EARNING TRUST
Addressing police misconduct complaints in Connecticut

Earning Trust
Addressing police misconduct complaints in Connecticut
A report of the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut
Credits
The research for this report was conducted by Lillian McKenzie and Rachel Spears under the
guidance and supervision of David McGuire and Meghan Smith. The report was compiled,
edited, and written by Meghan Smith and David McGuire, with assistance from Dan Barrett.
Melvin Medina assisted in the development of the survey tool.

American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut
765 Asylum Avenue
Hartford, CT 06105
860.523.9146
info@acluct.org
www.acluct.org

EARNING TRUST
Addressing police misconduct complaints in Connecticut

I. Executive Summary ..........................................................................

1

II. Executive Findings ..........................................................................

3

III. Background......................................................................................

4

IV. Methodology..................................................................................

6

V. Detailed Findings
Complaint Form Availability.................................................................

7

Complaint Form Protocols ..................................................................

9

Anonymous Complaints ..................................................................... 11
Complaint Policy Transparency ............................................................12
Reaching Departments ....................................................................... 14
Connecticut State Police ..................................................................... 15
VI. Analysis
POSTC Complaint Form ....................................................................... 16
POSTC Complaint Policy ....................................................................... 18
VII. Recommendations .............................................................................. 19
Appendix A: Survey Instrument ............................................................... 1A
Appendix B: Police Agency Responses ................................................... 1B
Appendix C: POSTC Complaint Policy and Form ..................................

1C

Appendix D: Connecticut Police Complaint Law ..................................

1D

EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
All communities deserve police who protect and respect all
people. Police deserve to work with and for colleagues who
are competent, worthy enforcers of the law and stewards of
public resources. Both of these complimentary goals demand
strong protocols for meaningfully accepting and addressing
complaints alleging police misconduct.
Good police complaint protocols ensure public accessibility, prevent intimidation of potential complainants,
and facilitate meaningful investigations of misconduct allegations. According to the expertise of civil rights
activists, academics, policy experts, community members, and law enforcement agencies,1 best practices
for police complaint policies include:
accepting all complaints, including those submitted anonymously, online, by mail, or by telephone;
making complaint forms and policies easily accessible to the public; and
removing barriers to complaint submissions, such as threats of retaliation against complainants or
notarization requirements for complainants' statements.
Connecticut state law requires all police agencies in the state, including municipal departments, state
police troops, and special agencies such as university departments, to adopt or exceed a model complaint
policy created by the Police Officer Standards and Training Council (POSTC). In addition, state law requires
all police agencies to make their complaint policies publicly available on their websites and at municipal
buildings separate from the departments themselves. Meanwhile, POSTC's model policy requires all police
employees to accept all complaints, including those submitted anonymously, online, by mail, or by
telephone; and prohibits retaliation against complainants and questions about complainants’ immigration
statuses during intake. POSTC's policy also created a statewide model complaint form, which POSTC
required departments to adopt or exceed and to make available online and at municipal buildings separate
from departments themselves.
These requirements are not simply suggestions for police agencies to take or leave. They are critically
important for building community trust in police, and they carry the weight of the law. During community
forums hosted by the ACLU-CT throughout the state, however, we heard from members of the public who
described a chilling disregard for these rules among some police agencies. These Connecticut residents
expressed concerns regarding notarization requirements, in-person and in-station filing requirements, and
lack of access to complaint forms outside of police stations.
Seeking to determine whether these frustrations were isolated incidents or indicators of more widespread
noncompliance with state law and policy, the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut conducted a
survey of police agencies throughout the state. Our findings are a troubling confirmation of community
members’ concerns.

1. See: The President's Task Force on 21st Century Policing, "Policy and Oversight, Submitted Oral & Written Testimony Received
by January 31, 2015," https://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce/01-30-2015/Invited_Testimony_January_30.pdf.
See Also: The International Association of Chiefs of Police, “Testimony of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Task
Force on 21st Century Policing Listening Session on Police Oversight,” January 30, 2015,
http://www.theiacp.org/Portals/0/documents/pdfs/IACPTestimonyListeningSessionPolicyandOversight.pdf.

1

EARNING TRUST

Despite reforms, many Connecticut police agencies still make it difficult for members of the public to
easily obtain basic, legally required information regarding complaint forms and processes. In some
cases, this lack of transparency violates state law, and it could prevent law enforcement agencies from
becoming the fair and just entities that communities and police deserve.
The problems that we discovered were widespread, and they were not unique to one type of department.
The police agencies that exhibited troubling complaint practices serve large and small towns throughout
the state. They include state police troops, municipal departments, and special agencies, and they include
departments with large and small workforces.
Among our findings:
• Forty of Connecticut’s law enforcement agencies have not clearly posted either or both their
department complaint form or complaint policy online, in direct contravention of state requirements.
• Unless pressed further, 43 percent of all agencies surveyed by phone claim that complaint forms are
only available at police stations—a violation of state policy.
• Many Connecticut police agencies continue to impose barriers to accepting police complaints, such as
refusing to accept or actively discouraging anonymous complaints, requiring complainants to submit
forms only at police stations, and mandating notarization of complaint forms.
• Forty two percent of all agencies surveyed by phone suggested that they are not complying with state
law requiring public access to complaint policies.
• Many Connecticut police agency representatives surveyed by phone could not answer questions, could
not be reached to answer questions, refused to answer questions, provided inaccurate information, or
contradicted information posted on departments’ websites.
• Sections of POSTC’s model policy and complaint form may exacerbate confusion and undermine the
complaint acceptance process in Connecticut.
These findings reveal a clear need for additional legislative action, both to make permanent the
improvements that Connecticut has made and address areas that continue to hinder police transparency
and accountability.
The Connecticut General Assembly should adopt legislation that:
Establishes meaningful penalties for law enforcement agencies that do not comply with state
complaint acceptance and investigation laws;
Improves POSTC's existing model complaint policy and adopts that revised version as state law;
Creates a standardized complaint form that is compliant with best practices and translated into all
commonly-spoken languages in Connecticut, to be used by all law enforcement agencies in the state;
Mandates complaint protocol training for all law enforcement agency personnel who interact with the
public.
Requires law enforcement agencies to track complaint data and to annually report specific complaint
information to the Connecticut Office of Policy and Management;
Establishing a transparent, accessible police complaint process is just the first step toward creating a
truly fair, just, and wise police force in Connecticut—one that lives up to the standards that the public
demands and that police departments should expect of themselves. With the right policies and laws in
place, Connecticut can create this system.

