Advertisement

Archive for Monday, September 20, 2010

Case summaries of recent complaints against Lawrence Police Department

September 20, 2010

Advertisement

In response to an open records request, the Lawrence Police Department’s Office of Professional Accountability provided these case summaries for 30 police misconduct investigations in 2009 and 2010. Thirteen were sustained or partially sustained. These are verbatim from police.

2010

• A citizen complained the officer accused them of lying and thought the officer was rude. The investigation determined that the officer’s suspicions were accurate. The complaint was unfounded.

• An investigation was conducted on a civilian employee in reference to excessive personal phone usage while working. The complaint was sustained.

• A citizen complained an officer pulled him over without cause and was rude. The investigation determined the officer had cause for the stop but his demeanor was not professional. The complaint was partially sustained.

• A citizen contacted an officer and asked for a report to be taken on an incident which had just occurred. The officer instructed the citizen to call dispatch to report the incident. The citizen was not provided proper service. The complaint was sustained.

• During an internal investigation of vandalism to department property an officer did not fully cooperate with the investigating officers, contrary to department policy. The complaint was sustained.

• During an internal investigation of a conflict between two officers, one officer was not fully cooperative with the investigating officers, contrary to department policy. The complaint was sustained.

2009

• A citizen complained an officer used excessive force when she was arrested. Independent witnesses refuted her claim. The complaint was withdrawn.

• A citizen complained he was racially profiled. It was determined the officer had a legitimate reason for the contact. The complaint was unfounded.

• A citizen complained an officer lied during court testimony. An investigation determined the citizen’s complaint was false. The complaint was unfounded.

• A citizen complained an officer forged his name on a ticket. It was determined the officer made a mistake on some paperwork and the citizen’s information was entered incorrectly. The complaint was unfounded.

• A citizen complained she was sexually battered by officers. An investigation determined there was no battery and the citizen was uncooperative and belligerent. The complaint was unfounded.

• A citizen alleged an officer used excessive force. The investigation determined the appropriate level was used to effect the arrest. The complaint was unfounded.

• A citizen complained an officer was harassing him. The investigation determined that the officer had a legitimate reason to contact the citizen. The complaint was unfounded.

• A citizen complained she was falsely arrested and that evidence was not properly collected. The investigation determined there was probable cause for the arrest; however, the officer failed to photograph evidence properly. The complaint was partially sustained.

• A citizen complained that a civilian employee was rude. The investigation determined that the employee was professional during the contact. The complaint was unfounded.

• A citizen complained that an officer was rude. The investigation determined that the officer was professional during the contact. The complaint was unfounded.

• During the investigation of an off duty incident an officer was not fully cooperative with the investigating officers. The complaint was sustained.

• An internal investigation was conducted on an officer accused of insubordination. The complaint was sustained.

• A citizen complained officers were harassing her family and illegally entered her home. The complaint was unfounded.

• A citizen complained an officer revealed inappropriate information to the public. The complaint was sustained.

• A citizen complained an officer was rude and did not take into account her version of an event. An investigation proved the citizen’s version of events was accurate. The complaint was withdrawn.

• An officer responded to a call but failed to take the appropriate report. The failure to take the report in a timely fashion hindered the investigation. The complaint was sustained.

• A citizen complained he was racially profiled. It was determined the officer had a legitimate reason for the stop. The complaint was unfounded.

• A citizen complained officers used excessive force and failed to follow department procedure during the arrest. The investigation determined there was no excessive force; however, department procedure was not followed during a portion of the encounter. The complaint was partially sustained.

• A guardian of a minor complained the minor had been detained for an inappropriate period of time during a contact. Video determined the minor had not been truthful to the guardian. The complaint was unfounded.

• A citizen complained an officer was rude during a contact. An investigation was unable to prove or disprove the allegation. The complaint was not sustained.

• A citizen complained an officer was driving unsafely while responding to a call. An investigation determined the officer was driving inappropriately. The complaint was sustained.

• An internal investigation into an arrest determined inappropriate application of force was used. The complaint was sustained.

• A citizen complained an officer was rude during a contact. An investigation was unable to prove or disprove the allegation. The complaint was not sustained.

• A citizen complained officer was rude during a contact. The citizen refused to cooperate with the investigation after numerous attempts to contact him. The complaint was withdrawn by the citizen.

