Document of Interest Provided By Councilmember Hamann on Civilian Review Boards

Home Browse Search

meeting through the officer’s supervisor, if necessary walking the complainant to the police department to talk with the supervisor. The citizen and supervisor meet together alone. If the citizen is not satisfied, he or she then can file a complaint with the ombudsman. Formal investigations When the ombudsman’s office accepts a complaint, the investigator sends the chief a letter reporting the com- plaint and asking for a response to questions from the officer. The chief sends the letter down the chain of com- mand to the subject officer, who usually responds to the questions in writing or, on rare occasions, in an interview. The investigator also interviews the complainant for his or her account of the incident and the names of witness- es. Investigators usually tape the interview. The investiga- tor attempts to contact witnesses by telephone and, where appropriate, sends letters to homes in the immediate area of the incident. As needed, the investigator also takes photos at the scene, secures medical records, and under- takes other pertinent investigatory activities. The ombudsman’s office has never subpoenaed a witness. The investigator turns in a report to the chief investigator or deputy ombudsman indicating agreement or disagree- ment with the citizen’s allegation(s). The investigator meets with the deputy or ombudsman to decide on a finding. Findings The ombudsman’s office either sustains or does not sus- tain each allegation, sustaining only if there is clear and convincing evidence. The office sends a complete report of each investigation to the chief and the city council. The office recommends whether there should be disci- pline but not the type of discipline. When the ombudsman’s office concludes the officer did something wrong—which happens 5 to 10 times a year— it sends the officer and the chief a synopsis of its investi- gation with its conclusion. The chief then conducts his own investigation through IA or the officer’s commander and makes a final determination of how to proceed. (See “The Chief’s Response to an Ombudsman Investigation.”) The chief sends the ombudsman his finding. He does not inform the ombudsman’s office about IA’s finding, and he has the discretion not to tell the office whether he imposed any discipline. However, on occasion the city council has asked the chief to explain his response to an ombudsman’s report. The ombudsman’s investigator telephones or writes each complainant to report the chief’s decision. The typical case is resolved in 3 weeks. Other activities Because there is no shield of confidentiality in Michigan, the ombudsman’s office has considerable latitude in informing the press about its cases and criticizing offi- cers by name. The office routinely sends its case reports to the city clerk as public documents for the city archives. However, the city charter requires that “No report or recommendation that criticizes an official act shall be announced until every agency or person affected is allowed reasonable opportunity to be heard with the aid of counsel.” As a result, the ombudsman’s office cir- culates the report on every sustained complaint to every- one named in the report (except the complainant), giving them 5 days in which to challenge its factual accuracy (but not the findings). Staffing and budget By a two-thirds majority of the nine members, the city council appoints the ombudsman for a single 7-year term. A three-quarters majority on the council can remove the ombudsman. At one time, the office had as many as nine investigators, but by 1998 the number had declined to five. Two inves- tigators handle police complaints full time, and the deputy investigator takes on some police complaints as well. The ombudsman appoints a deputy ombudsman and the investigators. The office has an attorney on contract to answer legal questions. There was no ombudsman’s office director between August 1995 and the end of 1998. When the previous director was fired in 1995, a court ruled that the city could not hire a new director as long as a civil suit by the fired employee was still pending. The deputy ombuds- man or senior investigator ran the office in the absence of a director. In September 1998, a Michigan appeals court ruled that the city could hire a new director. C HAPTER 2: CASE S TUDIES OF N INE O VERSIGHT P ROCEDURES 28