185 / 260
Police Operations and Data Analysis Report, Morgan Hill, California
47
of three categories; formal, informal, and incomplete. The policy further identifies “formal”
complaints as that conduct where the complaining party requests further investigation or one in
which a department supervisor determines that further action is warranted. Formal complaints are
to be documented on a personnel complaint form. Formal complaints may be investigated by a
supervisor or referred for an administrative investigation depending on the seriousness and
complexity of the investigation. Complaints are deemed as informal where the complaining party is
satisfied that appropriate action has been taken by a department supervisor; documentation of
such inquiries or complaints on a personnel complaint form is at the discretion of the handling
supervisor. Incomplete complaints are those where the complaining party fails to cooperate or
becomes unavailable after diligent follow-up. Public inquiries about employee conduct that does
not meet the above definition do not qualify as a personnel complaint.
“Formal” complaints are forwarded to the Special Operations captain, who reviews the complaint
and determines the appropriate course of action. If the complaint is assigned to a supervisor for
further investigation and the complainant is satisfied with the department action, the resulting
documentation is reviewed by the employee’s chain of command. A numbered informational
template is attached to the documentation and it is filed in the department’s “Citizen Concerns” file.
The Special Operations captain uses an Excel spreadsheet to track and purge appropriate “Citizen
Concern” documents as required. MHPD’s Executive Information Services (EIS) has a module
available for tracking complaints and administrative investigations, however, up until this point, it
has not been utilized for this purpose. Rather, the department has attempted to use LEA tracking
software, which it has found too difficult and cumbersome to utilize. The EIS systems functionality
is being evaluated at present. The existence and utilization of the “Citizen Concern” process is not
documented in the department complaint policy. Policy or practice should be revised to ensure
consistency.
If the Special Operations captain determines the complaint requires an administrative
investigation, the case is assigned to the administrative sergeant or another available sergeant. All
MHPD sergeants have received training in conducting administrative investigations. The concerned
officer is notified of the investigation and the potential charges. When the sergeant completes the
investigation, the case is submitted to the Special Operations captain for review along with findings
determined by the investigating sergeant.
The practice of the objective fact finder determining the findings of a case creates a potential for
conflict and can impact objectivity. The practice of an officer’s team sergeant conducting the
investigation further complicates any attempts at neutrality. From a practical standpoint, assigning
administrative investigations to line sergeants has benefits for MHPD’s development of future
department leaders: however, the professional standards position discussed above would provide
management a buffer to these noted concerns.
If the captain determines the investigation is complete and agrees with the findings, he convenes a
discipline review panel if warranted. This panel, whose existence is not contained in policy, consists
of the Field Operations captain and designated sergeants. This panel discusses potential discipline
and provides a recommendation to the Chief of Police. The case is forwarded to the Chief, who can