2

EARNING TRUST

EXECUTIVE FINDINGS
Connecticut law requires all police agencies to post their complaint policies online. Statewide police
policy requires all agencies to post complaint forms online and to accept anonymous complaints.
But, as of October 2016, this is what 102 police agencies had clearly posted on their websites:
Information on Police Agency Websites

40

1
million

departments had not clearly posted either or
both their complaint form or policy online--a
direct violation of state law and policy

people living in towns where police
departments are not complying with state
complaint law or policy

The ACLU-CT called 60 police agencies to learn more. Of those 60 agencies:
Violations of state law and policy:

43%

claimed that complaint forms were only
available at police stations

42%

suggested that they do not make complaint
policies fully available to the public

32%

stated or implied that they will not accept
anonymous complaints

"Where could a complainant find
[your complaint] policy?"

Police departments are violating state law and policy.
In the process, they are undermining public trust in police.
The Connecticut General Assembly should solve these problems by:

1

Establishing penalties for police agencies that do not comply with state complaint law

2

Creating a standardized complaint form to be used by all law enforcement
agencies in the state

3
3

EARNING TRUST

Requiring all law enforcement agencies to track & annually report
complaint data

BACKGROUND
In 2012, the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut (ACLU-CT) conducted a statewide survey of
police agency procedures for accepting community complaints of police misconduct. That survey
discovered widespread resistance and inconsistencies in police agencies’ approaches to accepting
complaints, as well as a chasm between Connecticut law enforcement agencies’ protocols and
national best practices. Prompted in part by that report, in 2014, the Connecticut General Assembly
passed a new law, Public Act No. 14-166, “An Act Concerning Complaints that Allege Misconduct by
Law Enforcement Agency Personnel” (Connecticut General Statutes § 7-294bb), to improve the police
complaint process.
That law, which passed both legislative chambers with broad bipartisan support and without a single
opposing vote in the Senate, tasked Connecticut’s Police Officer Standards and Training Council
(POSTC) with creating a model complaint policy. It also instructed POSTC to consider creating a
model complaint form. Although the law established specific issues for the statewide policy to
address, the legislature deferred to POSTC’s judgment regarding how to approach these
considerations. The law did, however, require all law enforcement agencies in the state to either
adopt or exceed POSTC’s ultimate policy, and to make their policies publicly available online and at a
municipal building other than the police department itself.
In 2015, POSTC released its guidance.
Among other requirements, POSTC's
policy mandated departments to: adopt
or exceed POSTC's model complaint
form; post complaint forms and
complaint policies online “where the
agency, or the municipality served by
the agency, has a website;” and to
accept all complaints, including those
submitted anonymously or by a third
party. POSTC's policy also required all
employees to assist people wishing to
file complaints, and required all
agencies to assign each complaint a
tracking number. Echoing state law,
POSTC also required departments to
adopt or exceed its policy. In a memo
dated May 15, 2015, Police Academy
Administrator Thomas E. Flaherty
notified all of Connecticut’s chief law
enforcement officers, training officers,
protective services, and resident
troopers of POSTC’s new policy and the
underlying state law.
Copies of the state police complaint law
and POSTC's model policy are available
in Appendices C and D of this report,
respectively.

4

EARNING TRUST

Complaint Form
Provides space for
complainant to describe
misconduct allegations
Used by public to spur
investigations
Used by police to investigate
complaints and address
personnel issues
State law required POSTC to
consider creating a model
form
POSTC created model form
POSTC policy requires police
agencies to adopt or exceed
model form
POSTC policy states police
agencies should make forms
available online & at
municipal building separate
from police department

Complaint Policy
Outlines police agency
protocols for accepting,
processing, and investigating
complaints
Used by police to train
personnel
Used by public to understand
how to file complaints &
what to expect during
complaint investigations
State law required POSTC to
create model policy
State law required police
agencies to adopt or exceed
POSTC model policy
State law required all
departments to make
policies available online & at
municipal building separate
from police department

What is POSTC?
Connecticut’s Police Officer Standards
and Training Council (POSTC) is a
seventeen member advisory panel of
the Department of Emergency Services
and Public Protection. Its mission
includes training Connecticut’s police
officers, adopting and enforcing
professional standards for police
officers, and developing and assessing
standards for local law enforcement
agencies. By design, the majority of
POSTC representatives are either
current or former members of law
enforcement, or individuals like
prosecutors or FBI officials, who
depend on local law enforcement in
order to carry out their work. Members
are not elected to their positions but
are appointed by the Governor.

These reforms were meant to better serve community
members and police alike. As the International Association of
1 Police has stated, “a police department must monitor
Chiefs of
its officer[s’] mistakes and misconduct to protect its interests
and reputation.”1Indeed, the state and individual complaint
policies were largely created by police; POSTC’s members are
mostly law enforcement officials, and Public Act No. 14-166
required each law enforcement agency to adopt or exceed
POSTC’s policy after consultation with police union officials.
These laws and policies can only affect change, however, when
they are implemented and enforced.
Understanding this, the ACLU-CT sought to examine how law
enforcement agencies have approached new police complaint
requirements. To do so, in October 2016, the ACLU-CT
conducted a survey of Connecticut police departments. We
focused our survey, as we did in 2012, on the crucial first steps
in the police complaint process: accepting complaints from
civilians. Only after making complaint information easily
available and instituting clear policies for accepting complaints
can police departments evaluate and address any deficiencies
in how they address those complaints.

1. The International Association of Chiefs of Police, “Building Trust Between the Police and the Citizens They Serve ,”
http://www.theiacp.org/portals/0/pdfs/buildingtrust.pdf
5

