery were unfounded. IPA Review and Analysis: IPA reviewed the police reports and body-worn camera footage of this incident and concurred that there was no violation of policy by the responding officers. We did, however, note that the female's agitation about being physically contacted was immediate, and she was complaining about it quite obviously. But the officers on-scene did nothing in the moment to address that concern; instead, once they determined that no provable domestic violence had occurred, they simply left. It would have been a better practice to make an initial effort at responding to the woman's sense of grievance over being touched. For example, officers could have addressed her concerns by asking if she wanted a supervisor to respond to the location, rather than waiting for the complaint that was eventually made. Moreover, the responding officers could have advised a supervisor that a complaint had been made about their conduct. Such a proactive response would have better addressed the immediate concern s raised by the complainant at the scene. RECOMMENDATION SIX: RPDPS should advise responding officers that when subjects make allegations of inappropriate force , they should ask if the complainant wishes to have a supervisor respond or advise a supervisor immediately of the complaint. 22 | P a g e Case 9: Complaint about Use of Force Incident to a Theft Arrest Factual Summary RPDPS responded to a shoplifting call at a grocery store. The female was contacted by police outside at a nearby bus stop and was identified by store personnel as the shoplifter. As shown on the officers' body-worn cameras, the female began to walk away and a patrol officer placed her in a rear wrist lock. The female dropped to a squatting position and another officer then assisted the initial officer in moving her to a prone position and placing her into handcuffs. The female complained of pain, and she was transported to a hospital for evaluation. RPDPS Investigation The Department investigator spoke to the complainant and reviewed the body - worn camera footage and determined that the force used was in policy. IPA Review IPA reviewed the relevant investigative materials and concurred that the use of force was in policy. It noted that prior to being placed in the ambulance, the female asked for a female officer to conduct the search of her but was advised that one was not available and the pat down was conducted by a male officer. RPDPS policy states a preference for “same sex” searches if an officer is available. In this case, it may have been that a female officer was not available to conduct a search. However, it would be helpful if responding officers documented this unavailability in subsequent police reports. RECOMMENDATION SEVEN: RPDPS should advise its officers that it should document when a same sex search is not feasible due to unavailability. P a g e | 23 Conclusion Our second cycle of reviewing the Department of Public Safety's handling of public complaints was, in different ways, a reinforcement of our impressions from the first. Our access to the confidential investigation files allowed us to confirm the legitimacy of the RPDPS findings in the individual cases featured in this year's Report. The investigations are appropriately thorough and objective, and the conclusions are evidence-based – and often driven by body-worn camera recordings that establish exactly what occurred in these disputed scenarios. As noted above, we also saw a recurrence of the different ways that the investigations leave room for improvement on the part of the agency. We hope that future cases will reflect the systemic adjustments that we have recommended, but that were not received by the Department until after this Report's set of investigations were already complete. Those changes will further improve a system that already deserves the confidence of the community that RDDPS serves.