Police chief defends keeping details about complaints private

Complaints against Lawrence police

Total complaints, number sustained

2005: 40, 11

2006: 51, 15

2007: 22, 4

2008: 20, 5

2009: 24, 8

2010: 10, 7

2011 (through Oct. 31): 19, 12 (3 open cases)

— Information provided by the Lawrence Police Department

So far this year, the Lawrence Police Department has handled 19 complaints against officers — 12 of which have been sustained, according to Lawrence Police Chief Tarik Khatib. But more specific details about those cases and how the department handled disciplinary action will not be provided, Khatib said. A similar request in 2010 asking for the full reports of the investigations was denied by Lawrence police, citing personnel exemptions in the Kansas Open Records law.

Khatib provided brief case summaries for the 19 complaints investigated by the department this year. The cases included a variety of complaints, such as officers failing to file reports, officers being rude or using inappropriate language during encounters and officers failing to follow traffic rules when on bike patrol.

Only one complaint alleged an officer physically assaulted a citizen, and the officer was “exonerated” during the investigation.

Complaints are reviewed twice a year by city commissioners, and Khatib said he thinks the current procedure — and keeping the reports private — is the right call.

Khatib said that if the full reports were made public, it would hamper openness during the investigation and complaint process.

“I think the focus within the organization would turn to ‘not getting caught,’ or ‘don’t make any mistakes,’ rather than recognition that mistakes will happen, be honest and up-front with what one did, and the situation will be handled appropriately,” Khatib said.

Charles Davis, a journalism professor at the University of Missouri and author of two books on open records, said Khatib, and others across the country who maintain such records shouldn’t be made public, are essentially telling the public to “trust us.”

But without proof, and the full disclosure, there’s a possibility of secrecy and abuse, Davis said.

“We are at their mercy,” Davis said. Such records “go to the heart of police conduct,” and therefore should be open, he said.

Whether the reports about police complaints are open records has been a debated issue across the country. The Lawrence Police Department contends that the records, which it classifies as internal affairs records, are personnel records.

In Kansas, such records fall in the discretionary area of the Kansas Open Records Act, which means they’re not records required to be released, but agencies are also not prohibited by law from releasing them.

In at least one state, New Mexico, the legal battle between whether such records should be public has filtered up to a state’s Supreme Court. In a 2011 case, the New Mexico State Supreme Court ruled that the records are public, ordering the New Mexico Department of Public Safety to release such records.

Davis said he’s optimistic that as more of the legal disputes over the records are settled, the standard will eventually become opening the records to the public.

Complaints against the Lawrence Police Department have declined in recent years, while the percentage of substantiated complaints has increased. Between 2005 and 2009, complaints averaged 31 per year, with a substantiation rate of 27 percent. Since 2010, there have been 29 complaints, and of the 26 where the investigation has been completed, 19, or 73 percent, have been substantiated.

Citizens can make formal complaints against officers or the department in a variety of ways, such as in person or on the department’s website at police.lawrenceks.org.

Police complaints

Complaints against Lawrence Police Department, Aug. 1, 2010, to July 31, 2011:

2010

• The department was notified of a minor regulatory violation committed by one of our officers. The investigation determined the officer was not aware of the regulation before violating it and subsequently being made aware of it. The officer, however, failed to notify the department of the violation in a timely manner.

The complaint was sustained.

• During an internal investigation of whether an officer failed to take a required report, several other instances of violations of policy were discovered. During the investigation the officer was not fully cooperative with the investigating officers, contrary to department policy.

The complaint was sustained.

• A citizen advised that he witnessed an officer acting inappropriately while removing a subject from a location where the subject was being banned from. The investigation determined the citizen had not been truthful about the facts of the incident. Witnesses at the scene along with video evidence corroborated the officer’s statement.

The complaint was unfounded.

• A citizen advised an officer almost struck him with his car and was rude. While trying to confront the officer about another matter the citizen approached the officer in his vehicle and thought the officer intentionally tried to hit him with the car. The officer disputed the citizen’s allegation and there were no witnesses or video evidence to determine if the allegation occurred.

The complaint was not sustained.

2011

• A citizen reported that an officer acted inappropriately while handling a conflict among several individuals. The investigation revealed the officer used some terminology that could easily be taken as unprofessional or rude.

The complaint was sustained.

• An officer engaged in a vehicle pursuit which reached high speeds in the downtown area. The violation which initiated the call and pursuit did not warrant the speeds driven by the officer.

The complaint was sustained.

• A citizen reported that an officer failed to properly investigate a battery. Investigation revealed that the case was properly documented and investigated to the extent possible.

The officer was exonerated.

• A citizen reported that the citizen was not treated fairly and officers did not properly investigate a dispute the citizen had with other another group. The original allegations were not sustained, but investigation revealed that an officer failed to document the name of one of the parties involved.

The complaint was not sustained.

• A citizen reported officers did not adequately respond to and handle a domestic dispute. Investigation revealed that the officer should have completed an offense report in relation to this call, but failed to do so.

The complaint was sustained.

• Contrary to policy, an officer did not cooperate with an investigation regarding work performance.

The complaint was sustained.

• A citizen observed an officer ride a police bicycle contrary to the traffic code without an emergency reason to do so. Investigation revealed the citizen’s allegations were correct.

The complaint was sustained.

• A citizen complained that officers did not have a valid reason for contacting the citizen. Investigation revealed the officers properly responded to the reported disturbance and the contact was appropriate.

The officers were exonerated.

An investigation into the interaction between two officers revealed unprofessional conduct.

The complaint was sustained.

•A citizen reported that an officer stopped the citizen based upon the citizen’s race/ethnicity. Investigation revealed no racial motivation for the officer’s decision to stop or to cite the citizen.

The officer was exonerated.

• A citizen reported that, without cause to do so, an officer punched the citizen in the face during an arrest. Investigation revealed there was no basis for the allegation.

The officer was exonerated.

• An officer was rude and used profanity in anger toward another officer.

The complaint was sustained.

• An officer failed to properly document and initiate an investigation during a disturbance call.

The complaint was sustained.

• A citizen reported that an officer was rude and condescending to the citizen during a disturbance call.

The complaint was sustained.

• A citizen complained that an officer was rude and unprofessional during a suspicious activity call.

The complaint was sustained.

• A civilian employee failed to inform the department of a matter that policy required them to do so.

The complaint was sustained.

• Three cases are still open and no further details were provided.

— Information provided by the Lawrence Police Department