HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD Grand Jury Response re Citizen Complaint ProceduresCITY OF W�L Agenda Item No: 4_h
in, Meeting Date: August 15, 2016
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Department: Police
Prepared by: Diana Bishop City Manager Approval:
Chief of Police
TOPIC: Response to the Grand Jury Report on Citizen Complaint Procedures
SUBJECT: Consideration of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Rafael
Approving and Authorizing the Mayor to Execute the City of San Rafael Response
to the 2015-2016 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Report Entitled "Law
Enforcement Citizen Complaint Procedures: The Grand Jury Has A Few
Complaints"
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution approving the proposed response
to the Grand Jury report and authorizing the Mayor to execute the response.
BACKGROUND:
The 2015-2016 Marin County Civil Grand Jury has issued its report dated June 16, 2016 entitled "Law
Enforcement Citizen Complaint Procedures: The Grand Jury Has A Few Complaints." (See Attachment
B) The Grand Jury has requested a response from all the cities and towns in Marin and the Central
Marin Police Authority. The City of San Rafael has been requested to respond to Findings Fl -F7 and
Recommendations R1 -R14. The Grand Jury's findings and recommendations are set out on pages
thirteen and fourteen (13 and 14) of the fifteen (15) page report.
The Grand Jury recommends that all law enforcement agencies in Marin County do the following:
• Every Marin County law enforcement agency should have a clear and full description of the law
enforcement agency's policy and procedures for handling Citizen Complaints on its website that
is accessible by a direct link from the law enforcement agency's home page to a clearly identified
"Citizen Complaints" folder.
• All Marin County law enforcement agencies should accept the filing of Citizen Complaints
online.
FOR CITY CLERK ONLY
File No.: 269
Council Meeting: 08/15/2016
Disposition: Resolution 14181
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2
• A clear and full description of the law enforcement agency's policy and procedures along with
forms for filing Citizen Complaints should be available to the public in the lobby of each law
enforcement agency.
• Written policies and procedures, as well as Citizen Complaint forms, should be available to the
public in English, Spanish and other languages appropriate to the community.
• Marin County law enforcement agency personnel should be trained in the agency's Citizen
Complaint policy and procedures in order to fully describe them to members of the public.
• All public -facing law enforcement personnel should present an open and welcoming attitude to
any inquiry about the Citizen Complaint process.
• No policy, procedure or form for handling Citizen Complaints should have any language based
in whole or in part on California Penal Code Section 148.6 and/or California Civil Code of Civil
Procedure Section 47.5, nor should a complainant be required to acknowledge that they have
read and understood such language.
• A person who initiates a Citizen Complaint should not be required to verify or certify the
contents of the complaint form.
• The identification of the complainant on the Citizen Complaint form should be optional.
• The signature of the complainant should not be required on the form.
• Anonymous Citizen Complaints, and complaints initiated by minors, should be accepted and
investigated in accordance with the agency's procedures.
• Members of the public who desire information regarding a law enforcement agency's policy,
procedures and Citizen Complaint forms should not be required to discuss their involvement,
identity or situation before the materials are provided.
• All Marin County law enforcement agencies should incorporate within their policies and
procedures an appeal process that allows the complainant to appeal the disposition to an entity
outside of the law enforcement agency.
• Marin County law enforcement agencies should publish on their websites and annually update
the number, nature and disposition of Citizen Complaints.
ANALYSIS:
As more fully set forth in the proposed response to the Grand Jury (see exhibit to attached Resolution),
Staff agrees with Grand Jury Findings F2 and F7. Staff partially disagrees with Finding F1, and F3 -F6.
Staff has implemented Recommendations R3 -R8, R11 and R12 regarding citizen complaint procedures.
Staff is in the process of implementation of Recommendation R1, R2, R9, R10 and R14 regarding
citizen complaint procedures. Recommendation R13 requires further analysis because a citizen
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3
complaint appeals process may conflict with current State law as it applies to the Peace Officers Bill of
Rights (Government Code Sections 3300-3312).
The City is required to respond to the Grand Jury Report. Penal Code Section 933 states in part:
"No later than 90 days after the Grand Jury submits a final report ... the governing body of the
public agency shall comment to the presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and
recommendations ... [contained in the report]."
To comply with this statute, the City's response to the Grand Jury report must be approved by
Resolution of the City Council and submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Marin County Superior Court
and the Foreperson of the Grand Jury by September 14, 2016. Attachment A is a Resolution that would
approve the City's proposed response.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
OPTIONS:
The City is required to respond, however, the Council could make changes to the proposed response and
then adopt the Resolution and revised response. Alternatively, the Council could return the response to
staff for further response and return to the Council at a later meeting.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution approving the proposed response
to the Grand Jury report and authorizing the Mayor to execute the response.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Resolution with attached proposed response
B. Grand Jury report dated June 16, 2016
RESOLUTION NO. 14181
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SAN RAFAEL APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL'S
RESPONSE TO THE 2015-2016 MARIN COUNTY CIVIL
GRAND JURY REPORT ENTITLED "LAW
ENFORCEMENT CITIZEN COMPLAINT PROCEDURES:
THE GRAND JURY HAS A FEW COMPLAINTS"
WHEREAS, pursuant to Penal Code section 933, a public agency which receives a Grand
Jury Report addressing aspects of the public agency's operations, must comment on the Report's
findings and recommendations contained in the Report in writing within ninety (90) days to the
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court with a copy to the Foreperson of the Grand Jury; and
WHEREAS, Penal Code section 933 specifically requires that the "governing body" of the
public agency provide said response and, in order to lawfully comply, the governing body must
consider and adopt the response at a noticed public meeting pursuant to the Brown Act; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Rafael has received and reviewed the
2015-2016 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Report, dated June 16, 2016, entitled "Law
Enforcement Citizen Complaint Procedures: The Grand Jury Has A Few Complaints" and has
agendized it at this meeting for a response.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San
Rafael hereby:
1. Approves and authorizes the Mayor to execute the City of San Rafael's response to
the 2015-2016 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Report entitled "Law Enforcement Citizen
Complaint Procedures: The Grand Jury Has A Few Complaints", a copy of which is attached
hereto.
2. Directs the City Clerk to forward the City's Grand Jury Report response to the
Presiding Judge of the Marin County Superior Court and to the Foreperson of the Marin County
Civil Grand Jury.
I, Esther Beirne, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the San Rafael
City Council held on August 15, 2016 by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers: Bushey, Colin, Gamblin, McCullough & Mayor Phillips
NOES: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
/<S 4kZ:jz G' - / JP-�c .