EARNING TRUST

METHODOLOGY
As a first step, the ACLU-CT visited the Connecticut state police website, as well as the websites of
all Connecticut law enforcement agencies required to report traffic stop data under the Alvin W. Penn
Racial Profiling Prohibition Act. Surveyors then assessed which sites included clearly posted, easily
available complaint policies and/or complaint forms, as required by state law and POSTC policy,
respectively. These criteria excluded some agencies in small towns that are supervised by resident state
troopers and local officers, as well as some specialized agencies.
That screening process showed that 40 percent of these agencies were not complying with state law or
POSTC’s posting requirements: 16 departments had clearly posted a complaint form, but not a complaint
policy; three had clearly posted a policy but no form; and 21 had clearly posted neither the form nor the
policy. One agency website yielded an ongoing error message, and its municipal website included neither a
clearly posted form nor policy.
The majority of agencies that failed to clearly post either or both the complaint form and policy were in
southwestern Connecticut—11 were in New Haven County, and 12 were in Fairfield County. In addition,
most municipal departments that failed to clearly post either or both the form or policy serve towns with
mid-to-large populations. Based upon the Connecticut Department of Public Health’s 2015 population
estimates, 26 departments that failed to clearly post either or both the form or policy serve towns that are
among the 75 largest cities in Connecticut. Combined, the municipal departments that failed to clearly post
either or both their complaint policies or forms serve a population of nearly one million people (953,837),
and the non-compliant universities together serve more than 10,000 students (10,982). The Metropolitan
Transportation Authority, meanwhile, states on its website that it serves a population of more than 14
million people.
Following this initial screening process, we selected agencies for in depth telephone interviews. The goal of
this survey was to examine police agencies’ compliance with state law and policy regarding police
complaints. We therefore turned our attention to the 40 police agencies that were missing one or both the
complaint form and policy, as well as the agency that had neither a functional website nor a municipal page
containing that information. Due to the size and scope of the jurisdictions they serve, we also included the
state’s twelve police troops and the municipal departments of the state’s ten most populous cities,
provided they were not already slated for follow-up. While these criteria limited the scope of our survey, we
believed that this mixture of compliant and non-compliant departments would provide a representative
sample of law enforcement agencies for the purposes of our research. Ultimately, these criteria narrowed
the pool of agencies for telephone surveys to 60: 45 municipal police departments, two universities, the
Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and 12 state police trooper barracks.
To complete these telephone surveys, two trained ACLU-CT volunteers, who varied in age and ethnic
background, called all 60 agencies’ non-emergency numbers. Volunteers called on two consecutive days in
October 2016, during the normal business hours of 9 a.m. through 5 p.m. Callers began by informing the
agency representatives that their calls were for a research project, and that they were not seeking to file a
complaint. They proceeded by asking eight questions from a script (the survey instrument is available in
Appendix A). In order to double-check the initial screening process, that script included an opportunity for
agencies to help callers find complaint forms and policies online. Following each call, volunteers noted the
call length, number of holds and transfers, whether the call required navigation through automated
messages or voicemails, and the general demeanor of agency representatives.
The ACLU-CT’s survey and this subsequent report were not meant to entrap law enforcement agencies,
nor was our survey meant to be scientific or comprehensive in its examination of the police complaint
process. Rather, our goal was to better understand the current status of the initial steps in the police
complaint process in Connecticut, in light of changes to state law. A detailed summary of findings for each
survey question follows. A chart outlining survey responses is available in Appendix B.

6

EARNING TRUST

COMPLAINT
FORM
AVAILABILITY
Unless pressed further, 43 percent of all agencies surveyed
claimed that complaint forms were only available at police
stations.
POSTC’s complaint policy requires all police agencies to either adopt or improve upon its model form and
to make their complaint forms available in a municipal building separate from the police department. The
policy also states that agencies “should” place these forms on their websites.
Survey question: Is there a form to fill out?
Volunteers therefore began their scripts by asking if agencies had complaint forms. Nearly two-thirds of
agencies surveyed (65 percent, or 39 agencies total) stated that they did. Two agency representatives stated
“I believe so,” one said “probably,” one said “come in [to the station],” and one did not know. Southington
responded that there was not a form and that someone would need to come in to the station; Weston stated
that there was not a form and that someone would need to either come in or call the station; Thomaston
answered that there was not a form and that someone would need to submit a complaint by writing.
Survey question: Where can someone filing a complaint find the form? Would they have to come into the
police station, or is there somewhere else they can pick it up?
The survey next asked where someone could find the agency's police complaint form. In direct violation of
POSTC requirements, 43 percent of agencies surveyed (26 total) responded only that it was available at the
station/barracks. Two agencies with clearly posted online forms responded only that the complaint form
was available online. Two other agencies said that a form was available at the station or over the phone;
three replied that it was available at the station or by mail; one answered that it was available at the station
and “maybe the town hall.”
Survey question: Is the form available online?
Volunteers then asked agencies if the forms were available online. This direct question offered agencies a
second opportunity to clarify whether they were compliant with POSTC policy. It is unclear, however,
whether a typical caller would ask about complaint form availability with this level of specificity, or if
callers would instead have more general inquiries about where to find complaint forms.
In response to this direct question, less than one third of agencies (17 total) stated that the form was
available online. Meanwhile, in violation of POSTC’s policy, thirty percent of agencies surveyed indicated
that their forms were either not yet or not at all available online (Ansonia, Bridgeport, Clinton, Metropolitan
Transportation Authority, New Britain, Norwalk, Norwich, Plymouth, Seymour, Southington, Suffield,
Thomaston, Weston, Windsor, and Wolcott). Of these, Thomaston and Weston had indicated earlier that
they did not have a form at all.

7

EARNING TRUST

Troublingly, seven departments that stated that they did not have forms available online (Bridgeport,
Clinton, New Britain, Norwalk, Norwich, Plymouth, and Putnam) did in fact have forms available on their
websites. Similarly, volunteers were unable to locate Orange’s complaint form online, despite the agency’s
assertion that the form was available there. These discrepancies suggest that representatives were either
uncertain of complaint protocols or attempting to mislead callers. Regardless of the root causes, each
disparity between a department's website and its representative's response raises serious concerns about
whether potential complainants would also receive misinformation, which could lead to complainants
becoming confused or discouraged.
Ten department representatives did not know the answer to this question. Included in these ten is
Middletown, where a representative initially responded, “I don’t think so. I don’t look at our website,” but
later went online with the caller to find the form on the agency’s page. A representative for Western
Connecticut State University, which did have a form available online, responded: “I don't know. I should
know this."

8

EARNING TRUST

20
15
10
5

on
ly

In
-s
ta
tio
n

"P
re
fe
r"
st
at
io
n
St
at
io
n
op
tio
na
l

More than one in ten agencies surveyed require complaint forms
to be notarized. Nearly one in four requires complainants to
submit complaints at police stations.

Un
su
re

0
De
pe
nd
s

COMPLAINT
FORM
PROTOCOLS

Does a complainant have to come into the station to submit a
complaint form?

On the issue of notarization, the POSTC policy sends mixed signals. While the policy does not use the word
“notarization,” it does say that departments “may” place complainants “under oath,” and that complainants
may be “requested to sign the complaint after reading or having it read to them [sic] the warning for
perjury or false statement.” If a complainant does not sign under oath, POSTC says, departments may
“note” the refusal on the complaint. In keeping with this policy, POSTC’s standardized complaint form
includes space for a notarized signature, next to language warning complainants that they may be arrested
if their statements prove false. As the U.S. Department of Justice has explained, however, notarization
requirements, particularly when paired with threats of prosecution, can have a chilling effect on the
public's willingness and ability to file police complaints.
Survey question: Does a citizen complaint need to be
notarized to be accepted?
We therefore asked agencies if a complaint form needed to be
notarized in order for the agency to accept it. Troublingly, eight
departments (Ansonia, Eastern Connecticut State University,
Plainville, Plymouth, Seymore, Thomaston, Trumbull, and
Windsor) stated outright that they require notarization.
One third of agencies surveyed (20 total) said no, but their
clarifications at times suggested otherwise. Middletown, for
instance, encouragingly said that it did not require notarization,
but disappointingly said that complainants would need to
"swear to it [a complaint]" and "then we sign." Similarly,
Redding and Clinton indicated that they did not require
notarization, but that complainants would need to deliver a
sworn statement to be "signed in front of an officer" (Redding)
or that they took the signatures of the complainant and
department employee receiving the complaint (Clinton). Groton
stated that notarization was required "sometimes at some
departments." The agency's representative went on to say that
he did not believe the department required notarization, but
that a complainant "must sign that it's the truth." Guilford said
that it did not require notarization, but that a complaint would
be "more credible" if notarized. It therefore appears as if some
departments that technically do not mandate notarization may
still impose onerous signature requirements on complainants.
9