Comments

equalaccessprivacy 3 years, 7 months ago

The KU police are likely way worse than the LPD where transparency and respect for the public are concerned. They lack a published complaint procedure, which is required by law, and they seem to have no problem deep-sixing police reports that are incriminating of those in administrative or HR positions at KU. Then, they have the great rule that they are the only ones who can handle anything involving KU people--it's completely, sickeningly conflict-of -interest. Basically, there are no safeguards in place to honor reasonable due process at all. The KU cops appear completely, corruptly in the pockets of their white-collar- criminal bosses.

Their record on civil rights is poor, and they've been known to vindictively criminalize innocent victims of profiling activity on campus. They keep no profiling statistics either, also required by law, and they do not bother to investigate citizen complaints, just take it as a given that the KU administrative ability to abuse power is unlimited, so obviously won't be questioned by the Douglas County DAs corruptly in bed with KU. Often, they don't bother even contacting or interviewing or ticketing someone a crooked KU official wants to frame, just forward reports right on into the Law Enforcement Center. It's a corrupt, hateful, southern justice racket.

No problem about tampered, sloppy evidence when a Crooked KU official decides they want to frame someone either: lie about dates, tape record people for framing purposes then misrepresent the source and date of said tape, and pile on the hearsay witnesses! Go right ahead. It's all good: KU is a winning team with a winning ethos( that makes honest people totally lose their cookies.)

0

smitty 3 years, 7 months ago

The YH complaint of corruption against several officers will not be on this list. Olin's internal investigation by higher outside authority and the YH complaints will not be acted upon(if ever) until the YH case is through the courts. At least the city manager's letter to the YH says as much.

These citizen complaints are hand picked for consumption. The stats on crimes are just like this paper work.....stats can be slanted.

Take the hit and run death of Harry Oliver. His death does not show up as an unresolved death. Many times this lack of inclusion of Mr Oliver's death has been included through the the LPD press releases in the JW when they toot their own horn.

There is no reason to believe that any of the stats released for public consumption by the LPD is truthful based on their known history. Every word, every report should be questioned until the LPD, city manager, and city commission correct the internal police department problems.

0

conservative 3 years, 7 months ago

The one on the list that catches my attention is the one about the officer driving unsafely when responding to a call. I see this one all the time. If a police car doesn't have it's lights running they have to follow all the same rules of the road as the rest of us. Speeding down the street, or running a light without their lights on is just as dangerous and illegal as if a citizen does it.

0

nekansan 3 years, 7 months ago

Seems like there were a reasonable number of instances where the complaint was found to be partly or fully legitimate. Including instances where the only transgression was the officer acted rudely or unprofessionally. Certainly leads me to believe the complaints are investigated and taken seriously. Makes the argument that the LPD is biased and does not take officer discipline serious seem pretty baseless. I would also add that, if being rude was a crime, the number of people being arrested by the LPD would skyrocket. Officers are clearly held to a much higher behavior standard than the public at large.

0

asbury 3 years, 7 months ago

Rude is rude......uniform or not.

0

cozy 3 years, 7 months ago

I'm sure I could investigate my buddy and find that they were "professional during the contact."

0

meggers 3 years, 7 months ago

• A citizen complained an officer was rude and did not take into account her version of an event. An investigation proved the citizen’s version of events was accurate. The complaint was withdrawn.

Unless there is a typo, this doesn't make much sense. If the citizen was correct in her allegations, why would she have withdrawn the complaint? Even if she withdrew the complaint after it was found to have merit, one would think that there still would have been some sort of follow-up with the officer.

0

gl0ckUser 3 years, 7 months ago

2005 was about the Start of the YH investigation And I am sure there were many complaints filed.

They Need to be public record.

0

QuinnSutore 3 years, 7 months ago

-A citizen complained that the officer was not nice enough. Further investigation found that the police officer failed to spoon with the accused after reading Miranda rights and taking the criminal to a hotel with free big screens, food, and gyms. Complaint sustained; new policy requires officers to gently spoon with the criminals they arrest for no less than 30 seconds. It is yet undecided whether officers will be required to be the big spoon or the little spoon.

0

smitty 3 years, 7 months ago

Interesting.......Can you go back a few more years to the '05 date in your other article?

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.