ESTHER C. BEIRNE, City Clerk
2015/2016 MARIA COUNTY CIVIL GRA/YD ,JURY
Law Enforcement Citizen Complaint Procedures
The Grand ,Jury blas A Few Complaints
Report Pate: June 16, 2016
Public Release Pate: ,June 23, 2016
.r.r.rrrr/rr rlr trr/r rrrr•
of
. ..
rr
COUNTY OF MARIN
i
2015-2016 Marin County Civil Grand Jury
Law Enforcement Citizen Complaint Procedures
The Grand Jiny Has A Few Complaints
SUMMARY
Marin County's Civil Grand Jury undertook an investigation into the Citizen' Complaint
procedures that are currently used by Marin's law enforcement agencies. The Grand Jury focused
on procedure accessibility, comprehensiveness and clarity.
Questioning authority and its representatives can be intimidating and is made more so by opaque
and inaccessible policies and procedures. The Grand Jury learned that lodging a complaint with
any of Marin County's ten law enforcement entities can be confusing, time consuming and
discouraging.
The California statute (CPC §832.5) that was enacted over forty years ago requires that Citizen
Complaint procedures be established by law enforcement agencies. The Grand Jury discovered
that Marin County's law enforcement agencies interpret and apply this statute in various and
inconsistent ways.
To maintain full public trust, an effective law enforcement complaint process depends on fair and
transparent procedures. Through its investigation, the Grand Jury learned that the courts, law
enforcement organizations, civil rights advocates and educational institutions all concur that open
communication between law enforcement agencies and citizens is essential.
An improved and uniform complaint process would provide greater credibility and effectiveness to
the Citizen Complaint process. While demonstrating law enforcement's commitment to protect
and respect the community it serves, a clear and consistent set of procedures would build a better
foundation for interactions between law enforcement and the public.
The Grand Jury recommends that every law enforcement agency in Marin County have a clear and
complete description on its website and in its lobby, in both English and Spanish, of the
department's policy, procedures and forms for filing a citizen complaint. Law enforcement
personnel should be trained in and be able to fully describe the process and forms to any inquiring
person and direct that person to the appropriate location of the information. Preserving
confidentiality and anonymity when requested should be an option (via website and in person) for
all complainants.
' The term "Citizen Complaint" has been questioned insofar as the term implies that non -citizens, e.g. undocumented
immigrants, non-residents or visitors, cannot avail themselves of statutory protections against law enforcement
misconduct. See for example, 2012-2013 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report: "Law Enforcement Public
Complaint Procedures." It has been suggested that the term "Public Complaint" is more appropriate; however,
"Citizen Complaint" has taken on a more common use and meaning in this context and that term will be used
throughout this Report.
Citizen Complaints
BACKGROUND
Marin County's Police and Sheriff Departments ensure the safety and security of their citizens and
the dedication of these law enforcement agencies and the devotion of their officers cannot be
overstated. Yet, there are times when questions arise regarding interactions between law
enforcement and the public. While police misconduct in Marin may be infrequent, policies and
procedures are necessary and legally required for citizens to be able to raise concerns regarding
peace officer conduct.
When law enforcement and citizens interact, they are not in positions of equality. Because of a
peace officer's authority, there is a power differential from the moment he or she comes into
contact with citizens. While this power difference may be necessary for officers to do their jobs, a
citizen should have a way to complain about those instances where, whether intentionally or
unintentionally, a peace officer is viewed or is thought to overstep their authority, role, or behaves
inappropriately.
Incidents between a peace officer and the public may not rise to the level of illegal conduct, but
situations involving hostility, rudeness, intimidation, unfairness, threats and unnecessary verbal or
physical force reduce the effectiveness and reputation of law enforcement. A fair and consistent
complaint process holds peace officers accountable to legal, ethical and community standards and
expectations.
According to David J. Brent, "... the search for a system that will at once be responsive to both the
public's need for accountability and the responsibility of the police to regulate themselves is basic
to the efficient functioning of the police department as a necessary component within society. " 2
In the same journal article, Brent's analyses of interactions between law enforcement personnel
reveal that: "...citizens feel that the police do not interact with them in a manner that is responsive
to the realities of their daily lives, while the police are unwilling to open the process by which
their actions are ultimately examined and regulated to the scrutiny and participation of the
citizen."3
2 David J. Brent, Redress of Alleged Police Misconduct: A New Approach to Citizen Complaints and Police
Disciplinary Procedures, 11 University of San Francisco Law Review 587 (1977)
3 Ibid.
June 16, 2016 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 2 of 15
Citizen Complaints
METHODOLOGY
The Grand Jury used the following sources of information for its report:
California Law
11ie Grand .tiny reviewed s atutGJ peI�aining w Luc \_,14L c11 �.vliipialriL process iiriu�i . u,��C�.��u
law. It also reviewed the legislative history of the enactment of those laws.
Literature Review
The Grand Jury performed extensive research into investigations conducted by other California
grand juries, as well as other organizations and groups on the topic of Citizen Complaints. The
Grand Jury also reviewed the operations of the San Francisco Office of Citizen Complaints.
Law Enforcement Websites
The Grand Jury conducted a review and analysis of the websites of all ten Marin County law
enforcement agencies.
Policies and Procedures
The Grand Jury reviewed all Marin County law enforcement agency policy and procedure
manuals.4 All law enforcement agencies in Marin are required by law to have policies and
procedures. Although access is available to citizens, policy and procedures manuals are not
generally easy for citizens to find.
Police and Sheriff Department Site Visits
Members of the Grand Jury undertook, as private citizens, multiple in-person visits to each Marin
County law enforcement agency to seek out and obtain information regarding that agency's
Citizen Complaint procedures. The following law enforcement agencies were visited:
■ Belvedere Police Department ■ Novato Police Department
■ Central Marin Police Authority
■ Fairfax Police Department
■ Marin County Sheriff's Department
■ Mill Valley Police Department
Police Chief and Sheriff Interviews
■ Ross Police Department
■ San Rafael Police Department
■ Sausalito Police Department
■ Tiburon Police Department
The Grand Jury interviewed each of the Marin County Police Chiefs5 as well as the County
Sheriff. During these interviews, no information was requested or obtained regarding the identity
of any peace officer who was the subject of a Citizen Complaint.6
4 Many law enforcement agencies utilize some version of the standard for policies and procedures prepared by
Lexipol Law Enforcement that provides customizable, state -specific law enforcement policy content and integrated
�olicy training
The Acting Chief of the Novato Police Department was interviewed.
June 16, 2016 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 3 of 15
Citizen Complaints
DISCUSSION
Legal Requirements regarding Citizen Complaints: California Penal Code §832.5
The California legislature addressed the Citizen Complaint process when, in 1974, it enacted
California Penal Code §832.5. This statute requires all law enforcement agencies in the state to
develop procedures for dealing with Citizen Complaints about the conduct of peace officers.
Each department or agency in this state that employs peace officers shall establish a
procedure to investigate complaints by members of the public against the personnel of
these departments or agencies, and shall make a written description of the procedure
available to the public.
The legislature did not provide detailed procedures for law enforcement agencies. The intent of
the legislation was to provide the public with a mechanism by which the behavior of peace officers
could be reviewed, evaluated and, when appropriate, corrected. This is to ensure that officers,
while acting under the authority of law, do not engage in conduct that would violate the individual
rights of the citizenry.
