My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2008-04-07_Bill 270_Ordinance_re_Office_of_Police_Oversight
PublicDocuments
>
Corporation Counsel
>
Legal Opinions
>
2008-04-07_Bill 270_Ordinance_re_Office_of_Police_Oversight
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/15/2011 4:35:22 PM
Creation date
7/15/2011 4:33:06 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Honorable Pudding Lassiter <br /> February 12, 2007 <br /> Page 3 <br /> delay between the filing of the complaint and a formal referral to the <br /> police at the next regularly scheduled Commission meeting. <br /> 2. Complaint agendized at the next Commission meeting. This will <br /> allow the complainant to appear before the Commission and provide <br /> testimony before the investigation is completed, thereby promoting <br /> integrity and transparency. A representative from Internal Affairs <br /> should be present to hear this testimony. <br /> 3. Completed Internal Affairs investigation presented to the <br /> Commission. The completed investigation should be presented to the <br /> Commission for review. A representative from Internal Affairs should <br /> be present to answer any questions. The status of investigations may <br /> be monitored by the Commission when the Internal Affairs <br /> representative presents his status report at the monthly Commission <br /> meeting. <br /> 4. Complainant notified of outcome. The complainant should be <br /> notified by the Commission of the outcome of the investigation; <br /> whether the charges were sustained or not. The type of discipline <br /> meted out, however, cannot be released, unless the officer was <br /> discharged. <br /> The above process may be implemented without any amendments to the <br /> Commission's existing rules. The "con" of the "fox guarding the henhouse" may <br /> be addressed so long as the complainant believes he/she was treated fairly. To <br /> this end, it is incumbent on the Commission to not only review the substance of <br /> the investigation, but to also critique the manner in which the investigation was <br /> carried out. <br /> Deputy Corporation Counsel Craig Masuda will appear in my stead at our <br /> next meeting on February 16, 2007. 1 will be present at our meeting in March <br /> 2007, where we can hopefully agree whether to implement the above <br /> recommended process. <br /> Very truly yours, <br /> LINCOLN S. T. ASHIDA <br /> Corporation Counsel <br /> Encls. <br /> c: Honorable Lawrence K. Mahuna, Police Chief (w/ encls.) <br /> Craig T. Masuda, Deputy Corporation Counsel (w/encis.) <br /> S:Boards/Police/LSA Corresp./Letter to Commission re investigatory process 2-12-07/LSAmr <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.