EARNING TRUST

Notarization
Is:
Verification by a
Notary Public
that someone's
signature is
genuine, a
document is
real, and that
the signatory
acted without
duress or
intimidation
A known
obstacle for
people wishing
to file police
complaints

Is Not:
Proof that a
statement is
true
Necessary in
police
complaint
intake

Other agencies did not provide a clear "yes" or "no" response when asked about notarization, but strongly
suggested that they required it. Bridgeport, for instance, responded that a "sergeant signs off" on
complaints. Norwich asserted: "get [the form], fill it out, and we will sign." Three [New Canaan, Stamford,
and] asserted that it "depends." Stamford noted that "depending on severity, you have to sign a written
statement."
Survey question: Does a complainant have to come into the station to submit the form?
Volunteers next asked if complaints must be filed at the
department’s station. Encouragingly, fourteen agencies
stated that someone did not need to submit a complaint
at the station, although one (Weston) later indicated that
the agency “like[s] to handle [complaints] in person.” In
violation of the statewide model policy, however, more
departments (28 percent, or 17 total) stated either that
complainants must submit forms at the station (Ansonia,
Bridgeport, Clinton, New Britain, New Canaan, Norwalk,
Norwich, Seymour, Southington, Stamford, Suffield,
Thomaston, Trumbull, Willimantic, and Windsor) or that
they “would prefer” in-station complaints (Eastern
Connecticut State University and Plainville).
Eastern Connecticut State University’s representative
elaborated that the agency “would like them to, because
we don’t want a false complaint. [Complainants] must
swear it’s the truth.” Norwich stated: “You have to come
in and get it. You have to turn it in to a supervisor
anyway.” Norwalk reiterated that it did not use complaint
forms by stating that someone would need to come in to
the station, as “we don’t give out forms.” Similarly,
Southington required complainants to come in to the
station, as it did not have forms.

"We don't give out [complaint] forms."
- Norwalk Police Department
"The use of a standardized form to record
complaints shall be implemented..."
- Police Officer Standards and Training
Council, Mandatory Uniform Policy
"I don't try to tell people to go online
and file complaints against me."
- Bristol Police Department
"All employees will assist those who
express a desire to lodge complaints
against any member of the agency. This
includes ... providing complaint form(s)
and/or complaint filing information and/or
giving instructions as to where the
complaint forms may be obtained."
- Police Officer Standards and Training
Council, Mandatory Uniform Policy

Two agencies (Bristol and Guilford) were unsure whether they required in-station complaints. Bristol’s
uncertainty, however, seemed to indicate uncooperativeness, as the agency representative stated: “I don’t
try to tell people to go online and file complaints against me.” The Connecticut State Police centralized
public information officer responded that the state police do “not always” require complainants to submit
complaints in-barracks.
Survey question: (If no in-station filing requirement) Is there another way? Could they mail or email it?
Of the departments that did not require in-station submissions, only one (Western Connecticut State
University) indicated that someone could file a complaint via any avenue (as it stated, a complainant could
use “anything you want” to file, including mail and email). Seven departments (Groton Long Point, Guilford,
Orange, Plainville, Putnam, Thomaston, and Wolcott) said that someone could submit a complaint by mail,
and two (the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Stamford) said that someone could submit by
phone. Redding stated that someone could submit by mail or phone; three departments (Hartford,
Middletown, and Plymouth) stated that someone could submit via mail or email; and three (Danielsonbased Troop D, North Haven, and Weston), stated that someone could submit online, although Weston, as
discussed earlier, stated that it would prefer to handle complaints in-person.

"You have to come in and get it." - Norwich Police Department

"The complaint policy and forms should be made available online."
- Police Officer Standards and Training Council, Mandatory Uniform Policy

10

EARNING TRUST

ANONYMOUS
COMPLAINTS
In violation of state policy, at least 14 agencies will not
accept anonymous complaints. Additional agencies
surveyed may accept, but not honor, anonymous
complaints.

"What's the point, you know?"
- Bridgeport Police
Department
"Then it's not a complaint."
- Norwich Police Department
"At some point, it's not taken
with much heart."
- Bristol Police Department

In keeping with national law enforcement best practices, Connecticut’s state model policy requires
departments to accept anonymous complaints of police misconduct.
Survey question: Could someone fill out the form anonymously?
Seventeen agencies surveyed said that someone could anonymously file a complaint and did not suggest
otherwise. Nearly one quarter of all agencies surveyed (14 total), however, either directly or indirectly
contravened state policy requiring acceptance of anonymous complaints. Nine stated outright that they
would not accept anonymous complaints (Bethel, Bridgeport, Clinton, New Britain, New Haven, Norwalk,
Norwich, Thomaston, and Willimantic). For example, Norwich replied, “No, then it’s not a complaint.”
Bridgeport responded, “No, what’s the point, you know?”
Five agencies surveyed suggested that anonymous complaints would not be taken seriously or as seriously
as other complaints (Bristol, Groton Long Point, Orange, Plymouth, and Western Connecticut State
University). Bristol, for instance, stated that someone could submit anonymously, “but at some point it’s
not taken with much heart.” Groton Long Point stated that it would accept anonymous complaints, but that
an anonymous complaint “lacks substance.” Plymouth’s representative answered that there was “nothing
to follow up on” with an anonymous complaint, then stated: “I've never filled one out or looked at one, so I
don't know." Orange said that it would accept anonymous complaints, but that they would have a “different
weight.” Stamford responded that “it depends.” The same department requested our volunteer’s full name
and responded “that’s it?” when she provided her first, casting doubt as to whether complainants’
anonymity would be respected.
On the issue of accepting anonymous complaints, Connecticut’s state policy is unequivocal: police
departments must accept all complaints, anonymous or otherwise. Departmental uncertainty or blatant
disregard for this requirement is therefore cause for alarm. It is also particularly concerning that even
large departments with clearly posted forms and policies online, such as Norwalk and New Haven,
suggested that they will not accept anonymous complaints.

"Anonymous and third party complaints will be accepted."
-Police Officer Standards and Training Council, Mandatory Uniform Policy

11

EARNING TRUST

COMPLAINT
POLICY
TRANSPARENCY

Where could a complainant find [your complaint] policy?

Ask supervisor
5%
Not Public
12%

Forty two percent of surveyed agencies' responses contravened
state law requiring public, online access to complaint policies.