Website Reviews
The Grand Jury reviewed each law enforcement agency's website to determine what information it
contained on the topic of Citizen's Complaints. The statutory mandate that each law enforcement
agency make available to the public a written description of the procedure it employs is
straightforward. This mandate can easily be satisfied by making the explanation of the procedure
clear, simple and easily located on the website. To assure the availability of the Citizen Complaint
information, an explanation of the complaint procedure should be provided on the law
enforcement agency's website. There should be no need to physically come to the law
enforcement offices to obtain information on the process or any necessary forms. The website
should provide for online initiation of a Citizen Complaint, a complete description of how the
complaint will be investigated and a final determination of its disposition.
The Grand Jury reviewed each website for the following:
■ Ease in finding the topic of Citizen Complaints
■ Availability of the written complaint procedure
■ Availability of the Complaint Form
■ Versions of both documents in English and Spanish languages
■ Ability to file the Complaint Form electronically
■ A description of the disposition process
■ A description of the appeal process
■ A statistical record of past complaints
6 On February 19, 2016, California State Senator Mark Leno introduced SB 1286 amending Section 832.5 to provide
for open public inspection of a peace officer's personnel files relating to the full investigation of a Citizen Complaint,
findings, discipline or corrective action taken pursuant to the Public Records Act.
June 16, 2016 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 4 of 15
Citizen Complaints
Although all Marin County law enforcement agencies have a website available to the public, there
is wide variance among law enforcement agencies in ease of use, availability of forms,
multilingual versions, etc. Some websites are difficult to navigate resulting in time-consuming
frustration. Such websites are not always intuitive or the information is buried and difficult to find.
Some websites have no information at all about Citizen Complaint procedures.
The Fairfax Police Department's website, for example, has a general description of the Citizen
Complaint procedure, however, the actual complaint form must be obtained by a personal visit to
the police station. San Rafael initially had no information on the website regarding a complaint
process or how to file a complaint. (Since the Grand Jury's inquiry, the San Rafael Police
Department has amended its website.) Some law enforcement websites do have a Citizen
Complaint form available, but a full and simple explanation of the complaint investigation process
may not be in the same location.
On -Site Visits
Grand Jury members visited all Marin County law enforcement agencies as private citizens to find
out how to file a complaint. It became clear during those visits that CPC §832.5 is interpreted by
Marin law enforcement agencies in many different ways. There was wide variance not only among
law enforcement agencies, but also as to how different Grand Jury members were received by the
same law enforcement agencies on different days.
In some cases, staff had to search a file cabinet to find written procedures or forms. Other
agencies had a description of the complaint process and complaint forms in both English and
Spanish displayed and available in their lobby. A few law enforcement agencies did not know
whether or not the information was available on their agency's website. Some law enforcement
personnel (officers and staff) were quite knowledgeable and professional regarding Citizen
Complaint procedures. In other instances, members of law enforcement were unaware of the
details of their own agency's Citizen Complaint process and in some cases inaccurate information
was provided.
The Grand Jury believes that statutes such as California Penal Code §823.5 requiring adherence to
Citizen Complaint procedures were enacted to reduce those instances where fear and intimidation
may result in the underreporting of legitimate criticisms of law enforcement personnel.
For example, in addition to the complexity of the filing procedures, it can be intimidating and a
distinct disincentive when a potential complainant is asked by law enforcement officers or staff
(actual questions encountered by Grand Jurors during site visits):
■ "What's the officer's name?"
■ "Do you want to speak to the officer's supervisor?"
■ "Only the chief handles complaints."
■ "Are you a resident of this community? Only residents can file complaints."
■ "Do you want to leave your name and number and someone will get back to you?"
■ "What is your name and address?"
■ "What's the nature of your complaint?"
June 16, 2016 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 5 of 15
Citizen Complaints
Such responses to inquiries as noted above on the part of law enforcement might be understood as
an effort to resolve a problem before a complaint is brought. They could also, however, have a
discouraging effect on a member of the public who seeks to know what his or her rights are and
what to expect if they bring a complaint. Questions such as those above can result in
underreporting of complaints. Fear of reprisal, lack of confidence in the complaint process and
difficulty finding out how to complain can also contribute to underreporting.
Interviews with Police Chiefs
During in-person interviews with each police chief, acting chief and the County Sheriff, the Grand
Jury members inquired about each law enforcement agency's complaint procedures and about how
that information was shared with the public.
The Chiefs were asked the following:
■ Are policies, procedures and complaint forms in multilingual versions available on their
agency's website? Is the complaint information available in the police department's lobby
(or elsewhere accessible to the public) without the individual having to request it?
■ Does a Citizen Complaint have to be made in person?
■ Does a complainant have to identify himself, place of residence or citizenship?
■ Can the complaint be made anonymously? By minors? By third persons? By non- citizens?
■ What are complainants advised regarding making false claims?
■ When and how do you inform the complainant of the resolution of the complaint?
■ Do you keep records of complaints and their resolution? If so, where? How long are they
retained?
■ Are records of Citizen Complaints available to the public?
The Grand Jury found that there was considerable inconsistency between the chiefs' and Sheriff's
understanding of how their own agency deals with the public and what the Grand Jury members
actually experienced upon visiting each agency. During interviews, it became evident that chiefs
and the Sheriff were often unaware of how Citizen Complaint inquiries were dealt with by the
officers and staff in their respective law enforcement agencies. Significant discrepancies between
policy and actual practice were commonly found during the Grand Jury's research.
Policies and Procedures
The Grand Jury reviewed each law enforcement agency's policies and procedures manual and
found that all ten have information pertaining to Citizen Complaints. With the exception of the
Sheriff, all Marin County law enforcement agencies utilize some version of the Lexipol-prepared
Policies and Procedures, which provides customized state -specific policy content and integrated
training.
June 16, 2016 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 6 of 15
Citizen Complaints
Filing a Complaint
All Marin County law enforcement agencies comply with California Penal Code §832.5 in that
they have a written Citizen Complaint policy. There is, however, inconsistency in the way in
which the procedures are presented to the public. While a law enforcement agency may
acknowledge its legal responsibility to have a prompt and unbiased procedure for filing and
investigating Citizen Complaints, there is not always a clear explanation of how those procedures
actually work. Requiring the potential complainant to journey through a maze of law enforcement
officials and management staff may be a deterrent to an individual pursuing a legitimate
complaint.
Some examples of inconsistent and confusing policy and procedure instructions are:
The Mill Valley Police Department describes its investigation this way:
"The Department member taking your complaint or inquiry will put you in contact with the
on -duty Watch Supervisor as soon as possible. If, after talking with the Watch Supervisor,
you still feel you have a valid complaint and some action should be taken by the
Department, the Watch Supervisor will notify the Division Commander who will then
direct an investigation into your complaint and advise findings to the Chief of Police." The
Mill Valley Police Department's policy also indicates: "If you feel your inquiry is not
handled satisfactorily by the Watch Commander, you are encouraged to talk to the
Division Commander."
