RPD Complaints

Responsibility: The G rand Jury finds that the R edding Police Department is aware of its duty to investigate com plaints by me mbers of the pub lic. A pam phlet, “Commen dation or C omplaint,” describing how to file a complaint or commend an employee, states: The Redding Police Departm ent acknowledges its responsibilities to establish a s ystem of complaint and disciplinary procedures for corr ective action when officers conduct them selves improperly. It is the purpose of these procedures to provide a pro mpt, just, open, an d expeditious resolution of complaints regarding the c onduct of officers and employ ees of the Department. The Redding Police Depart ment … welcomes feedback from citizens of the community regarding the performance of our employees as well as the department. Complaints concerning misconduct are investigated in accordance with applicable law and established RPD procedures. Only supervisors or managers conduct complaint investigations and prepare reports. The chief of police reviews and approves the results of all internal affairs investigations. Complainants are notified in writing of the disposition of com plaints; however, any disciplinary actions taken against peace officers are, by law, confidential and, therefore, not divulged to complainants or to the public.

Transparency: The former City of Redding Chief of Police had extended an invitation to the Grand Jury to review citizens’ complaints filed against members of the police department. The current chief of police also extended the invitation and expanded it to include all intern al investigati ons. RPD management granted the Grand Jury full access to all information concerning these investigations.

Quantity: Twenty-three internal investigations were undertaken by the Redding Police Departm ent in 2008. Thr ee of those investigations were revi ews of traffic collision reports prepared by the California Highway Patrol. These investigations resulted in discipline for the officers involved. Of the remaining investigations, eight were initia ted by RPD itself, and 12 were based upon citizens’ complaints. All investigations were focused on sworn peace officer personnel of the department. At the time of the review by the Grand Jury, the findings of the investigations were: # Investigation Outcomes 4 Unfounded (the alleged acts did not occur or did not involve police personnel) 5 Sustained (the alleged misconduct did occur) 9 Still being prepared or reviewed 1 Withdrawn by complainant

Quality: The Redding Police Depart ment has p repared a written description of the de partment’s procedures to be used in investigating complaints along with instructions on how to complain about or commend a police department em ployee. With one exception, t he Grand Ju ry determined that all 71 investigatory documentation was co mpleted in a ti mely manner. The one exception was a citizen’ s complaint that was misplaced during a transition in management. It has been determined that enough information about the complaint was av ailable, and, at the writing of this report, the complaint was under investigation. The Grand Jury examined every completed investigation prepared in 2008 and finds all conclusions to be reasonable and supported by the facts esta blished b y t he investigat ion. All rep orts were professionally prepared, well-documented, thorough and objective. For those investigations that w ere not complete, the Grand Jur y received a thorough briefing and information about the likel y outcome based on available evidence.

Citizen Access: The Grand Jury finds that filing a citi zens’ complaint is a si mple process. The Redding Police Department Web site contains a link to access the pamphlet entitled “Commendation or Complaint.” This pamphlet explains the philosophy of the police department and identifies three ways for citizens to contact the departm ent: by phone, in person or b y e-mail. A link to dow nload the citizen’s complaint form is on the RPD Web site, but the form cannot be com pleted and transmitted online.