Upon Request
5%
In-station
5%
Don't know
12%

FOI
13%
No Response
38%

"Can't reveal"
2%
Online
8%

State law stipulates, and POSTC’s policy reiterates, that police agencies must post complaint policies on
their websites, or on the corresponding municipal website if a department does not have its own. In
addition, state law and POSTC’s policy require departments to make their complaint policies available at
municipal buildings other than those housing police stations. These complaint policies, which are supposed
to outline agencies' protocols for accepting and investigating complaints, are separate from the forms used
to file complaints. Volunteers therefore asked each department if it had a written policy regarding
complaints, and where to find those policies.
Survey question: Do you have a written policy about citizen complaints and the complaint investigation
process?
In response to the survey question regarding whether the department had a written complaint policy, 45
percent of agencies surveyed (27 total) asserted that they had written policies. In addition, Suffield and
Thomaston were unsure but stated that they believed there was a policy, and New Haven’s representative
was unaware of a policy but stated that the department had procedures. Six departments did not know if
they had policies.
Survey question: Where could a complainant find that policy?
Agencies’ responses were more troubling, however, when asked about public access to complaint policies.
State law is unequivocal: each agency must post its complaint policy on its website or on a municipal
website, in addition in addition to making the policy available at a municipal building other than the police
department.
Out of all agencies surveyed, only six mentioned online access: Middletown, New Canaan (which was
“pretty sure” it was online), North Haven, Woodbridge, the centralized state police public information
officer, and Groton Long Point (whose representative was unsure if the policy was online yet, but said that a
member of the public “could be provided with a copy no problem”). Groton Long Point’s representative was
correct—its policy was not available online. Neither, however, were North Haven or Woodbridge’s policies,
despite their assertions to the contrary.
Forty two percent of all agencies surveyed (25 departments total) responded in ways that contravene state
law. Three departments (Seymour, West Haven, and Winchester-Winsted) indicated only that their policies
were available upon request. Five (Plymouth, Putnam, Clinton, Hartford, and Trumbull) stated that a
member of the public would need to go into the station or ask a manager for a copy. Later, Hartford’s

12

EARNING TRUST

representative stated that “a lot of policies are not” online, then directed the caller to a brochure on the
department’s website. While directing the caller, the Hartford representative noted that the department
was required to file a yearly report regarding complaints, due to a settlement in a civil rights lawsuit.
Danielson-based Troop D stated that the policy was at the barracks, but the agency representative was
unsure whether it was public information. Bethany-based Troop I stated that it could “not reveal that
information,” but that the caller could call central barracks. New Haven's representative, who earlier
stated that he did not believe the department had a complaint policy, asserted that he
did not believe the policy was online. The department policy, however, was online.
Of the 25 agencies that responded in ways that contravened state law, fourteen (23 percent of all agencies
surveyed) indicated that their policies were either completely unavailable to the public or available through
a freedom of information (FOI) request. Six agency representatives asserted that their department
complaint policies were completely inaccessible for members of the public: Ansonia, Bridgeport,
Bristol, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Orange, and Stamford. Stamford’s website, however,
does include its policy.
There was also a disturbing trend of departments citing FOI laws when asked about access to complaint
policies. Eight departments (Eastern Connecticut State University, Guilford, Norwich, Plainville, Suffield,
Western Connecticut State University, Windsor, and Wolcott) mentioned FOI requests when asked about
access to complaint policies. As Wolcott stated, “it’s internal,” and therefore “available [via] freedom of
information.” Or, as Guilford stated, in a response that demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the
complaint process and a disturbing attitude toward members of the public, the department’s policy is
available via FOI request because, “It’s not all public. We don’t want the bad guys to know how we
operate.”
Few everyday members of the public are aware of FOI laws, let alone able or willing to navigate the FOI
request process. An available-by-FOI-only policy violates state law and creates unnecessary impediments
to transparency.

"It's not all public. We don't want the bad guys to know how we operate."
- Guilford Police Department

"Each law enforcement agency shall make its policy available to the public and shall
ensure that: A) Copies of the policy are available at the town hall or another municipal
building...other than a municipal building in which the law enforcement agency is located,
and B) the policy is available on the law enforcement agency's Internet web site or the
Internet web site of the municipality served by the law enforcement agency."
- Connecticut General Statutes § 7-294bb

13

EARNING TRUST

REACHING DEPARTMENTS
HOLD TIMES, TRANSFERS, AND AUTOMATED SYSTEMS
Only two agencies include “filing a complaint” as an option in their automated answering systems.
In an effort to gain a clear understanding of the initial police complaint process, during telephone surveys,
volunteers recorded the time that it took to reach an agency representative, as well as the length of each
phone call. Lengthy wait times or complicated telephone systems—or, on the other end of the spectrum,
abrupt hang-ups or dropped calls—can create barriers to filing complaints.
In the cases of 36 agencies, volunteers were able to reach a person immediately (in five seconds or less) or
in one minute one second or less. Volunteers were able to reach 14 agencies’ representatives within two
minutes. Outliers included: Hartford, where it took the caller eight minutes and 50 seconds to reach a
person; Middlebury, where a volunteer was unable to reach a person for three minutes; Stamford, where it
took four minutes to reach a person; and Danbury, where it took five minutes and 43 seconds for the caller
to reach a person.
Slightly more than half (32) of the law enforcement agencies surveyed used automated systems, which
volunteers navigated in order to complete their calls. Only two agencies’ automated systems (Middlebury
and Willimantic) included filing a complaint as an option for callers.
Twenty-seven agencies placed volunteers on hold at least once, with most hold times lasting less than two
minutes. Outliers in this area included: Plainville and Stamford, which kept volunteers on hold for three
minutes each; Suffield, which placed the caller on hold for three minutes and 30 seconds; and Guilford,
which placed the caller on hold once for one minute and a second time for three minutes. Hartford placed
the caller on hold twice, once for three minutes and 33 seconds, and once for four minutes and 31 seconds.
Similarly, Danbury placed volunteers on hold four times: twice during the initial call, and twice during the
follow-up call, with waits ranging from nine seconds to one minute and 25 seconds. Trumbull utilized its
hold system more than any other department, as it placed volunteers on hold six times, with waits ranging
from 41 seconds to one minute and 37 seconds.
Thirteen agencies transferred calls straight to voicemail boxes, which required follow-up calls. Nine of
these (Monroe, Naugatuck, New Milford, Newtown, North Branford, Ridgefield, Rocky Hill, Waterbury,
Waterford) also forwarded the follow-up caller to voicemail.