The Sausalito Police Department explains that "Generally, your complaint will be investigated by
a command level officer, assigned by the Police Chief' or "assigned to a special investigator".
The Tiburon Police department indicates that the Officer's supervisor or a special investigator
will investigate the complaint.
The San Rafael Police Department states that a "Citizen Complaint will be reviewed by the Chief
of Police. It will then be assigned to an investigator."
The Marin County Sheriffs Department states that "Minor complaints may be referred to the
officer's supervisor, however, major complaints will be referred to the on -duty watch commander
or bureau commander."
The Central Marin Police Department states its policy as follows:
"Officer complaints require that you sign a statement acknowledging that it is a crime to
make a false complaint against an officer. If the inquiry appears to be based on a
misunderstanding or a lack of knowledge of acceptable or desired conduct, procedure or
practices, the department member taking your complaint may offer an explanation, or
he/she will put you in immediate contact with the On -duty Watch Commander. After an
explanation is offered, and you believe the Police Authority should still take some action,
you will be referred to the supervisor of that unit or employee. If the supervisor is off duty,
you will be referred to the On -Duty Watch Commander, who will assist you with your
complaint. The supervisor will forward your complaint to his/her Division Commander
who will review the complaint and forward it to the Chief of Police for his review and
direction to ensure a thorough and objective investigation is done."
June 16, 2016 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 7 of 15
Citizen Complaints
These complaint procedures appear to the Grand Jury to create a number of serious hurdles for a
citizen to overcome. In some cases, repeated law enforcement interactions and recounting of the
same complaint seem to be required before an investigation is undertaken. Climbing a ladder of
authority, such as described above before an investigation is initiated, can be a discouraging
process making it less likely that a resident will pursue the filing of a complaint. When
information is relayed from one level of authority to another, the effect could be the same as the
"telephone game" in which the final account of the complaint could be diluted or altered with each
successive description. This process is more complicated when foreign language difficulties,
concerns regarding citizenship status and apprehensiveness in dealing with law enforcement are
present.
Communication Between the Public and Law Enforcement
Communication between law enforcement and the public regarding Citizen Complaint procedures
is an essential step in the effectiveness of any Citizen Complaint program. The unfortunate reality
is that many individuals in the community are apprehensive about interacting with law
enforcement. News reports, electronic media, casual discussions and past experiences may create
founded or unfounded suspicion of the police or Sheriff. This may be the case when the member
of the public is an undocumented immigrant or does not use English as his or her primary
language. Fear of miscommunication, being misunderstood, or being reported to the Immigration
and Naturalization Service (INS) can inhibit a person from complaining about the conduct of law
enforcement even if their rights have been compromised. While most citizens understand and
believe that law enforcement is dedicated to protecting and serving the community, there is, in
some instances, an inescapable public uneasiness with law enforcement and this is as real as life.
The Grand Jury concludes that a written description of the complaint procedure should, at
minimum, contain the following elements:
■ Where the complaint form can be found
■ How the complaint will be investigated
■ How the final determination of the complaint will be disseminated
■ What appeal process, if any, exists if the complainant is not satisfied with the
determination
During their interviews, every Chief and the Sheriff stressed that law enforcement wants to keep
lines of communication open with the public and the Grand Jury supports that objective.
Therefore, a citizen's request for information about Citizen Complaints should be responded to by
providing the necessary forms and descriptions of the procedures in a clear, informed and
respectful way without any defensiveness or attempt to deflect, intimidate or otherwise discourage
the potential filing of a Citizen Complaint.
California Penal Code §148.6 and the Complaint Form
California Penal Code § 148.6 previously stated that potential complainants acknowledge that they
could be criminally prosecuted for bringing a false complaint against a peace officer. CPC §148.6,
June 16, 2016 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 8 of 15
Citizen Complaints
however, was determined to be unconstitutional when the United States Supreme Court declined
to overturn a United States Court of Appeal (9th Circuit) ruling to that effect. Unfortunately, the
Grand Jury found that such warnings remain in some complaint forms and policy information
concerning Citizen Complaints used by Marin County law enforcement agencies.
Tl,e r ;— —f tlrof o —Von" �xrlrn brinrrc o (`ifrZen Complaint a�r alnst a neacP officer must
lu Leq uu �.ui�.uL iic« u.Yvi.�vii rvuv &.r — v.�i Y b Y
acknowledge and sign the information advisory is no longer valid. There should be no language in
the complaint form or anywhere else that implies potential penalties for making false claims.
Advisories that threaten prosecution or other penalties can be a deterrent to filing a Citizen
Complaint. During the legislative session in which discussions for and against the passage of AB
1732 (Section 148.6) were held, the argument in opposition to its passage made this clear:
"...this legislation will have a chilling impact on the filing of police misconduct
complaints by members of the public. Many persons are now afraid to speak up and are
intimidated from filing legitimate complaints of police abuse, by among other things,
threats by the officer to sue the victim for libel. If this bill becomes law, the first thing
that will happen to victims of police abuse when they go to a police station to file a
citizen complaint is an admonishment that they can be jailed if their allegations are not
true. We should encourage the filing of police abuse reports, not impose additional
roadblocks to chill the process."7
As of this writing, the Citizen Complaint form provided by the Central Marin Police Authority
still includes the language of Section 148.6 and carries its warning even further by asking the
citizen to read, understand, and sign off on California Civil Code §47.5. This language alerts the
citizen that filing a Citizen Complaint may have civil as well as criminal consequences. To access
the Citizen Complaint procedure from the Sausalito Police Department website, one is first
directed to a screen containing the entire boldface information advisory from Section 148.6,
including the threat of prosecution. The Citizen Complaint form itself contains an admonishment,
albeit without the sentence threatening prosecution.
The Mill Valley Police Department's Citizen Complaint form, for instance, requires that the
complainant sign a verification of the complaint's contents. Sworn statements are not required to
initiate the Citizen Complaint process. Requiring an oath may discourage honest people who may
be reticent regarding how their complaint will be handled by the system as it potentially raises a
fear that the citizen could be prosecuted for bringing the complaint, particularly in cases in which
a complaint is not sustained.
The Grand Jury concludes that requiring a complainant to sign their name in acknowledgement
that they "read and understand" any Penal Code language in connection with their Citizen
Complaint may, in itself, create fear about entering into the entire complaint process.
7 Assem, Com. on Public Safety, analysis of Assem. Bill No. 1732 (1995-1996 Reg. Sess.)
June 16, 2016 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 9 of 15
Citizen Complaints
Anonymity
Anonymity is not the same as being unwilling to participate in the investigation. One can be
interviewed and participate in the investigation without revealing his or her name, address, or
other identifying information. Requiring a complainant to produce or state his or her identification
and sign their name to a complaint form in order to file a Citizen Complaint can be intimidating.
This requirement could raise the fear that the complainant's identity and residence may be targeted
for retaliation because a complaint is brought against a specific peace officer. A complainant may
believe that their name and address could subject them to other kinds of law enforcement contact,
such as nuisance traffic stops, other ticketing activities or even reluctance on the part of peace
officers to respond to a complainant's calls for assistance. An even greater fear for an
undocumented complainant might be a concern about their immigration status, which might
outweigh their willingness to file a complaint. Those for whom English is not their first language
may also be reluctant to file a complaint since their difficulty in communicating the facts may
exacerbate their fear and reluctance to report.
In one instance, upon visiting a police station, a Grand Jury member found that Citizen Complaint
information was not provided to him because he was not a resident of that law enforcement
agency's jurisdiction. Asking a person where they live can be intimidating, may imply that
residency is required in order to file a complaint and might be perceived as a loss of anonymity.
Another law enforcement agency required that the person asking about the Citizen Complaint
process sign into the police log or meet personally with an officer.
To counter these roadblocks to filing a Citizen Complaint, the Grand Jury believes that a citizen
should be able to file a Citizen Complaint anonymously, thus helping to reduce any possible
reticence in following through. Some Marin County law enforcement agencies acknowledge that
they welcome anonymous complaints. They state, however, that such complaints would be very
difficult to investigate and make law enforcement's response to the complainant impossible.
Personal identification, verifications and signatures thwart anonymity.
The Grand Jury concludes that there is no justifiable reason to require the signature, name and
address of the complainant on the Citizen Complaint form. These forms should clearly indicate
that the name, address, telephone number and signature of the complainant are "OPTIONAL".
Citizens who may be reluctant to complain of a violation of their rights should be able to avail
themselves of the Citizen Complaint procedure to focus attention on alleged improper law
enforcement conduct. This objective also holds true for third parties who observe police
misconduct yet do not want to become embroiled in a process to address another person's rights.
Law enforcement's interaction with minors is somewhat more problematic. While many law
enforcement agencies in Marin County indicate that they will accept and investigate complaints
from minors, some require that the minor's parent or guardian sign the complaint form or appear
in person with the minor to file the complaint.
June 16, 2016 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 10 of 15
Citizen Complaints
The Investigation, Disposition and Appeal Process
The Grand Jury reviewed the policy and procedure manuals for every Marin County law
enforcement agency regarding the Citizen Complaint investigation, disposition and appeal
process.
Investigation
Most law enforcement agencies state in their policy and procedures that the complaint will be
assigned to an investigator, but no description is provided as to how an investigation will be
conducted. Will the investigator speak to the complainant? Will the investigator interview any
witnesses or discuss the matter with the officer involved? If it comes down to a "he said, she said"
scenario, will the complainant ever be believed over the officer?
Further review of the policy and procedure manuals indicates that the investigation into a Citizen
Complaint should be completed within one year. If that is not possible, the assigned investigator or
supervisor must ensure that the delay is warranted and communicate that to the complainant.
Finally, the complainant should be provided with written notification of the disposition within 30
days after a determination has been made.
An explanation to the public of what an investigator will investigate, the time frame involved and
other potentially complicating issues should be provided to the complainant.
Disposition
There are four potential classifications:
■ Unfounded: the investigation finds that the alleged act did not occur or involve law
enforcement agency officers and/or staff
■ Exonerated: the investigation finds that the alleged act did occur, but was justified, lawful
and/or proper
■ Not sustained: the investigation finds there is insufficient evidence to sustain the complaint
or fully exonerate the member
■ Sustained: the investigation discloses sufficient evidence that the act occurred and that it
constituted misconduct
Once again, the Grand jury found information for the public regarding the disposition of a Citizen
Complaint to be lacking in both content and consistency among the various law enforcement
agencies.
Appeals
The Grand Jury also concluded that Citizen Complaint procedures should provide some
mechanism for the citizen to appeal the results of an investigation. As noted above, a citizen must
be notified in writing within 30 days of the disposition of his/her complaint. An appeal process as
part of a law enforcement agency's Citizen Complaint procedure could be helpful in short -
June 16, 2016 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 11 of 15
Citizen Complaints
circuiting the need for further legal action. Consequently, the Grand Jury concludes that Citizen
Complaint procedures should include some mechanism for the citizen to appeal the result of the
investigation if the citizen disagrees with the disposition. Ideally, the appeal should include a
review by a body outside of the law enforcement agency. For example, the Novato Police
Department allows a complainant to appeal the results to the City Manager. The City Manager,
after reviewing the complaint, may forward the complaint to the Police Advisory and Review
Board for further review or investigation.8
Training, Compliance and Awareness
As noted above, all Marin County law enforcement agencies comply with the requirements of
California Penal Code Section 832.5, yet there is inconsistency in how policies and procedures are
presented to the public. As a result of the Grand Jury's site visits, website reviews, interviews
with police chiefs and Sheriff and reviews of the policy and procedure manuals, it became clear to
the Grand Jury that an important component missing in the Citizen Complaint process was
consistent training of all law enforcement officers and other personnel. The lack of uniformity in
training may explain the inconsistencies. This difference in knowledge of the process may account
for some inconsistencies in communicating the policies and procedures to the public.
The Grand Jury believes that law enforcement personnel, staff and volunteers should receive
regular training on the Citizen Complaint process. Personnel should know how to quickly locate
and access written complaint procedure instructions and be able to provide a citizen with whatever
forms are needed at the time of inquiry. In addition, all personnel should be welcoming and open
to accepting complaints. Law enforcement agency employees should also be familiar with where
such materials are located on the law enforcement agency website. Clear and accessible
communication with the public, whether in person, by phone or via website regarding anonymity,
investigative procedures, disposition and the appeal process should all be part of law enforcement
personnel training programs.
Transparency and Reporting
Complete transparency regarding the number of complaints and their disposition is also essential
to maintaining a climate of trust between law enforcement and the public. Even though the number
of complaints received by many Marin County law enforcement agencies tends to be few, they
should regularly report to their governing bodies the number of complaints received, the general
nature and their disposition. At a minimum, this reporting should be on an annual basis and should
also be available online.
8 Novato City Resolution 43-00
June 16, 2016 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 12 of 15
Citizen Complaints
CONCLUSION
In a report entitled Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve, 9 The United
States Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services wrote:
"It is imperative to not only have procedures in place for fairly and impartially accepting,
processing, and investigating complaints concerning allegations of employee misconduct
but also to inform all police employees and the public of that process. ... `An accessible,
fair, and transparent complaint process is the hallmark of police responsiveness to the
community'... It is incumbent on the police department to make its citizens aware that a
complaint process exists, how to file a complaint, and how the agency processes and
investigates complaints."