AGENCIES FROM WHICH CALLERS COULD NOT OR DID NOT GATHER INFORMATION
Callers were unable to reach 12 agencies.
As in our 2012 report, some law enforcement agencies were unable to provide volunteers with answers,
directed the volunteers to voicemail boxes, ended the call abruptly or rushed the volunteer off of the phone,
or hung up. At times, this resulted in callers being able to gather partial, but not complete, survey
responses from certain departments.
In other instances, callers were unable to reach a person at all. In each of these situations, volunteers
attempted to reach the agency a second time.

14

EARNING TRUST

Agencies reached by phone after first or second attempt:
Ultimately, there were 12 agencies from which we could not
collect telephone survey data, because our callers were unable to obtain Unreachable
20%
answers during either of their attempts to gather information:
Brookfield, Danbury, Middlebury, Monroe, Naugatuck, New Milford,
Newtown, Ridgefield, Rocky Hill, Waterbury, Waterford, and West Haven.
This is the second time that Monroe proved inaccessible, as ACLU-CT
surveyors were also unable to gather information from the department in
2012.

The absence of information from these agencies is itself cause for alarm,
as it suggests that concerned residents would be similarly frustrated in
attempts to learn how to file complaints. Indeed, there is anecdotal
Reached
evidence from Waterbury to support this assessment. During public
80%
forums, the ACLU-CT heard from Waterbury residents who had
encountered difficulty navigating the department’s complaint process.
During our first call to Waterbury, our volunteer was transferred to the front desk, which transferred her
elsewhere, upon which she was disconnected. She called the community relations department, which told
her to call internal affairs to speak with a sergeant. She called the sergeant and encountered his voicemail.
In our second attempt to contact Waterbury, our volunteer called the front desk, which transferred her to
the voicemail of a lieutenant in the internal affairs department. She attempted to call him a second time
and again only reached his voicemail.
As discussed in the methodology section of this report, our telephone survey was limited to 60 law
enforcement agencies, which we selected in order to create a representative sample of police practices
throughout the state. We selected some of these agencies, such as state police departments and large
municipal departments, solely based on the sizes of their populations served, as their websites showed
that they had clearly posted both their complaint forms and policies online, in accordance with state law
and policy. Even some of these agencies, however, contravened state law in their telephone survey
responses. This raises serious questions about practices at other agencies that are complying with website
posting requirements but were not selected for telephone survey calls. Future studies would likely benefit
from including these agencies, in order to gain a broader understanding of police complaint practices
throughout the state.

15

EARNING TRUST

CONNECTICUT
STATE POLICE
State police showed signs of improvement, but lack consistency in responses to questions about the
complaint process.
We have included state police responses throughout the detailed findings of this report. Due to the scope of
the state police system in Connecticut, however, it is worth describing some key findings regarding state
police as a group.
When surveyed by the ACLU-CT in 2012, state police were particularly hostile and uncooperative. In this
area, state police showed signs of improvement.
As in 2012, however, callers encountered inconsistencies and contradictions between state police troops’
survey answers. Encouragingly, the vast majority of state police troops directed callers to dial the
centralized state police public information officer at some point during the telephone survey. Two, however
(Bethany-based Troop I and Danielson-based Troop D), did not. In addition, the points at which state police
troops redirected callers varied.
Furthermore, some state police representatives responded to survey questions with answers reflecting
state law and POSTC’s model policy, but there was not uniformity between barracks on this point. For
example, Montville-based Troop E told the surveyor that a complainant would need to travel to the police
barracks in order to file a complaint, while all other troops either instructed the caller to dial the
centralized public information officer or stated that there was a complaint form available.

15

EARNING TRUST

POSTC
COMPLAINT
FORM

"Some disincentives to reporting
complaints are inherent within
complaint forms themselves."
-International Chiefs of Police
Association

The POSTC “uniform civilian complaint report” form is not
compliant with best practices and may undermine the complaint
process in Connecticut.
As the purpose of this report was to gain insight regarding the initial steps of the police complaint process
in Connecticut, the ACLU-CT also analyzed POSTC’s uniform “civilian complaint report,” the form that the
council created to complement its complaint policy. In addition to simply accessing information regarding
how to file a complaint, these forms are often one of the first entry points to the complaint process.
What we discovered was disturbing. POSTC’s model complaint form may sow confusion among police and
members of the public alike, and it includes sections that may impede acceptance or reception of
complaints. Our assessment reveals three key ways in which POSTC’s model form does not adopt best
practices: 1
• The form includes sections for complainants to provide their names, contact information, and dates of
birth. In a requirement with dubious utility for investigating complaints but a clear risk of intimidating
complainants, the form also includes space for complainants to provide their employers’ names,
addresses, and contact information. It does not indicate that complainants are allowed to anonymously file
complaints, and it does not clearly state that contact information is optional. POSTC’s own model policy,
appropriately and in keeping with national best practice, requires all law enforcement agencies to accept
all complaints, including those made anonymously. A form that omits this critical fact therefore seems to
contradict POSTC's own policy.
• The form includes space for a complainants’ signature, paired with a threat of prosecution. This section
asks for complainants’ signatures, in order to attest that: “I understand that making a false statement
intended to mislead a law enforcement officer in his official function is a violation of Connecticut General
Statute 53a-157b and could result in my arrest and being fined and/or imprisoned.” There are two
problems with this language. First, a signature is, by definition, a record of a person’s name, yet POSTC’s
own policy allows complainants to file anonymously. The complaint form’s signature section does not note
that the signature is optional, and therefore seems to contradict POSTC’s own anonymity rules. Second,
mentions of prison and fines can intimidate complainants and discourage complaints, and they are not in
keeping with law enforcement experts’ best practices. As the U.S. Department of Justice has stated,
threats of prosecution are “a well-known deterrent to filing a complaint.” 2

1. For best practice recommendations, see: The International Association of Chiefs of Police, “Testimony of the International Association of Chiefs of
Police, Task Force on 21st Century Policing Listening Session on Police Oversight,” January 30, 2015,
http://www.theiacp.org/Portals/0/documents/pdfs/IACPTestimonyListeningSessionPolicyandOversight.pdf.
2. U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, “Investigation of the East Haven Police Department,” December 19, 2011,
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2011/12/19/easthaven_findletter_12-19-11.pdf.

16

EARNING TRUST

• Third, the form includes a section for a notary’s signature. Similarly to threats of prosecution, this notary
signature requirement is a recognized impediment to police complaint filings. As the International Chiefs of
Police Association has noted, notarization requirements, particularly when combined with threats of
prosecution, frequently appear in “inadequate” police complaint processes: “Some disincentives to
reporting complaints are inherent within complaint forms themselves. For instance, language on complaint
forms sometimes stipulates that a civilian complaint will not be accepted unless notarized. When followed
by language stating that knowingly making false, untrue, or malicious complaints will be subject to
3
criminal prosecution, some would-be complainants may be intimidated.”
POSTC’s form should not
replicate these inadequacies.

3. See supra note 1, The International Association of Chiefs of Police, “Testimony of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Task Force on 21st
Century Policing Listening Session on Police Oversight.”