The Grand Jury believes that the majority of Marin County law enforcement members operate
within the rules of their profession, and recognize and respect the rights of citizens. However, the
need for a well-defined procedure for addressing those instances when that is not the case has been
affirmed by the results of the Grand Jury's investigation into the Citizen Complaint process. Clear
communication between Marin County law enforcement agencies and the citizenry regarding the
Citizen Complaint process is essential for it to be successful, beneficial to law enforcement and
not intimidating to the public.
FINDINGS
F1. Marin County law enforcement agencies have procedures for Citizen Complaints that
could act as deterrents to participation in the complaint process.
F2. Some Marin County law enforcement agencies employ procedures and admonitions that
have been held to be unconstitutional.
F3. Some Marin County law enforcement agencies' complaint procedures require face-to-face
contact with law enforcement officers, which may deter citizens from using the Citizen
Complaint process.
F4. Not all Marin County law enforcement agencies provide written policies, procedures and
Citizen Complaint forms in English and Spanish.
F5. Not all Marin County law enforcement agencies accept and investigate anonymous Citizen
Complaints.
F6. Information about and access to the Citizen Complaint procedure is difficult to find on
Marin County law enforcement agency websites.
F7. Marin County law enforcement agencies do not publish the number, the nature or the
disposition of Citizen Complaints.
9 U.S, Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, Standards and Guidelines for Internal
Affairs (2009)
June 16, 2016 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 13 of 15
Citizen Complaints
RECOMMENDATIONS
R1. Every Marin County law enforcement agency should have a clear and full description of
the law enforcement agency's policy and procedures for handling Citizen Complaints on
its website that is accessible by a direct link from the law enforcement agency's home page
to a clearly identified "Citizen Complaints" folder.
R2. All Marin County law enforcement agencies should accept the filing of Citizen Complaints
online.
R3. A clear and full description of the law enforcement agency's policy and procedures along
with forms for filing Citizen Complaints should be available to the public in the lobby of
each law enforcement agency.
R4. Written policies and procedures, as well as Citizen Complaint forms, should be available to
the public in English, Spanish and other languages appropriate to the community.
R5. Marin County law enforcement agency personnel should be trained in the agency's Citizen
Complaint policy and procedures in order to fully describe them to members of the public.
R6. All public -facing law enforcement personnel should present an open and welcoming
attitude to any inquiry about the Citizen Complaint process.
R7. No policy, procedure or form for handling Citizen Complaints should have any language
based in whole or in part on California Penal Code Section 148.6 and/or California Civil
Code of Civil Procedure Section 47.5, nor should a complainant be required to
acknowledge that they have read and understood such language.
R8. A person who initiates a Citizen Complaint should not be required to verify or certify the
contents of the complaint form.
R9. The identification of the complainant on the Citizen Complaint form should be optional.
R10. The signature of the complainant should not be required on the form.
R11_ Anonymous Citizen Complaints, and complaints initiated by minors, should be accepted
and investigated in accordance with the agency's procedures.
R12. Members of the public who desire information regarding a law enforcement agency's
policy, procedures and Citizen Complaint forms should not be required to discuss their
involvement, identity or situation before the materials are provided.
R13. All Marin County law enforcement agencies should incorporate within their policies and
procedures an appeal process that allows the complainant to appeal the disposition to an
entity outside of the law enforcement agency.
R14. Marin County law enforcement agencies should publish on their websites and annually
update the number, nature and disposition of Citizen Complaints.
June 16, 2016 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 14 of 15
Citizen Complaints
REQUEST FOR RESPONSES
Pursuant to California Penal Code §933.05, the Grand Jury requests responses as follows:
From the following governing bodies:
T +;.. ,1 F .7 .� %V 4 A4 Tj nr r r >+ ll `%`� lev
she Cies and Towns ofBelvedere, �.or�e l.�adera, aIrfax, Larks -u., .tea ...
Novato, Ross, San Anselmo, San Rafael, Sausalito and Tiburon: F1 — F7 and Rl — R14
The governing bodies indicated above should be aware that the comment or response of the
governing body must be conducted in accordance with California Penal Code §933(c) and subject
to the notice, agenda and open meeting requirements of the Brown Act.
From the following individual:
■ The Marin County Sheriff: F1 —F7 and RI —R14
The Grand Jury invites the following individuals to respond:
■ The Police Chiefs of Belvedere, Fairfax, Mill Valley, Novato, Ross, San Rafael,
Sausalito, Tiburon and Central Marin Police Authority: F1 — F7 and RI — R14
At the time of publication of this report, all website information was accurate as published.
Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code Section 929 requires
that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person
who provides information to the Civil Grand Jury. The California State Legislature has stated that it intends the
provisions of Penal Code Section 929 prohibiting disclosure of witness identities to encourage full candor in
testimony in Grand Jury investigations by protecting the privacy and confidentiality of those who participate in
any Civil Grand Jury investigation.
June 16, 2016 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 15 of 15
August 30, 2016
MAYOR GARY 0. PHILLIPS
VICE MAYOR KATE COLIN
COUNCILMENIBER IVI.ARIBET[i BUSIIEY
COUNCILMEMBER JOHN GANIBLIN
COUNCINIOLMBER ANDREW CUYUGAN MCCULLOUGH
CITY CLERK
415-485-3065
The Honorable Judge Kelly V. Simmons
Marin County Superior Court
P.O. Box 4988
San Rafael, CA 94913-4988
Honorable Judge Simmons:
Mr. Mann:
John Mann, Foreperson
Marin County Civil Grand Jury 2015/2016
3501 Civic Center Drive, Room #275
San Rafael, CA 94903
RE: 2015/2016 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Report: "Law Enforcement Citizen Complaint
Procedures — The Grand Jury has a few Complaints"
We are forwarding to you the following documents:
• A certified copy of Resolution No. 14181 adopted by the San Rafael City Council on
August 15, 2016, approving and authorizing the Mayor to execute the City's response;
• Original of the "Response to Grand Jury Report Form," executed by Mayor Phillips on August
24, 2016;
• Copy of the City Council Staff Report dated August 15, 2016
Should you need further assistance, please contact me at (415) 485-3065.