17

EARNING TRUST

POSTC
COMPLAINT
POLICY
The POSTC model complaint policy includes language that may
subvert the complaint process in Connecticut.
POSTC’s model complaint policy incorporates many national recommendations for receiving and accepting
complaints. Its language regarding accepting all complaints in all formats, barring retaliation against
undocumented immigrant complainants, and requiring police departments to make complaint forms and
policies accessible to the public, for instance, are all acceptable.
Our assessment, however, reveals two key areas in which POSTC's model complaint policy falls short:
• POSTC’s policy only requires “supervisory personnel” to attend “periodic refresher training, as
determined by the department” regarding complaint protocols. This top-down approach ignores the fact
that all employees who interact with the public should be prepared to accept complaints. It also is not
working. As demonstrated by survey responses, some agency employees are clearly confused or uncertain
about complaint protocols. A training policy that leads one agency representative to say, “I don’t know. I
should know this,” is clearly a policy that shortchanges both department personnel and members of the
public alike. Every law enforcement agency in the state should therefore ensure that every employee who
interacts with the public receives annual training regarding accepting and handling police complaints.
• As outlined earlier in this report, POSTC’s policy includes language that allows departments to require
complainants to sign written statements under oath and after threats of arrest or imprisonment. As
discussed in the complaint form section of this report, threats of prosecution and notarization and
signature requirements are known deterrents to complaint filings. Connecticut’s complaint policy should
therefore explicitly ban, not allow, these practices.

18

EARNING TRUST

RECOMMENDATIONS
The Connecticut General Assembly took the right step by passing legislation to establish the minimum
requirements for accepting and receiving police complaints in Connecticut. Our survey, however, reveals
that some police departments have not taken that mandate seriously, and that the state still has significant
work to do. To address these concerns, the Connecticut General Assembly should do five things:
1. Establish meaningful penalties for police agencies that do not comply with state complaint laws.
Police agencies' widespread lack of compliance with existing complaint law and policy only underscores
that police cannot consistently police themselves in this area. In order to spur and maintain compliance,
the state legislature should ensure enforcement. If a department fails to substantially comply with
complaint laws, the state should levy a penalty, in the form of the withholding of state funds from the police
department or the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection. This practice has precedent
in state law; the Alvin W. Penn Racial Profiling Prohibition Act adopted the same enforcement mechanism
for police agencies’ reporting of traffic stop data, and it has proven effective.
2. Establish an improved statewide, uniform complaint policy as state law.
Police agencies have policy guidance to create meaningful mechanisms for accepting and receiving
complaints. Yet as this survey shows, many have failed to do so. To illuminate legislative intent, create
uniformity among agencies, and ensure that there is no wrong door for anyone wishing to file a complaint,
the Connecticut General Assembly should adopt a statewide complaint policy, based on POSTC’s current
model but revised to eliminate problematic language, into legislation.
3. Require law enforcement agencies to track and publicly report complaint data.
It should not take an ACLU survey to uncover police complaint information. Transparency regarding
complaints can help departments and the public to identify and address issues, and it can build community
trust in police. At minimum, police agencies in the state should therefore report the following information
to the Office of Policy and Management each year: tracking numbers for every complaint received, the
nature of the alleged misconduct that prompted each complaint, the outcomes of each complaint
investigation, the dates when each complaint was filed, and the dates when each complaint investigation
was resolved. As the International Association of Chiefs of Police has noted, “many agencies have become
more open and transparent in their efforts to share data with the public,” including data regarding “their
receiving, processing, and disposing of citizen-generated complaints.”1There is precedent for this type of
data sharing in Connecticut; both the Alvin W. Penn Racial Profiling Prohibition Act and a 2014 state law
governing police use of Tasers require law enforcement agencies to submit reports to the state Office of
Policy and Management. This reporting, as the International Association of Chiefs of Police has explained,
can improve “community trust and can help initiate and inform joint problem-solving strategies.” 2
1. International Association of Chiefs of Police, "Protecting Civil Rights: A Leadership Guide for State, Local, and Tribal Law Enforcement," September
2006, http://www.iacp.org/portals/0/pdfs/PCR_LdrshpGde_Part1.pdf
2. Supra note 1, International Association of Chiefs of Police, "Protecting Civil Rights: A Leadership Guide for State, Local, and Tribal Law Enforcement."

19

EARNING TRUST

4. Replace the existing complaint form, created by POSTC, with a standardized form that is
compliant with best practices.
In 2014, the legislature tasked POSTC, an unelected and majority law enforcement council, with creating
the statewide model complaint policy and form. This extreme deference should not happen again. POSTC’s
policy and form include problematic language that could subvert the complaint process. In addition,
police agencies are not uniformly complying even with POSTC’s requirements. Establishing a meaningful
police complaint process therefore requires the strength of legislative action. Just like any other publicly
funded agency, police departments should expect oversight from the government, and the legislature
should be up to the task.
To address disparities in how police departments accept and receive complaints and to facilitate reporting
by departments, the legislature should create a uniform complaint form for all departments to adopt. This
will create a level playing field among all police departments in the state, as well as ensure that there is no
wrong door for any person seeking to file a complaint.
To fix existing language that could intimidate and deter potential complainants, this new form should:
make clear that anonymous complaints are accepted and that all complainant contact information and
names are voluntary; eliminate requests for complainants’ employers’ contact information; remove all
references to notarization; eradicate signature requirements; and do away with references to prosecution.
The legislature should further require these forms to be available at a centralized online location, as well
as on all police agency websites and at municipal buildings separate from police departments themselves.
While POSTC’s model form is available in English and Spanish, the ultimate statewide complaint form
should be posted in these and the other most commonly-spoken languages in Connecticut, in accordance
with U.S. Census data.
5. Mandate complaint protocol training for all police agency personnel who interact with the public.
According to POSTC's model policy, all police agency personnel, including non-uniformed civilian
employees, must accept complaints. At the same time, however, POSTC’s policy only requires “supervisory
personnel” to attend “periodic refresher training, as determined by the department” regarding complaint
protocols. This top-down approach to training ignores the fact that “all agency personnel,” not just
supervisors, should be able to competently accept complaints. It also is not working. As demonstrated by
many agency responses, some law enforcement employees are clearly confused and uncertain about
complaint protocols. To address this problem, every police agency in the state should therefore ensure that
every employee receives annual training regarding accepting and handling complaints.

20

EARNING TRUST

APPENDIX A
Police Complaint Telephone Survey

ACLU-CT Survey: Police Accountability and Internal Affairs Practices Overview
Goals: The ACLU-CT is conducting a series of tests to determine how well police departments comply with Public
Act No. 14-166. Our goals are to assess (1) how easy it is for an average citizen to get information about filing a
complaint against a police officer, (2) how well employees of the police departments who interact with the public
know their own procedures about filing police complaints, (3) how police complaints can be filed, and (4) what kind

1. Erect meaningful penalties for police agencies that do not comply with state complaint laws.

of restrictions exist on who can file a police complaint, and (5) the availability of police complaint forms and policies.
General Caller Instructions: Callers will be calling police departments across the state of Connecticut to ask specific
questions regarding the departments’ Internal Affairs policies. Callers will be calling to inquire about the procedure
for filing a complaint against a police officer. It is extremely important that callers do not suggest that an actual
incident occurred or provide any fictional details about an alleged incident. Providing false information to the police
could result in charges for false reporting. Callers must follow the script (below) as closely as possible and record
their answers in the spaces below. Calls must be made from the ACLU-CT office during office hours (9:00 am

– 5:00

pm). To reiterate, it is not our intent to trick or entrap police departments or officers. We are trying to determine what
information is provided to an individual inquiring about the internal affairs complaint process.
Call Instructions:
1. Please look over the script and familiarize yourself with the questions you will be asking.
2. Dial *67 in front of the police department’s number in order remain anonymous.
3. Remember, you are requesting information about how to file a complaint against a police officer.
4. You have absolutely no information about the incident or even whether an incident occurred. You only want to

know about the process of filing a complaint. If they won’t give you any information without details of the incident,
note this.
5. If asked, you do not feel comfortable giving any information including your name. If the officer pressures you, ask
why they want your name and record his/her answer.
6. Please stick to the script! Only ask the exact questions in the script. Never change the wording. If the officer cannot
answer a question please ask if there is someone you can speak with that can help you.
7. Please do not ask leading questions. You should only repeat the exact questions and should not initiate other
questions. Feel free to repeat questions as many times as you feel you need, but you are not trying to entrap the
officer. Our goal is to simply understand what information the average person would receive when asking about
making a complaint.
8. Please be specific when documenting answers on the attached form. Please do not wait to fill out the form until
after you have completed the call.
9. You MUST complete the entire form (or if questions could not be answered, please note this and why). Be sure to
include the information about the department and the length of your call. Also, please keep track of the process of
getting the correct person on the line to answer your questions.
10. If after three questions it becomes clear that the person who answered the phone cannot answer the questions,
request to speak with a community relations officer.

1A

EARNING TRUST

APPENDIX A
Department Information
Department Name:
Telephone Number:
_*67 ____________________________________________
Date/Time of phone call

**WHEN CALLING, REMEMBER TO DIAL *67 BEFORE DIALING**

1. Erect meaningful penalties for police agencies that do not comply with state complaint laws.

Script/Questions
Before speaking with someone:
How long did it take to reach someone who could help you? ______

Did you have to navigate an automated system to reach someone?________

Did the automated system have an option for filing a complaint?__________

Were you put on hold?_____ How many times?____ How long?_____

How many times were you transferred? _____________

Were you ever sent to voicemail? _______________
Once someone is on the phone:
Hi, I am calling because I am doing a research project and am trying to get information about how to file a complaint
against a police officer. I don’t know anything about this sort of thing, so I was hoping you could help me.
1. Is there a form to fill out?
2. Where can someone filing a complaint find the form? Would they have to come into the police station or is there
somewhere else they can pick it up?
3. Is the form available online?
a. (If yes) Okay, I’m on your website now, can you help me find it?
**If at this point, it becomes clear that the officer who answered the phone cannot answer these questions, ask to
speak with a community relations officer or someone from Internal Affairs.
4. Does a citizen complaint need to be notarized to be accepted?

2A

EARNING TRUST

APPENDIX A
5. Does a complainant have to come into the station to submit the form?
a. (If no) Is there another way? Could they mail or email it?
6. Could someone fill out the form anonymously?
7. Do you have a written policy about citizen complaints and the complaint investigation process?
8. Where could a complainant find that policy?

meaningful
penalties
forit?police
a.1.
IsErect
it online?
Can you help
me find

agencies that do not comply with state complaint laws.

After the call, evaluate the officer's demeanor:
_____Friendly & helpful
_____Reserved yet helpful
_____Defensive & mildly hostile
_____Hostile & uncooperative

_____N/A or couldn’t evaluate

3A

EARNING TRUST

APPENDIX B

1. Erect meaningful penalties for police agencies that do not comply with state complaint laws.

1B

EARNING TRUST

APPENDIX B

1. Erect meaningful penalties for police agencies that do not comply with state complaint laws.

2B

EARNING TRUST

APPENDIX B

1. Erect meaningful penalties for police agencies that do not comply with state complaint laws.

3B

EARNING TRUST

APPENDIX B

1. Erect meaningful penalties for police agencies that do not comply with state complaint laws.

4B

EARNING TRUST

APPENDIX B

1. Erect meaningful penalties for police agencies that do not comply with state complaint laws.

5B

EARNING TRUST

APPENDIX C

1. Erect meaningful penalties for police agencies that do not comply with state complaint laws.

1C

EARNING TRUST

APPENDIX C

1. Erect meaningful penalties for police agencies that do not comply with state complaint laws.

2C

EARNING TRUST

APPENDIX C

1. Erect meaningful penalties for police agencies that do not comply with state complaint laws.

3C

EARNING TRUST

APPENDIX C

1. Erect meaningful penalties for police agencies that do not comply with state complaint laws.

4C

EARNING TRUST

APPENDIX C

1. Erect meaningful penalties for police agencies that do not comply with state complaint laws.

5C

EARNING TRUST

APPENDIX C

1. Erect meaningful penalties for police agencies that do not comply with state complaint laws.

6C

EARNING TRUST

APPENDIX C

1. Erect meaningful penalties for police agencies that do not comply with state complaint laws.

7C

EARNING TRUST

APPENDIX C

1. Erect meaningful penalties for police agencies that do not comply with state complaint laws.

8C

EARNING TRUST

APPENDIX C

1. Erect meaningful penalties for police agencies that do not comply with state complaint laws.

9C

EARNING TRUST

APPENDIX C

1. Erect meaningful penalties for police agencies that do not comply with state complaint laws.

10C EARNING TRUST

APPENDIX C

1. Erect meaningful penalties for police agencies that do not comply with state complaint laws.

11C EARNING TRUST

APPENDIX C

1. Erect meaningful penalties for police agencies that do not comply with state complaint laws.

12C EARNING TRUST

APPENDIX C

1. Erect meaningful penalties for police agencies that do not comply with state complaint laws.

13C EARNING TRUST

APPENDIX C

1. Erect meaningful penalties for police agencies that do not comply with state complaint laws.

14C EARNING TRUST

APPENDIX D

1. Erect meaningful penalties for police agencies that do not comply with state complaint laws.

1D

EARNING TRUST

APPENDIX D

1. Erect meaningful penalties for police agencies that do not comply with state complaint laws.

2D

EARNING TRUST