Sincerely,
/gst�-.� e -
ESTHER C. BEIRNE
City Clerk
cc: Gary O. Phillips, Mayor of the City of San Rafael
Jim Schutz, City Manager
Robert Epstein, City Attorney
Diana Bishop, Chief of Police
1400 FIMI AVENUE • PO Box 151560 • SAN RAFAEL. CA 94915-1560
W W W.CITYOFSANRAFAEL.ORG
RESOLUTION NO. 14181
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SAN RAFAEL APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL'S
RESPONSE TO THE 2015-2016 MARIN COUNTY CIVIL
GRAND JURY REPORT ENTITLED "LAW
ENFORCEMENT CITIZEN COMPLAINT PROCEDURES:
THE GRAND JURY HAS A FEW COMPLAINTS"
WHEREAS, pursuant to Penal Code section 933, a public agency which receives a Grand
Jury Report addressing aspects of the public agency's operations, must comment on the Report's
findings and recommendations contained in the Report in writing within ninety (90) days to the
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court with a copy to the Foreperson of the Grand Jury; and
WHEREAS, Penal Code section 933 specifically requires that the "governing body" of the
public agency provide said response and, in order to lawfully comply, the governing body must
consider and adopt the response at a noticed public meeting pursuant to the Brown Act; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Rafael has received and reviewed the
2015-2016 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Report, dated June 16, 2016, entitled "Law
Enforcement Citizen Complaint Procedures: The Grand Jury Has A Few Complaints" and has
agendized it at this meeting for a response.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San
Rafael hereby:
1. Approves and authorizes the Mayor to execute the City of San Rafael's response to
the 2015-2016 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Report entitled "Law Enforcement Citizen
Complaint Procedures: The Grand Jury Has A Few Complaints", a copy of which is attached
hereto.
2. Directs the City Clerk to forward the City's Grand Jury Report response to the
Presiding Judge of the Marin County Superior Court and to the Foreperson of the Marin County
Civil Grand Jury.
I, Esther Beirne, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the San Rafael
City Council held on August 15, 2016 by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers: Bushey, Colin, Gamblin, McCullough & Mayor Phillips
NOES: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
12
ESTHER C. BEIRNE, City Clerk
RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT FORM
Report Title: Law Enforcement Citizen Complaint Procedures: The Grand Jury Has A few
Complaints
Report Date: June 16, 2016
Public Release Date: June 23, 2016
Response By: Mayor Gary Phillips and San Rafael City Council
FINDINGS:
• We agree with the findings numbered: F2, F7
• We disagree wholly partially with the findings numbered: F1, F3 -F6
(See Attachment A)
RECOMMENDATIONS:
• Recommendations numbered R3 -R8, R11 and R12 have been implemented.
(See Attachment A)
• Recommendations numbered R1, R2, R9, R10 and R14 have not yet been implemented,
but will be implemented in the future.
(See Attachment A)
• Recommendation number R13 requires further analysis.
(See Attachment A)
Date: �)'��I 1 �O Signed:. r
Ga+0. Phi lips, Mayor
Attest: L2.,uc.0
Esther Beirne, City Clerk
Number of Pages Attached: 4
ATTACHMENT "A"
RESPONSE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL TO GRAND JURY REPORT
LAW ENFORCEMENT CITIZEN COMPLAINT PROCEDURES:
THE GRAND JURY HAS A FEW COMPLAINTS
FINDINGS
Fl. Marin County law enforcement agencies have procedures for Citizen Complaints that
could act as deterrents to participation in the complaint process.
Response: Disagree partially.
This finding is speculative as to the reaction of potential complainants. It is entirely plausible a
complainant might be deterred for a number of reasons, but the wording of finding suggests,the
procedures are purposeful in serving as deterrents.
F2. Some Marin County law enforcement agencies employ procedures and admonitions
that have been held to be unconstitutional.
Response: Agree.
F3. Some Marin County law enforcement agencies' complaint procedures require face-to-
face contact with law enforcement officers, which may deter citizens from using the Citizen
Complaint process.
Response: Disagree partially.
This finding is speculative as to the reaction of potential complainants. It is entirely plausible a
complainant might be deterred for a number of reasons, but the wording of finding suggests the
procedures are purposeful in serving as deterrents.
F4. Not all Marin County law enforcement agencies provide written policies, procedures
and Citizen Complaint forms in English and Spanish.
Response: Disagree partially.
The report did not expressly present or identify evidence to support this finding. The report
states on page 5, "In some cases, staff had to search a file cabinet to find written procedures or
forms. Other agencies had a description of the complaint process and complaint forms in both
English and Spanish displayed and available in their lobby." This statement does not directly
indicate whether any agencies did not have the forms available in Spanish.
F5. Not all Marin County law enforcement agencies accept and investigate anonymous
Citizen Complaints.
Response: Disagree partially.
The report did not expressly present or identify evidence to support this finding. The report
states on page 7, "The Central Marin Police Department states its policy as follows: "Officer
complaints require that you sign a statement acknowledging that it is a crime to make a false
complaint against an officer.", and on page 9, "The Mill Valley Police Department's Citizen
Complaint form, for instance, requires that the complainant sign a verification of the complaint's
contents." However, there is no evidence presented to indicate the complaints would not be
accepted or investigated.
F6. Information about and access to the Citizen Complaint procedure is difficult to find on
Marin County law enforcement agency websites.
Response: Disagree partially.
This statement does not apply to ALL Marin County law enforcement agencies.
F7. Marin County law enforcement agencies do not publish the number, the nature or the
disposition of Citizen Complaints.
Response: Agree.
RECOMMENDATIONS
R1. Every Marin County law enforcement agency should have a clear and full description
of the law enforcement agency's policy and procedures for handling Citizen Complaints on
its website that is accessible by a direct link from the law enforcement agency's home page
to a clearly identified "Citizen Complaints" folder.
Response: This recommendation has not been fully implemented, but will be implemented by
August 31, 2016.
The policies and procedures are currently available on the department's website, but not on the
home page.
R2. All Marin County law enforcement agencies should accept the filing of Citizen
Complaints online.
Response: This recommendation has not been implemented, but will be implemented in the
future. The online form will require additional staff resources to develop and implement.
R3. A clear and full description of the law enforcement agency's policy and procedures
along with forms for filing Citizen Complaints should be available to the public in the
lobby of each law enforcement agency.
Response: This recommendation has been implemented.
R4. Written policies and procedures, as well as Citizen Complaint forms, should be
available to the public in English, Spanish and other languages appropriate to the
community.
Response: This recommendation has been implemented.
R5. Marin County law enforcement agency personnel should be trained in the agency's
Citizen Complaint policy and procedures in order to fully describe them to members of the
public.
Response: This recommendation has been implemented
R6. All public -facing law enforcement personnel should present an open and welcoming
attitude to any inquiry about the Citizen Complaint process.
Response: This recommendation has been implemented
R7. No policy, procedure or form for handling Citizen Complaints should have any
language based in whole or in part on California Penal Code Section 148.6 and/or
California Civil Code of Civil Procedure Section 47.5, nor should a complainant be
required to acknowledge that they have read and understood such language.
Response: This recommendation has been implemented.
R8. A person who initiates a Citizen Complaint should not be required to verify or certify
the contents of the complaint form.
Response: This recommendation has been implemented
R9. The identification of the complainant on the Citizen Complaint form should be
optional.
Response: This recommendation has not been fully implemented, but will be implemented by
August 31, 2016.
The form does not clearly state "Optional" and requires revision to comply with the intent of this
recommendation.
R10. The signature of the complainant should not be required on the form.
Response: This recommendation has not been fully implemented, but will be implemented by
August 31, 2016.
The form contains a "Signature" line, but does not state that a signature is required. The form
requires revision to comply with the intent of this recommendation.
R11. Anonymous Citizen Complaints, and complaints initiated by minors, should be
accepted and investigated in accordance with the agency's procedures.
Response: This recommendation has been implemented.
R12. Members of the public who desire information regarding a law enforcement agency's
policy, procedures and Citizen Complaint forms should not be required to discuss their
involvement, identity or situation before the materials are provided.
Response: This recommendation has been implemented.
R13. All Marin County law enforcement agencies should incorporate within their policies
and procedures an appeal process that allows the complainant to appeal the disposition to
an entity outside of the law enforcement agency.
Response: This recommendation requires further analysis.
A potential appeals process may conflict with current State law as it applies to the Peace Officers
Bill of Rights (Government Code Sections 3300-3312).
R14. Marin County law enforcement agencies should publish on their websites and
annually update the number, nature and disposition of Citizen Complaints.
Response: This recommendation has not implemented, but will be implemented in the future.
The online form will require additional staff resources to develop and implement.
crrr of Agenda Item No: LAn. , h
Meeting Date: August 15, 2016
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Department: Police P�
Prepared by: Diana Bishop City Manager Approval:
Chief of Police
TOPIC: Response to the Grand Jury Report on Citizen Complaint Procedures
SUBJECT: Consideration of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Rafael
Approving and Authorizing the Mayor to Execute the City of San Rafael Response
to the 2015-2016 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Report Entitled "Law
Enforcement Citizen Complaint Procedures: The Grand Jury Has A Few
Complaints"
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution approving the proposed response
to the Grand Jury report and authorizing the Mayor to execute the response.
BACKGROUND:
The 2015-2016 Marin County Civil Grand Jury has issued its report dated June 16, 2016 entitled "Law
Enforcement Citizen Complaint Procedures: The Grand Jury Has A Few Complaints." (See Attachment
B) The Grand Jury has requested a response from all the cities and towns in Marin and the Central
Marin Police Authority. The City of San Rafael has been requested to respond to Findings Fl -F7 and
Recommendations R1 -R14. The Grand Jury's findings and recommendations are set out on pages
thirteen and fourteen (13 and 14) of the fifteen (15) page report.
The Grand Jury recommends that all law enforcement agencies in Marin County do the following:
• Every Marin County law enforcement agency should have a clear and full description of the law
enforcement agency's policy and procedures for handling Citizen Complaints on its website that
is accessible by a direct link from the law enforcement agency's home page to a clearly identified
"Citizen Complaints" folder.
• All Marin County law enforcement agencies should accept the filing of Citizen Complaints
online.
FOR CITY CLERK ONLY
File No.:
Council Meeting: 08/16/2016
Disposition: Resolution
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2
• A clear and full description of the law enforcement agency's policy and procedures along with
forms for filing Citizen Complaints should be available to the public in the lobby of each law
enforcement agency.
• Written policies and procedures, as well, as Citizen Complaint forms, should be available to the
public in English, Spanish and other languages appropriate to the community.
• Marin County law enforcement agency personnel should be trained in the agency's Citizen
Complaint policy and procedures in order to fully describe them to members of the public.
• All public -facing law enforcement personnel should present an open and welcoming attitude to
any inquiry about the Citizen Complaint process.
• No policy, procedure or form for handling Citizen Complaints should have any language based
in whole or in part on California Penal Code Section 148.6 and/or California Civil Code of Civil
Procedure Section 47.5, nor should a complainant be required to acknowledge that they have
read and understood such language.
• A person who initiates a Citizen Complaint should not be required to verify or certify the
contents of the complaint form.
• The identification of the complainant on the Citizen Complaint form should be optional.
• The signature of the complainant should not be required on the form.
• Anonymous Citizen Complaints, and complaints initiated by minors, should be accepted and
investigated in accordance with the agency's procedures.
• Members of the public who desire information regarding a law enforcement agency's policy,
procedures and Citizen Complaint forms should not be required to discuss their involvement,
identity or situation before the materials are provided.
• All Marin County law enforcement agencies should incorporate within their policies and
procedures an appeal process that allows the complainant to appeal the disposition to an entity
outside of the law enforcement agency.
• Marin County law enforcement agencies should publish on their websites and annually update
the number, nature and disposition of Citizen Complaints.
ANALYSIS:
As more fully set forth in the proposed response to the Grand Jury (see exhibit to attached Resolution),
Staff agrees with Grand Jury Findings F2 and F7. Staff partially disagrees with Finding F1, and F3 -F6.
Staff has implemented Recommendations R3 -R8, R11 and R12 regarding citizen complaint procedures.
Staff is in the process of implementation of Recommendation R1, R2, R9, R10 and R14 regarding
citizen complaint procedures. Recommendation R13 requires further analysis because a citizen
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Paae: 3
complaint appeals process may conflict with current State law as it applies to the Peace Officers Bill of
Rights (Government Code Sections 3300-3312).
The City is required to respond to the Grand Jury Report. Penal Code Section 933 states in part:
"No later than 90 days after the Grand Jury submits a final report ... the governing body of the
public agency shall comment to the presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and
recommendations... [contained in the report]."
To comply with this statute, the City's response to the Grand Jury report must be approved by
Resolution of the City Council and submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Marin County Superior Court
and the Foreperson of the Grand Jury by September 14, 2016. Attachment A is a Resolution that would
approve the City's proposed response.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
OPTIONS:
The City is required to respond, however, the Council could make changes to the proposed response and
then adopt the Resolution and revised response. Alternatively, the Council could return the response to
staff for further response and return to the Council at a later meeting.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution approving the proposed response
to the Grand Jury report and authorizing the Mayor to execute the response.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Resolution with attached proposed response
B. Grand Jury report dated June 16, 2016
ROUTING SLIP / APPROVAL FORM
INSTRUCTIONS: Use this cover sheet with each submittal of a staff report before approval
by the City Council. Save staff report (including this cover sheet) along
with all related attachments in the Team Drive (T:) --> CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEMS 4 AGENDA ITEM APPROVAL PROCESS 4 [DEPT -
AGENDA TOPIC]
Agenda Item #
Date of Meeting: 8/15/2016
From: Chief Diana Bishop
Department: Police
Date: 8/1/2016
Topic: Response to the Grand Jury Report on citizen complaint procedures.
Subject: Consideration of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Rafael Approving
and Authorizing the Mayor to Execute the City of San Rafael Response to the 2015-2016 Marin County
Civil Grand Jury Report Entitled "Law Enforcement Citizen Complaint Procedures: The Grand Jury Has
A Few Complaints"
Type: ® Resolution ❑ Ordinance
❑ Professional Services Agreement ❑ Other:
APPROVALS
® Finance Director
Remarks: MM- approved
® City Attorney
Remarks: LG -Approved 8/4/16 with minor revisions.
® Author, review and accept City Attorney / Finance changes
Remarks:
® City Manager
Remarks:
