Denver Office of the Independent Monitor, Semiannual Report

• Dec. 2, 2014 • Locations: United States of America -> Colorado • Topics: Police

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail

Document text

This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.

DENVER

OFFICE OF THE
INDEPENDENT MONITOR

2013 Semiannual Report

Nicholas E. Mitchell

Independent Monitor

The Office of the Independent Monitor
The Office of the Independent Monitor (“OIM”) is charged with working to ensure
accountability, effectiveness, and transparency in the Denver Police and Sheriff
disciplinary processes. The OIM is responsible for:
♦♦

Ensuring that the complaint and commendation processes are
accessible to all community members;

♦♦

Monitoring investigations into community complaints, internal
complaints, and critical incidents involving sworn personnel;

♦♦

Making recommendations on findings and discipline;

♦♦

Publicly reporting information regarding patterns of complaints,
findings, and discipline;

♦♦

Making recommendations for improving Police and Sheriff policy,
practices, and training;

♦♦

Conducting outreach to the Denver community and stakeholders
in the disciplinary process;

♦♦

Promoting alternative and innovative means for resolving
complaints, such as mediation.

DENVER

OFFICE OF THE
INDEPENDENT MONITOR

SEMIANNUAL REPORT 2013

Project Staff:
Dr. Joseph De Angelis, Policy Director
Abdul Sesay, Senior Research Analyst
Gregg Crittenden, Senior Deputy Monitor
Nate Fehrmann, Deputy Monitor
Jessica Lasky, Deputy Monitor
Gerylann Castellano, Office Manager
Gianina Irlando, Community Ombudsman

Office of the Independent Monitor

Contents
1

Overview 1
Why we are Publishing this Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

DSD Inmate Grievance Process

Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
DSD Grievance Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Finding 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Finding 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Finding 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Finding 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Summary of OIM Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3

DPD Monitoring

New Complaints and Allegations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Most Common Complaint Specifications. . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Complaint Screening and Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Significant Discipline on Sustained Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Commendations and Awards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Highlighted Commendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4

DSD Monitoring

New Complaints and Allegations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

SEMIANNUAL REPORT 2013

Most Common Complaint Allegations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Outcomes on DSD Internal Affairs Cases. . . . . . . . . . . . . .44
Significant Discipline on Sustained Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Commendations and Awards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Highlighted Commendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5

Highlighted Case

Critical Incidents

Introduction and Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Administrative Review of DPD Critical Incidents. . . . . . . . . . 56
DPD Officer-Involved Shootings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
DPD In-Custody Deaths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
2012 DPD Critical Incidents Pending or Closed. . . . . . . . . . . 60
Denver Sheriff Department. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
In-Custody Death Investigation and Review Protocol . . . . . . . 62
Administrative Review of DSD Critical Incidents. . . . . . . . . . 62
DSD Officer-Involved Shootings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
2012 DSD Critical Incidents Pending or Closed. . . . . . . . . . . 64

Office of the Independent Monitor

Overview
Policing the streets and the jails can be difficult and thankless work.
Officers are called on to respond to crisis, and often see people at their
worst. They are sometimes exposed to both verbally or physically
abusive behavior. Although officers are trained not to show it, they
are vulnerable in their interactions with the public. This day-to-day
exposure to job-related stress can exact a long-term physical and
emotional toll.
Community members are also vulnerable when interacting with law
enforcement. We grant extraordinary powers to officers, including
the power to take away freedom through arrest, to enter private
property in emergency, and to use physical force, including deadly
force, when conditions warrant it. Any abuse of these powers can
have an enormous impact on the public. It can damage perceptions
of community safety, cause large lawsuit payouts of taxpayer dollars,
and erode public trust in law enforcement.
For these reasons and others, police and sheriff departments must be
vigilant about proactively addressing misconduct when it occurs. This
includes not only providing retraining and imposing discipline when
appropriate, but also establishing the internal systems necessary to
identify officers who are not meeting approved standards of conduct.
Among these systems are a complaint process that the community
can easily access, a robust early intervention system, an effective
Internal Affairs Bureau, and a command willing to fairly apply
disciplinary rules in every case of proven wrongdoing.

SEMIANNUAL REPORT 2013 |

Chapter 1 :: Overview

As we discussed in our 2012
Annual Report, we admire the
message of accountability that
both Denver Police Department
(“DPD”) Chief Robert White
and Denver Sheriff Department
(“DSD”) Director Gary Wilson
have promoted, and commend
them on the steps they have taken
to establish that standard in their
departments.

Triple Crown Accreditation
The Denver Sheriff Department recently achieved “triple
crown” accreditation. This means that the DSD has been
certified as meeting the standards set by the American
Correctional Association, the National Commission on
Correctional Healthcare, and the Commission on Accreditation
for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc. This accomplishment is
the result of years of hard work by the Director and his staff,
and we commend the DSD for this achievement.

This is a report of six chapters. Like previous publications by the Office of the
Independent Monitor (“OIM”), it includes information about individual case
outcomes, disciplinary patterns, and trends in case handling in the DPD and the
DSD. However, this report—particularly Chapter Two—also includes a detailed
policy and practice examination of a kind that the OIM has not engaged in or
reported before.
In Chapter Two, we detail our examination of the inmate grievance process in the
DSD. We analyzed two-and-a-half years of data generated by that process and
identified four significant issues in its design and operation. First, DSD inmates
filed 54 complaints of serious deputy misconduct through the inmate grievance
process between January 1, 2011 and June 30, 2013. To put this number in context,
it represents slightly under 1% of the 5,979 total grievances filed during this period.
Under DSD policy, allegations of serious misconduct are to be referred to and
investigated by the DSD Internal Affairs Bureau (“IAB”). However, 45 of the
complaints of serious misconduct—including allegations of inappropriate force,
non-consensual sexual touching, and biased behavior by deputies—did not result
in IAB cases. This deviates from both DSD policy and national standards on law
enforcement accountability.
Second, Denver City Ordinance requires the DSD to notify the OIM of allegations
of officer misconduct made by inmates to the DSD. Our examination of the
grievance process revealed that during the period of our review, the DSD did not
routinely notify the OIM of allegations of deputy misconduct contained in inmate
grievances, as required.

| Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 1 :: Overview

Third, almost 16% of the inmate grievances that focused on officer conduct during
our review period were filed against just four deputies (out of a force of over 700
total officers). This pattern may signal that these officers, or the jail areas to which
they are assigned, may require more active supervision by jail administrators. In the
past, the DSD has not had a systematic process for identifying patterns in inmate
grievances to enable such supervisory action.
Fourth, several areas of DSD policy and practice may inadvertently impede
inmate access to the grievance process. For example, the inmate population is
approximately 35% Latino/Hispanic, which includes some monolingual Spanish
speakers, yet Spanish language grievance forms are not currently available. Perhaps
unsurprisingly, no Spanish language grievances focusing on officer conduct were
submitted during the period of our review. In addition, DSD policy requires inmates
to verbally present their complaints to staff before filing formal grievances. Based
upon interviews with national experts and review of the United States Department
of Justice (“DOJ”) findings, we are concerned that this “informal presentation”
requirement may inadvertently deter inmates from filing official complaints that
allege serious officer misconduct.
As we make these findings, we caution that Chapter Two should not be interpreted
as an assertion that the administrators of the DSD grievance process have anything
other than good intentions. No such conclusion should be inferred. Instead, we
believe that Chapter Two demonstrates the value of independent civilian oversight
of law enforcement. Through our independent, data-driven review of the DSD
grievance system, we hope to enable the DSD to more consistently resolve inmate
complaints according to DSD policy in the future. To further this goal, Chapter Two
includes 11 specific and actionable recommendations that are designed to address
each of our findings. We have had extensive discussions with the Director, who
has indicated that he plans to make changes to the grievance process in response
to certain recommendations in this report, and to convene a workgroup to consider
the remaining recommendations. We look forward to working with DSD staff on
this effort.
Chapters Three and Four of the report discuss trends and patterns in complaints,
allegations, and disciplinary decisions in the DPD and DSD, respectively, during
the first half of 2013.
Chapter Five is a detailed discussion of an inappropriate force case recently reviewed
and decided by the Manager of Safety’s Office. In that case, we believed that a

SEMIANNUAL REPORT 2013 |

Chapter 1 :: Overview

preponderance of the evidence demonstrated violations of policy and procedure
by the involved officer, and we recommended that the Manager of Safety’s Office
take disciplinary action. The Manager of Safety’s Office did not accept that
recommendation.
Chapter Six examines the officer-involved shootings and deaths-in-custody that
occurred in the first half of 2013.

Why we are Publishing this Report
Publishing Chapter Two of this report is consistent with the OIM’s legal mandate.
Pursuant to the ordinance that created the OIM (“OIM Ordinance”), the OIM
is required to routinely publish public reports on “trends regarding complaints,
investigations, and discipline of police and sheriff department uniformed
personnel.”1 These reports must include “recommendations regarding the sufficiency
of investigations” and the “appropriateness of disciplinary sanctions, if any,” and
recommendations regarding “changes to policies, rules and training,” if necessary.2
The publication of Chapter Two is also consistent with national standards for law
enforcement oversight. Under national standards, where law enforcement monitors
“identify systemic issues impacting the integrity, fairness, and effectiveness of
internal procedures to identify and deal with” alleged misconduct, they should issue
“uncensored public reports” that include recommendations for how such issues
can be remedied.3 By identifying four issues associated with the DSD’s handling
of complaints of misconduct made through the inmate grievance process, and
proposing possible solutions, we are acting in a manner that is consistent with the
OIM’s mandate4 and with national standards.
We look forward to working collaboratively with the Director and others in the
DSD as they address the subjects raised in this report, and in continuing to partner
with both the DSD and the DPD in their efforts to provide excellent service to the
people of Denver.

| Office of the Independent Monitor

DSD Inmate Grievance Process
Our review of the DSD’s inmate grievance process was prompted
by two OIM observations. First, as we observed in our 2012
Annual Report, the number of inmate complaints recorded by DSD
IAB declined by 55% between 2007 and 2012. In that report, we
indicated that we intended to: “…conduct a more detailed evaluation
of patterns in complaint filing and handling in the future, and look
forward to working with the DSD on this analysis.”5 Second, OIM
staff recently learned of an inmate grievance containing several
allegations of serious deputy misconduct that did not trigger a
formal IAB case and did not receive a case number in DSD IAB’s
case handling database.
As a result, we initiated this review. Among our goals, we intended
to:
1. Determine

whether the DSD was recording and investigating
serious inmate complaints filed through the grievance process in
accordance with its existing policies.

2. Determine

whether the DSD has routinely notified the OIM
of complaints of deputy misconduct filed through the inmate
grievance process, as required by Denver ordinance.

In conducting this review, we examined 5,979 electronic records and
861 paper grievances submitted by inmates between January 1, 2011
and June 30, 2013.6 We interviewed sworn DSD staff, evaluated the
DSD’s policies and procedures for the grievance and internal affairs
processes, and examined policies in other jurisdictions.7 We also

SEMIANNUAL REPORT 2013 |

Chapter 2 :: DSD Inmate Grievance Process

interviewed several national experts on civilian oversight and corrections,8 and met
with inmate councils at the DDC and the County Jail.9
As a result of this evaluation, we make four findings and offer 11 recommendations
that we believe will help the DSD to ensure that allegations of serious misconduct
made in inmate grievances are appropriately investigated and recorded in the future.

| Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 2 :: DSD Inmate Grievance Process

Background
Over the last forty years, jails and prisons in the United States have developed
internal administrative systems that are designed to efficiently resolve inmate
complaints and concerns about the conditions of their confinement. Often called
“grievance systems,” these non-judicial processes allow inmates to communicate
with jail administrators about relatively mundane concerns (e.g., the temperature of
jail cells or issues with the mail system), to very serious problems related to safety
or security. Grievance systems have become a standard feature of correction and
detention facilities, and are widely seen as serving a number of critical functions.
First, an effective grievance system improves communication between inmates
and staff by providing a structured process through which inmates can raise their
concerns. This process can help staff become aware of problems experienced by
individual inmates, and decreases the likelihood of inmate behavioral problems by
enabling staff to rapidly respond to particular inmate issues.
Second, the routine analysis of patterns in inmate grievances can help jail
administrators identify systemic problems in jail operations.10 For example,
increases in inmate grievances about one part of a jail may signal a problem with
policy, procedure, or personnel that requires administrative intervention. Similarly,
while small numbers of inmate grievances about a particular officer may not merit
supervisory action, large numbers filed by multiple inmates over a lengthy period
could be an indicator that the officer may need retraining, mentoring, or other
intervention.11 In other words, patterns in inmate grievances provide an important
source of feedback that can be used to improve operations and the performance of
personnel.
Third, responding to inmate grievances can help to reduce inmate violence over
time. Grievance patterns can help administrators keep abreast of the concerns
of the inmate population so that systemic issues can be addressed before inmate
frustration and unrest grows difficult to control.12 In fact, many jurisdictions began
to institute inmate grievance systems in the 1970s and 1980s in response to riots
that resulted, in part, from inmate frustration over unresolved complaints.13
Finally, grievance systems may also help to reduce the risk of inmate litigation.14
Grievance processes allow jail staff to resolve inmate concerns internally, decreasing
the likelihood that inmates will turn to the courts for aid.15 This, in turn, may

SEMI ANNUAL REPORT 2013 |

Chapter 2 :: DSD Inmate Grievance Process

reduce a city’s financial exposure to the legal fees and lawsuit payouts associated
with inmate litigation.

Denver Sheriff Department’s Grievance Process

The DSD has articulated two broad goals for its grievance process: “resolving inmate
problems in a fair and just manner and enhancing communication between inmates
and staff.”16 To that end, the DSD has identified five specific objectives for its
grievance system:
♦♦
♦♦

♦♦
♦♦
♦♦

Promote justice and fairness.

Provide opportunities for inmates to express grievances and receive official
responses.
Aid jail administrators in identifying institutional problems.
Reduce litigation.

Reduce frustration and the possibility of violence in the jails.

Procedures
The DSD grievance process contains several procedural requirements, some of which
are written into official policy. First, inmates must discuss their complaint with staff
before submitting a formal written grievance.17 If DSD staff cannot resolve an
inmate’s complaint, the inmate may then file a formal grievance.18 Formal inmate
grievances must be filed within 10 days of the incident about which the inmate is
aggrieved.19
To file a formal grievance, inmates may complete a pre-formatted grievance form
or they may use any other kind of paper. To access grievance forms, inmates must
generally ask a deputy, sergeant, or other member of DSD staff, or submit a written
inmate request (also known as a KITE).
DSD policy requires that inmates include four key elements in any grievance: (1) a
detailed statement outlining their complaint; (2) their requested remedy; (3) their
signature; and (4) the date the grievance was submitted.20 In addition, there are
several procedural requirements that appear to be informal practice, rather than
official policy. First, inmates are sometimes restricted to filing grievances on their
own behalf; grievances filed on behalf of another inmate may be summarily rejected

| Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 2 :: DSD Inmate Grievance Process

without response.21 Similarly, grievances filed by groups of inmates may also be
rejected without response. The failure to abide by any of the formal or informal
procedural requirements can sometimes be grounds for the automatic rejection of
an inmate’s grievance.
Once an inmate has completed a grievance form, s/he may deliver it to a member of
DSD staff, or may place it in a locked grievance box that should be available in every
inmate housing unit. These boxes are emptied daily by an on-duty DSD sergeant
(or that sergeant’s designee).

DSD Handling of Inmate Grievances
Once the grievances have been collected,
a sergeant decides where to route each
grievance.22 For instance, medical grievances
are directed to medical supervisory staff,
while grievances relating to quantity or
quality of food are directed to kitchen staff.
The DSD does not have explicit guidelines
for how and where sergeants are supposed
to route grievances. Instead, employees
have reported that a sergeant’s decisions
about how to handle individual grievances
are based on experience and individual
judgment about which jail department
is best suited to resolve each inmate’s
complaint. Thus, sergeants have significant
responsibility for ensuring that grievances
are handled appropriately, and discretion for
how that is achieved.
The DSD has 10 working days to respond
to each grievance.23 Once a grievance has
been evaluated, a notation is made on the
grievance form of the response from the
DSD. This could include the rejection of
the grievance for failure to meet one of the
formal or informal procedural requirements.

Grievance Flow and Routing Throughout Jail
Kitchen
Supervisor

Mailroom

Classification
Board

Program
Admin

Accounting

Internal
Affairs

Chaplain

Operations / Floor
Sergeants

Command
Staff

Commissary

RN
Supervisor

Inmate Population

SEMI ANNUAL REPORT 2013 |

Chapter 2 :: DSD Inmate Grievance Process

If not rejected, it may also include a note indicating an action taken to resolve the
inmate’s concern. Regardless of the outcome, one copy of the grievance form is
returned to the inmate, while another copy is sent to the facility operations center,
where it is logged on a centralized grievance spreadsheet and then filed.
If a grievance was not resolved to an inmate’s satisfaction, the inmate has a right of
appeal. The inmate must first appeal to the Division Chief of the jail where s/he is
housed. S/he may then appeal to the Director of Corrections, who makes the final
decision about how to handle each grievance that is appealed to his or her level.24

Inmate Grievances and the Internal Affairs Bureau
National standards on law enforcement accountability emphasize that serious
allegations of officer misconduct should be referred to and investigated by a
specialized internal affairs unit.25 There are several reasons for this. First, IAB
investigators receive training in gathering the evidence required to address misconduct
claims, including evidence collection and interviewing within law enforcement
organizations. Second, as a centralized unit, IAB can apply a uniform set of
investigative standards to every complaint, helping to ensure greater consistency than
if individual supervisors are conducting misconduct investigations across different
facilities. Third, and perhaps most importantly, internal affairs commanders report
directly to the Chief or Director of a law enforcement agency, which grants them a
certain level of independence in their investigation of complaints.26

| Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 2 :: DSD Inmate Grievance Process

FINDING 1
Inmate Grievances that Allege Serious Deputy Misconduct
are Often not Referred to or Investigated by DSD Internal
Affairs, as Required by DSD Policy.
Jail inmates lodge misconduct complaints against officers that range from minor
rudeness to serious inappropriate force. This is true in the DSD, as in other
correction and detention agencies in the United States. National standards on law
enforcement accountability suggest that minor allegations may be reviewed and
resolved by supervisors where the complaints originate.27 However, more serious
allegations, such as inappropriate force, sexual misconduct, or biased behavior,
should be investigated by IAB. DSD’s written procedures are consistent with these
national standards and place certain serious allegations under IAB’s jurisdiction.
“Internal Affairs . . . will investigate all allegations of unnecessary/excessive
force, law violations, sexual harassment, and racial or ethnic intimidation,
improper conduct and improper procedure involving Denver Sheriff
Department, its officers and civilian staff.”28
DSD policy also makes clear that inmate allegations of misconduct contained in
grievance forms must be referred to IAB for investigation.
“Grievances filed on matters that fall under the investigative jurisdiction of
the Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB) will be referred to that unit and will be
handled as complaints.”29
Together, these provisions establish a framework for identifying inmate grievances
that allege “unnecessary/excessive force, law violations, sexual harassment, and racial
or ethnic intimidation” and referring them to IAB for investigation.30 In practice,
however, this written policy framework has not been consistently followed.

Certain Grievances that Allege Serious Misconduct Have not Been
Investigated by IAB
During our review of the DSD grievance system, we obtained and reviewed the

SEMI ANNUAL REPORT 2013 |

Chapter 2 :: DSD Inmate Grievance Process

paper files relating to 861 inmate grievances. Of these grievances, 54 alleged that
deputies engaged in serious misconduct that falls within IAB’s jurisdiction. To
put this number in context, it represents slightly less than 1% of the 5,979 total
grievances recorded during the relevant period. Yet, it included 31 allegations of
inappropriate force, 11 allegations of sexual misconduct, and 14 allegations of biased
conduct related to an inmate’s race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion.31
Table 2.1: Serious Allegations Filed Through the Inmate Grievance
Process From January 1, 2011 ~ June 30, 2013
Broad Allegation

Number

Percent Serious Grievances

Inappropriate Force

57%

Biased Conduct

26%

Sexual Misconduct

20%

Other

35%

Note: There can be more than one allegation in each grievance. As a result, the total number of
allegations will sum to more than the total number of grievances.

IAB cases were opened in only nine of the 54 serious grievances. Three of those
nine IAB investigations were triggered by the inmate’s grievance. The other six
investigations were opened after the inmates filed separate complaints through the
OIM, IAB, or the Office of the Director of Corrections. Thus, 6% of the serious
grievances filed from January 1, 2011 to June 30, 2013 triggered IAB cases.32
Some of the 54 grievances that did not trigger IAB cases were looked into by jail
supervisors. In certain cases, this included obtaining written statements from
officers or inmates, or reviewing video evidence or DSD reports. Based on the
documentation that has been provided to us, other serious grievances were not
investigated at all, at the jails or otherwise.
As a result of our findings, the Director has indicated that he now plans to open
IAB investigations into 47 of the 54 grievances described herein, and that the
OIM will be allowed to monitor and provide input on those investigations. Since
these will be open investigations, we will not discuss the specific accusations in
each complaint or other information that relates to the complaints. Instead, we
broadly characterize the types of allegations made in the 54 grievances. Providing
quantitative information about the allegations is consistent with our legal mandate

| Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 2 :: DSD Inmate Grievance Process

of reporting information in “statistical and summary form,”33 and accords with the
OIM’s historical practices.
We have classified the most serious allegations in the 54 grievances into four broad
categories (see Table 2.1) and also broken them down within those categories (see
Table 2.2). Regarding the inappropriate force complaints, seven inmates alleged
that they were inappropriately struck by officers with hands, elbows, knees or legs.
Six inmates alleged that deputies slammed them into objects (e.g., walls or doors),
while five inmates alleged that deputies inappropriately took them to the ground.
Five inmates alleged that Tasers or pepper spray had been inappropriately used
against them, while two inmates alleged that they had been choked by officers.
Of the grievances that alleged biased conduct, six inmates alleged that deputies used
racial/ethnic slurs or insults against them. Five inmates alleged that deputies targeted
them with slurs or insulting language related to the inmates’ sexual orientation. In
addition, eleven inmates alleged that deputies engaged in acts of sexual misconduct.
Of those eleven, five inmates alleged that they had been inappropriately touched by
officers. Four inmates claimed that they had been sexually harassed by officers, while
two inmates alleged that deputies had directed inappropriate sexual comments at
them.
The 54 grievances also included serious allegations that did not constitute alleged
inappropriate force, bias, or sexual misconduct. For example, five inmates alleged
that deputies threatened them with violence or false disciplinary action. Two
inmates alleged that they were inappropriately denied access to medical care or
medication. Two inmates alleged that deputies refused to provide them with a
required disability accomodation.

SEMI ANNUAL REPORT 2013 |

Chapter 2 :: DSD Inmate Grievance Process

Table 2.2: Serious Allegations Contained in Inmate Grievances
Number

% of Serious
Grievances

Push/Shove/Grab

19%

Hand/Elbow/Knee/Leg Strikes

13%

Slammed into Object

11%

Inappropriate Takedown

Use of Taser/Pepper Spray

Choked

Threw Object at Inmate

Other Force Allegation

30%

Allegation Type
Inappropriate Force Allegations

Bias Allegations

Racial/Ethnic Insults or Epithets

11%

Bias Based on Sexual Orientation

Other Bias

Sexual Misconduct Allegations

Inappropriate Touching

Sexual Harassment

Sexual Comments

Other Serious Allegations

Threatened Violence/False Disciplinary Action

Prevented Medical Care/Medication

Refused Disability Accommodation

Other Allegation

19%

NOTE: Some grievances have more than one allegation. Thus, the total number of allegations sums
to more than the total number of grievances.

To be clear, we are not suggesting that the allegations made by inmates in these
grievances are true. To the contrary, some or all could be partially or wholly false.
However, each was serious enough to merit an IAB investigation under DSD
policy, but only a small number were actually investigated by IAB. This may have
compromised the ability of the DSD to effectively address these claims, some of
which are now over two years old. Based on our review, we believe that there are
multiple possible reasons why DSD policy was not followed in these cases, which
we discuss below.

| Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 2 :: DSD Inmate Grievance Process

Reported Policy Memo Instructs Officers not to Communicate
Allegations Directly to IAB
Under DSD policy, officers are directed to report potential violations of DSD policy
to IAB, their supervisor or their Division Chief immediately.34 Interviews with
sworn employees of the DSD, however, revealed that some officers will not refer
inmate grievances that allege serious misconduct directly to IAB. Instead, three
employees told us that they would bring such grievances to command staff, who
would then decide whether the allegations would be shared with IAB or not. The
employees reported that they were adhering to a policy memo issued by a former
Division Chief of the Downtown Division that instructed DDC employees not
to relay allegations to IAB without command permission. They told us that this
memo was issued several years ago and was widely distributed to sworn employees
of the Downtown Division.
We have attempted to obtain a copy of the memo that was described to us, or to
confirm or refute its existence, without success. We have been told that the DSD
is unable at this time to confirm whether or not such a document was ever issued.
Our summary is thus based upon what has been reported to us by certain DSD
employees, rather than review of a memo that matches their description. We are
aware of no other formal DSD policies that reflect what was allegedly written in
this memo.
Regardless of whether the memo was ever issued, sworn employees have indicated
that they have chosen not to report serious allegations of misconduct to IAB
because of this memo. Thus, we believe that officer perceptions have contributed to
the problem identified in this chapter.
Recommendation 1: We recommend that the DSD issue a directive reminding
officers that they may approach IAB without first seeking command permission.
This directive should help resolve any officer confusion about whether they are
allowed to report allegations directly to IAB. It should make clear that no officer
will be subject to punishment or retaliation for approaching IAB without approval.
We have spoken with the Director regarding this matter and he intends to issue a
directive clarifying this for officers. We commend him for his approach to resolving
this issue.

SEMI ANNUAL REPORT 2013 |

Chapter 2 :: DSD Inmate Grievance Process

No Clear Guidelines on Grievance Handling for Sergeants
Another potential reason for the lack of IAB investigation into some of the serious
misconduct grievances is the lack of clear guidelines on grievance handling for
sergeants. The sergeants on each floor are responsible for collecting and referring
the grievances submitted by inmates each day. According to DSD staff, the routing
of grievances is largely left to each sergeant’s discretion, and there are no written
guidelines that instruct sergeants where to route each kind of grievance.
The broad discretion granted to sergeants on grievance handling leaves the DSD
vulnerable to inconsistent treatment of grievances, particularly those that include
claims of serious misconduct. For example, in one grievance, an inmate’s allegations
of misconduct were not referred to IAB. Instead, the assigned sergeant returned the
grievance and informed the inmate that s/he would have to separately contact IAB
in order to file his/her complaint. The DSD could help prevent future divergence
from policy by publishing clear guidelines on grievance handling by sergeants.
Recommendation 2: We recommend that the DSD develop detailed guidelines
on grievance handling, including clear instructions that all grievances
containing allegations that fall within IAB’s jurisdiction are to be sent to IAB by
the reviewing sergeant, without delay.

Concerns about IAB Resources
One of the concerns that we have heard during this review is that IAB could become
overwhelmed by any increase in its workload associated with investigating serious
misconduct allegations in inmate grievances. We believe that these concerns are
valid. DSD IAB investigators have traditionally carried a very heavy caseload when
compared to investigators in DPD IAB. We believe that the size of the investigative
staff of DSD IAB—which is less than half the size of the investigative staff at DPD
IAB—may need to be increased.
In addition, DSD IAB’s current approach to complaint triage could likely be refined
to allow for more effective allocation of resources to serious cases, or those where
an initial review reveals a likely policy violation. We believe that a new approach
to triage could include greater use of mediation to address employee disputes, and
sending other non-disciplinary cases to be investigated by the jails, rather than
by IAB. We have had discussions with the Director on this topic, who recently

| Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 2 :: DSD Inmate Grievance Process

convened a work group to discuss possible improvements to IAB’s procedures,
including its approach to triage. We thank the Director for welcoming our input
into that process, and we look forward to continuing to work with him to refine the
triage process in IAB.
Recommendation 3: We recommend that the DSD develop detailed guidelines
for complaint triage. We recommend that these guidelines make clear that
decisions about potential triage of cases that fall within IAB’s jurisdiction be
made by IAB, rather than by supervisors at the jails.
While less serious allegations of misconduct can be investigated at each jail, we
believe that DSD policy should make clear that only IAB should determine
whether serious allegations of misconduct require full investigation. That is, only
IAB should be able to decline to fully investigate misconduct complaints based
upon an objective assessment of the evidence; individual officers or supervisors at
the jails should not have the discretion to decline to send misconduct complaints
to IAB. We believe that DSD policy should make this explicit in order to ensure
fairness and consistency in complaint handling.

SEMI ANNUAL REPORT 2013 |

Chapter 2 :: DSD Inmate Grievance Process

FINDING 2
The DSD is not Routinely Notifying the OIM of Misconduct
Complaints Contained in Inmate Grievances, as Required by
the OIM Ordinance.
Under the ordinance that established the OIM (“OIM Ordinance”), the OIM is
charged with monitoring and participating in internal investigations of alleged
misconduct by members of the DSD and any resulting disciplinary process. The
OIM reviews completed IAB investigations to ensure that they are thorough and
complete.35 If the OIM determines that those investigations are not thorough and
complete, we may recommend further investigation.36 The OIM is granted access to
files, records, and interviews that relate to internal investigations. For example, the
OIM Ordinance requires that the DSD “establish by department policies that they
will cooperate with the monitor’s office in actively monitoring and participating in
internal investigations.”37 Further, DSD policies provide for complete OIM access
to “interviews of witnesses, including uniformed personnel, IAB files, personnel
files, and other evidentiary items.”38 DSD IAB and the OIM have consistently
enjoyed a strong and collaborative working relationship.
When inmates have concerns about the conduct of DSD deputies, they may file
complaints by contacting either the OIM or the DSD. Pursuant to the OIM
Ordinance, when inmates complain directly to the DSD, the DSD is required to
provide copies of those complaints to the OIM, and vice versa.
“Whenever a citizen files a complaint with the monitor’s office, the board, or
the police or sheriff departments, the agency receiving the complaint shall,
within three (3) business days, advise all of the other agencies (the board; the
monitor’s office; the manager of safety . . .) that it has received the complaint
and provide a copy of the complaint to each of them.” OIM Ordinance
§2-386(b).
The DSD has a very broad definition of the term “complaints,” which includes
inmate grievances as well as other formal verbal or written allegations of misconduct.
“The term ‘complaint’ will mean any formal verbal or written statement
alleging misconduct of any employee of the Denver Sheriff Department.”
D.O. § 1530.2(4).
18

| Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 2 :: DSD Inmate Grievance Process

Under these provisions, the OIM is to be notified of all inmate complaints of officer
misconduct within three business days of their filing. To satisfy this requirement, the
DSD has an electronic database (“IAPro”)39 that catalogues complaints filed against
DSD deputies and contains information about open and closed IAB investigations.
The OIM has live access to IAPro, and we are thus able to monitor both new
complaints filed and the progress of ongoing complaint investigations.

The DSD is not Routinely Notifying the OIM of Misconduct
Complaints Contained in Grievances
As noted in an earlier section, we examined 861 inmate grievance files and
identified 54 grievances alleging serious misconduct. Under the OIM Ordinance,
these complaints of serious misconduct should have been shared with the OIM.
However, the DSD notified the OIM of only ten of the complaints, or 19% of the
total (10 of 54). We were thus unable to satisfy our mandate by recommending the
investigation of the remaining complaints, examining them for trend information
about officer conduct, or otherwise ensuring that they were handled according to
DSD policy and national standards.
There appear to be several reasons why the DSD did not share these complaints
with the OIM. First, as discussed above, IAB itself is not always alerted when
inmate grievances contain misconduct allegations. When IAB is not informed
of such claims, it is unable to enter them into IAPro or otherwise make the OIM
aware of the inmate’s allegations.
In addition, during this review, we identified one grievance where serious allegations
of deputy misconduct were referred to IAB, yet there was no record in IAPro nor
any notification to the OIM. In that case, an inmate filed a grievance alleging
that a deputy used a racial slur and threatened the inmate with physical injury.
Another inmate, who allegedly witnessed the incident, also submitted a grievance
corroborating the use of the racial slur by the accused deputy. The grievance was
forwarded to IAB, but IAB did not notify the OIM of these allegations.
Recommendation 4: We recommend that the DSD develop a centralized,
electronic database in which all inmate grievances are recorded, and grant the
OIM live, contemporaneous access to that database to enable OIM oversight of
grievances that allege officer misconduct.

SEMI ANNUAL REPORT 2013 |

Chapter 2 :: DSD Inmate Grievance Process

We have spoken with the Director, who has indicated that he is exploring various
possibilities for creating such an electronic database, with full access for the OIM,
and we look forward to working with the DSD on its implementation.
Recommendation 5: We recommend that IAB’s policies and procedures be
clarified to make certain that all allegations of misconduct that are relayed to
IAB are entered into IAPro and communicated to the OIM, without fail.
Current DSD IAB policies state that IAB will notify the OIM of “respective
cases” and of “law violations, in custody deaths, incidents resulting in serious bodily
injury or situations likely to provoke public interest immediately.”40 This language
does not reflect the DSD’s obligation, under the OIM Ordinance, to notify the
OIM of all complaints of misconduct. IAB’s procedures should be clarified to
make that requirement explicit. Further, ensuring that all inmate complaints that
allege misconduct are recorded in a central IAB database is a national best practice,
and will help the DSD document that all inmate complaints were evaluated and
investigated in a uniform, consistent fashion.41

| Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 2 :: DSD Inmate Grievance Process

FINDING 3
The DSD has yet to Develop a Process for Routinely and
Systematically Analyzing Patterns in Inmate Grievances to
Identify Opportunities for Operational Improvement.
Law enforcement organizations are increasingly analyzing patterns in complaints to
identify opportunities to improve their operations and the quality of their service to
the public.42 Patterns in inmate grievances can also provide useful feedback when
appropriate systems are implemented for identifying such patterns. For example, the
New York State Department of Corrections generates regular management reports
that identify trends and patterns in grievances by facility.43 The goal of this type of
system is to allow timely management intervention before officer/inmate tensions,
or other operational problems, lead to inmate unrest, violence or litigation.44
The DSD’s grievance policy suggests that the DSD proactively review grievance
data “for existing problems beyond individual grievance resolution.”45 During
interviews, however, we learned that the DSD has not had a systematic mechanism
for analyzing patterns in inmate grievances.46

Patterns in Grievances Against Deputies
In many law enforcement agencies, a small number of officers have accounted for a
disproportionate number of complaints, uses of force, and other signifiers of potential
misconduct.47 For this reason, patterns in complaints can help indicate whether
particular officers require more active supervision or other forms of administrative
intervention.48
DSD grievance records reveal that a similar pattern exists in the DSD, and a small
number of deputies account for a disproportionate number of inmate grievances
about deputy conduct. Between January 1, 2011 and June 30, 2013, 788 grievances
were filed that focused on deputy conduct issues. Of these 788 grievances, 125
were filed against just four deputies. Put another way, four deputies out of a force of
over 700 accounted for almost 16% of the total number of grievances about officer
conduct during a two-and-a-half year period. We believe that this pattern should
have triggered a supervisory response that could have included meetings with the

SEMI ANNUAL REPORT 2013 |

Chapter 2 :: DSD Inmate Grievance Process

deputies, attempts to identify
the reasons for the continued
complaints against them, and
other supervisory forms of
intervention, if appropriate.
We understand that after our
review brought this pattern to
light, DSD Division Chiefs
initiated discussions with
these deputies to identify
the reasons for the outsize
percentage of grievances
against them.

Not Just Theory . . .
During our review, we spoke to Professor Arnett Gaston, a national
corrections expert who at one time was the commanding officer at
Riker’s Island, a jail complex comprised of ten institutions with the
capacity to hold 18,000 inmates and 11,000 staff. Riker’s Island is
widely thought to be the largest detention complex in the world.
According to Professor Gaston, systematically analyzing patterns in
inmate grievances was “essential” to his success, and helped him to
reduce inmate dissatisfaction and improve the quality of supervision in
his detention complex over time.

Figure 2.1: Comparing Rude Conduct Grievances Between the
DDC and County Jail

County Jail

DDC

100

150

200

Examination of the DSD grievances also revealed notable variation in the number
of particular kinds of inmate grievances filed at the DDC versus the County Jail.
For example, many more inmates at the County Jail filed grievances relating to
rude/unprofessional conduct than inmates at the DDC (see Figure 2.1). Indeed,
during the two and a half year review period, approximately 184 rude/unprofessional
deputy conduct inmate grievances were recorded at the County Jail, but only 48
such grievances were recorded against DDC deputies. Since the two facilities have

| Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 2 :: DSD Inmate Grievance Process

different inmate populations, the difference can also be expressed as a rate per 100
inmates. During the review period, the DDC had a rate of approximately four rude/
unprofessional conduct grievances per 100 inmates. In contrast, the County Jail
had a rate of roughly 24 rude/unprofessional conduct grievances per 100 inmates.
This may reflect a potentially concerning pattern in the relationship of the staff at
the County Jail to inmates.
However, more detailed examination of this pattern revealed that some of the
difference between the County Jail and the DDC resulted from the disproportionate
number of grievances filed against the four deputies discussed above, all of whom
worked at the County Jail. In Figure 2.2, the bottom line represents the number of
rude/unprofessional conduct grievances filed at the DDC. The top line represents
the number of rude/unprofessional conduct grievances filed at the County Jail
including the four deputies, while the middle line—which is dotted—represents
the same number not including those four deputies. By removing the grievances
filed against these four deputies, it becomes clear that the difference between the
number of rude/unprofessional conduct grievances at the County Jail and the DDC
was partly driven by the four deputies discussed above.
Figure 2.2 Number of Rude/Unprofessional Conduct Grievances by Quarter
100
90

COJL--With Four Deputies

DDC

COJL-WITHOUT Four Deputies

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Q1-2011 Q2-2011 Q3-2011 Q4-2011 Q1-2012 Q2-2012 Q3-2012 Q4-2012 Q1-2013 Q2-2013

SEMI ANNUAL REPORT 2013 |

Chapter 2 :: DSD Inmate Grievance Process

More importantly, by looking at trend information, it was possible to identify
particularly concerning spikes in the number of inmate grievances alleging rude
conduct. For example, there was a notable spike in rude/unprofessional conduct
grievances filed at the County Jail during the second quarter of 2012, which could
have triggered a review by supervisors. If DSD administrators had examined that
spike in detail, they would have determined that inmate grievances filed against one
deputy, in particular, were responsible for the surge in inmate complaints about rude
conduct during that quarter.49
Again, the existence of these patterns, by itself, does not necessarily indicate
wrongdoing by the accused deputies. However, trends and spikes in grievance
activity of the kind demonstrated here could have triggered supervisory review
to identify whether there was a need for additional training or supervision of the
accused deputies.

Pattern Analysis Can Help Identify Inmates Who Abuse the
Grievance System
Pattern analysis may also help to identify inmates abusing the grievance system to
unfairly retaliate against deputies.50 During the period of our review, approximately
583 inmates filed 788 grievances about officer conduct. Not surprisingly, some
inmates filed more complaints than others, with six inmates accounting for 50 of
the 788 deputy conduct grievances (6.4%).51 One inmate filed 13 separate minor
grievances during the two and half year review period alleging that deputies refused
to provide specific services s/he requested. During the same period, another inmate
filed eight grievances, which generally alleged that officers engaged in rude conduct.
A third inmate filed eight grievances, most of which alleged unprofessional deputy
conduct. Three other inmates filed seven grievances each.
We make no judgments about whether the allegations in these grievances are true
or false. However, by identifying patterns in outsize grievance filings by individuals
or groups of inmates, the DSD may help protect officers from potential retaliation
through the grievance system. We believe that engaging in analysis of patterns in
inmate grievances will thus benefit deputies, as well as helping the DSD to refine or
improve its operations over time.

| Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 2 :: DSD Inmate Grievance Process

Current Obstacles to Systematic Analysis
We have discussed these matters with the Director, who has responded by
incorporating the inmate grievance process into the recently established early
intervention system. We commend the Director and believe that such a system,
if properly implemented, may help to address some of the issues discussed here.
However, without improvement of the DSD’s data collection practices, the DSD’s
ability to meaningfully analyze patterns in grievances will be constrained. In
particular, while both the County Jail and the DDC recorded a limited amount of
information about grievances in spreadsheets, we found the following issues during
our review:
♦♦

♦♦

There are no written policies that govern how grievance data are entered into the
DSD’s grievance spreadsheets.
Data collection about inmate grievances was inconsistent between the DDC
and County Jail, and varied considerably over time, making comparison between
facilities and across time difficult.

Key pieces of information were not regularly captured in DSD spreadsheets,
including the names of subject deputies, the inmate’s race, gender, or ethnicity, or
the location of the incident that led to the inmate grievance.

These data quality issues will be an obstacle to effective pattern analysis unless
changes are made in how grievance information is collected. In order to conduct
the limited pattern analysis we report above, OIM staff had to reformat and recode the DSD grievance spreadsheets so that they could be systematically analyzed.
This included collecting the names of some accused deputies from paper grievance
forms.
Recommendation 6: We recommend that the DSD develop internal policies and
procedures that govern data collection about inmate grievances to improve
the quality of information collected and standardize it across jails.
These policies should be written to ensure that grievance information is recorded
in a reliable and standardized manner across the DSD’s detention facilities. They
should also require the collection of the following significant case details for each
grievance:
♦♦

Unique case number.

SEMI ANNUAL REPORT 2013 |

Chapter 2 :: DSD Inmate Grievance Process

♦♦
♦♦
♦♦
♦♦
♦♦
♦♦
♦♦

♦♦
♦♦
♦♦
♦♦

Case dates (date filed, date assigned, date of response).
Names of the involved deputies, if known.
The inmate’s name and ID number.

Inmate demographic information, such as gender, race, and ethnicity.
Location of the incident that led to the grievance.

A brief summary of the inmate’s complaint written in an objective, neutral tone.

Consistent collection of the inmate allegation categories (e.g., rude conduct,
sexual misconduct, excessive force, racial discrimination).
Deputy assignment information.
Finding/resolution.

Whether the inmate previously filed a grievance relating to the same incident.
Whether referred to IAB, and if so, an IAB case number.

Recommendation 7: Once improved data collection is in place, we recommend
that the DSD produce routine analytical reports on patterns and trends in
grievances for DSD command staff.
These reports, which could be produced by the DSD Research and Special Projects
Division, should be designed to:
♦♦

♦♦

Identify patterns and trends in inmate grievance allegations and resolutions
by facility and housing unit, inmate demographics, and any notable spikes in
grievance activity across the facilities or inmate groups.

Identify individual deputies who are the subject of a disproportionate number
of inmate grievances (when compared to peer officers) or where the pattern of
inmate grievances may suggest particular areas of concern (e.g., use of force,
sexual misconduct, or other kinds of serious complaints).
Identify inmates that may be filing duplicate complaints or who may be seeking
to use the grievance system to retaliate against individual deputies.

Overall, we believe that these changes would build upon the DSD’s significant efforts
to further become a performance-driven organization. For example, in working

| Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 2 :: DSD Inmate Grievance Process

towards “triple crown” accreditation by the American Correctional Association
(“ACA”), the National Commission on Correctional Health Care (“NCCHC”), and
the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (“CALEA”), the
DSD now collects extensive information about a wide range of outcome measures,
from workplace injuries to housing for inmates with disabilities. Conducting
further routine analysis of inmate grievances will only help the DSD achieve its
mission of ensuring safe, secure, efficient, and humane detention facilities.

SEMI ANNUAL REPORT 2013 |

Chapter 2 :: DSD Inmate Grievance Process

FINDING 4
DSD Policies and Practices may Inadvertently Limit Inmate
Access to the Grievance Process.
During the course of this review, we examined inmate grievance policies from
other jurisdictions, reviewed reports from the United States Department of Justice
relating to inmate grievance processes, and consulted with local and national experts
in civilian oversight of law enforcement and corrections. It is widely-recognized
that jail grievance policies should be structured to be accessible to all inmates,52 yet
current DSD policies and practices may inadvertently limit inmate access to the
grievance process.

Grievance Forms Should be Made Available in Spanish
Latino/Hispanic inmates comprise approximately 35% of the DSD’s inmate
population53 and at least some of those inmates are monolingual Spanish speakers.
Moreover, the DSD’s detention facilities routinely house inmates drawn from other
immigrant communities who are not yet English language proficient (e.g., recent
Vietnamese and Russian immigrants). Grievance forms are not currently available
in Spanish. During this review, we examined 861 paper grievance forms and none
had been completed in either Spanish or other languages common to Denver’s
immigrant communities. The DSD may be able to provide broader and more
inclusive access to the grievance process by making grievance forms available in
languages that are common to inmates who are not yet English proficient.
Recommendation 8: We recommend that the DSD print grievance forms in
Spanish and make them available upon request. We also recommend that the
DSD evaluate whether there are other inmate groups that would benefit from
access to grievance forms in languages other than English.

DSD Policy Requiring “Informal Presentation” of Complaints
Should be Revised
DSD policy requires inmates to verbally present their complaints to DSD staff
before filing formal grievances. Only if an inmate is unable to resolve his/her
complaint through discussion with an officer may s/he file an official grievance
seeking assistance.
28

| Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 2 :: DSD Inmate Grievance Process

“An inmate will informally present his/her complaint to the staff. The
staff will attempt resolution of the issue before the inmate files a written
grievance.” DSD D.O. 4810.1D(4)(B).
Most grievances concern the conditions of an inmate’s confinement. For such
grievances, this “informal presentation” requirement makes sense—it allows DSD
staff to efficiently address inmate concerns without expending significant time or
resources, or triggering a formal administrative review. Indeed, when we spoke
with an Inmate Advisory Council at the DDC, some of the inmates indicated that
many of the routine operational concerns they had could be dealt with informally
and efficiently by front line deputies and supervisors, without the need to trigger the
formal grievance process.
However, for complaints of officer misconduct, our concern is that the informal
presentation requirement may deter inmates from reporting such allegations at
all. When inmates have complaints about the deputies in their pod, it is those
very deputies (and their supervisors and co-workers) with whom the inmates are
most likely to be in routine contact. Requiring inmates to attempt to present their
complaints to these officers before registering them as official grievances is likely to
deter some inmates from reporting their complaints.
Informal presentation requirements are not uncommon in jail grievance policies
around the United States. In examining certain jail grievance systems, the
United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has recognized that they may
inadvertently deter inmates from reporting allegations of deputy misconduct, and
has recommended that such requirements be eliminated for grievances alleging
misconduct.54
Recommendation 9: We recommend that the DSD revise both the grievance
policy and the Inmate Handbook to make clear that inmates should attempt to
resolve grievances informally unless the grievance alleges officer misconduct,
in which case no attempt at informal resolution is required before a formal
grievance is submitted.

SEMI ANNUAL REPORT 2013 |

Chapter 2 :: DSD Inmate Grievance Process

Grievances Alleging Misconduct Should not be Rejected due to
Procedural Flaws
Under DSD policy and practice, grievances may be summarily rejected due to
procedural flaws associated with their submission. For example, DSD supervisors
have rejected misconduct grievances that were filed by groups of inmates rather than
individual prisoners. Similarly, inmate misconduct grievances that were submitted
by one inmate on behalf of another have been rejected. In practice, this has meant
that in certain cases, relatively serious allegations have gone unaddressed. This
includes complaints alleging inappropriate force, inappropriate comments about an
inmate’s body, and bias related to an inmate’s national origin or ethnicity.
In addition, some grievances have been rejected when the grieving inmate has been
released and is no longer in DSD custody. This includes the rejection of grievances
that alleged inappropriate force and slurs related to an inmate’s sexual orientation,
without investigation, as the complaining inmates were no longer in custody.
There is no doubt that the release of an inmate could make it difficult, and potentially
impossible, to investigate an allegation of misconduct. However, this is not always
the case. Much of the DDC and some of the County Jail are monitored by video,
and the footage from these video cameras is often an integral part of many IAB
investigations. Even where an inmate has been released, IAB could obtain the video
on serious cases, and make a determination as to whether additional investigation,
including possibly contacting the complaining inmate outside of the facility, is
warranted.
For most grievances, which concern conditions of confinement, rejecting grievances
for failing to comply with the procedural rules that govern their filing may be
appropriate. However, where grievances allege serious misconduct that falls within
IAB’s jurisdiction, the DSD should make every attempt to determine whether the
allegations are true or false, without regard for the manner in which the allegations
are raised.
Recommendation 10: We recommend that the DSD revise its grievance policy
to make clear that the failure to adhere to the procedural requirements of the
grievance policy is not grounds for rejecting grievances that allege deputy
misconduct.

| Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 2 :: DSD Inmate Grievance Process

Inmates are not Adequately Informed of their Right to File
Complaints with IAB and the OIM
During this review, we also became aware of another means by which inmate access
to the complaint process can be improved. When inmates are first booked into
DSD custody, they are given a copy of the “DSD Inmate Handbook: A Guide to
Help You Adjust to the Jail Environment.” The Inmate Handbook is a 42-page
guide to life in DSD jails. It includes sections on inmate rights and responsibilities,
communicating within and outside the jail, healthcare, commissary, and housing,
among other subjects. The Inmate Handbook also includes a detailed explanation
of the inmate grievance process. In a section discussing the DSD’s policies on the
Prison Rape Elimination Act, it alerts inmates that they can report “incidents of
sexual behavior” to the OIM, DPD, IAB or any DSD staff member. However, the
Handbook does not include any information about filing other types of complaints
directly with IAB or the OIM. It does not alert inmates to the fact that they can
contact IAB directly from inside DSD jails, or send written communications to the
OIM without charge.
Recommendation 11: We recommend that the DSD revise the Inmate Handbook
to alert inmates to various avenues by which they can contact IAB or the OIM
with complaints of deputy misconduct.

SEMI ANNUAL REPORT 2013 |

Chapter 2 :: DSD Inmate Grievance Process

Summary of OIM Recommendations Regarding the DSD
Inmate Grievance Process
Recommendation 1: We recommend that the DSD issue a directive
reminding officers that they may approach IAB without first seeking command
permission. This guidance should make clear that no officer will be subject
to punishment or retaliation for notifying IAB of misconduct allegations
without permission.
Recommendation 2: We recommend that the DSD develop detailed
guidelines on grievance handling, including clear instructions that all
grievances containing allegations that fall within IAB’s jurisdiction are to be
sent to IAB by the reviewing sergeant, without delay.
Recommendation 3: We recommend that the DSD develop detailed
guidelines for complaint triage. We recommend that these guidelines make
clear that decisions about potential triage of cases that fall within IAB’s
jurisdiction be made by IAB, rather than by supervisors at the jails.
Recommendation 4: We recommend that the DSD develop a centralized
electronic database in which all inmate grievances are recorded, and grant the
OIM live, contemporaneous access to that database to enable OIM oversight
of grievances that allege officer misconduct.
Recommendation 5: We recommend that IAB’s policies and procedures
be clarified to make certain that all allegations of misconduct that are relayed
to IAB are entered into IAPro and communicated to the OIM, without fail.
Recommendation 6: We recommend that the DSD develop internal
policies and procedures that govern data collection about inmate grievances
to improve the quality of information collected and standardize it across jails.
Recommendation 7: Once improved data collection is in place, we
recommend that the DSD produce routine analytical reports on patterns and
trends in grievances for DSD command staff.

| Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 2 :: DSD Inmate Grievance Process

Recommendation 8: We recommend that the DSD print grievance forms
in Spanish and make them available upon request. We also recommend that
the DSD evaluate whether there are other inmate groups that would benefit
from access to grievance forms in languages other than English.
Recommendation 9: We recommend that the DSD revise both the
grievance policy and the Inmate Handbook to make clear that inmates should
attempt to resolve grievances informally unless the grievance alleges officer
misconduct, in which case no attempt at informal resolution is required before
a formal grievance is submitted.
Recommendation 10: We recommend that the DSD revise its grievance
policy to make clear that the failure to adhere to the procedural requirements
of the grievance policy is not grounds for rejecting grievances that allege
deputy misconduct.
Recommendation 11: We recommend that the DSD revise the Inmate
Handbook to alert inmates to various avenues by which they can contact IAB
or the OIM with complaints of deputy misconduct.

SEMI ANNUAL REPORT 2013 |

Denver Police Department (DPD)
Monitoring
New Complaints and Allegations
The following chart shows the number of DPD IAB complaints
recorded during the first half of 2013, and for the same time period
for each of the previous five years.55 These figures do not include
scheduled discipline cases, such as when a DPD officer violates a
traffic law, gets into a preventable traffic accident, or misses a court
date, shooting qualification, or continuing education class.
Figure 3.1: DPD Complaints
Citizen Complaint

400

Internal Complaint

350
300
250

325
293

279

200

263
227

211

First Half
2010

First Half
2011

First Half
2012

First Half
2013

150
100
50
0

73
37
First Half
2008

First Half
2009

SEMIANNUAL REPORT 2013 |

Chapter 3 :: DPD Discipline Monitoring

Most Common Complaint Specifications
Table 3.1 shows the ten most common types of community/internal complaint
specifications recorded during the first six months of 2013.56 Single complaints
may contain more than one specification.
Table 3.1: Percentage of Cases with One or More Common Specifications
January 1 - June 30, 2013
Specification

Percent of Complaints

Discourtesy

32%

Responsibilities to Serve Public

30%

Improper Procedure

27%

Inappropriate Force

16%

Not Giving Name and Badge Number

Conduct Prejudicial

Failure to File Reports

Conduct Prohibited by Law

Discrim., Harass., and Retaliation

Intimidation of Persons

| Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 3 :: DPD Discipline Monitoring

Complaint Screening and Outcomes
Figure 3.2: Screening and Outcome on Individual DPD Specifications
January 1 - June 30, 2013
Closed with No Finding
in IAB Database
1%

Not Sustained
15%
Sustained
9%

Informal Resolution
8%

Not Reviewed by
Internal Affairs
4%

Decline/
Administrative
Review
57%

Mediation
7%

SEMIANNUAL REPORT 2013 |

Chapter 3 :: DPD Discipline Monitoring

Significant Discipline on Sustained Cases (January 1 - June 30, 2013)
An officer was terminated after it was determined that he detained a
female community member and unlawfully coerced her into performing a
sexual act in exchange for her release. The officer was also criminally charged
and convicted in Denver District Court of Second Degree Kidnapping, Sexual
Assault, and False Reporting to Authorities.
Two officers responded to a call regarding a loud party, which resulted
in the arrest of the tenant and several community members. The tenant and
community members alleged that inappropriate force was used and that a
number of cell phones were destroyed by one of the officers. While there were
no sustained findings related to the alleged inappropriate force or evidence
handing procedures, both officers received 10-day suspensions for making
inaccurate statements in their police reports. The officers’ supervising sergeant
was also disciplined and received two fined days for conducting an inadequate
use of force investigation in this incident.
An officer left a loaded, department-approved AR-15 in the locked trunk
of a personal vehicle. The officer’s spouse then left the car in the parking lot
of a high school so the officer’s teenage child would have a car to drive home
at the end of the school day. Because the subject officer had three prior rule
violations, a 10-day suspension was imposed for the improper storage of a
firearm.
A sergeant was responsible for completing an interview with an arrestee
as part of a use of force investigation. The arrestee was detained in a police
holding cell with both hands handcuffed to a bench. At the conclusion of the
interview, the sergeant allegedly failed to take action to remove or alter the
arrestee’s restraints so that the arrestee could access the cell toilet. As a result,
the arrestee urinated on himself and the floor. The sergeant also allegedly made
misleading and inaccurate statements in his use of force report. The Manager
of Safety’s office imposed a three-day suspension for the mistreatment of
prisoners and an additional 10-day suspension for misleading and inaccurate
statements. The officer appealed the decision to the Civil Service Commission
(“CSC”), and a CSC hearing officer reversed the discipline.

| Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 3 :: DPD Discipline Monitoring

An officer was injured in a work-related accident and allegedly made
misleading and inaccurate statements about his condition and ability to return
to work. The officer also allegedly engaged in unauthorized secondary work
while on limited duty. The officer resigned before discipline could be imposed
in this case.
Two male officers responded to a 911 call where a female community
member reported being the victim of domestic violence. The officers
transported the victim to a police district station. One of those officers took
photographs of her injuries while she was partially disrobed. In addition, that
officer engaged in on-going unprofessional conduct by giving the victim his
personal phone number, making inappropriate sexual comments about her
physical appearance, and exchanging inappropriate texts and phone messages
with her. That officer resigned prior to the imposition of discipline.
An officer was alleged to have used illegal controlled substances and
conducted unlawful criminal history searches on behalf of the individuals
selling those controlled substances. The officer resigned during the IAB
investigation.
An officer struck a handcuffed suspect who was seated in the backseat of
a patrol car twice in the face after the suspect attempted to “push kick” the
officer. The Manager of Safety’s office imposed a 10-day suspension for this
use of force. The officer appealed and a Civil Service Commission hearing
officer reversed the disciplinary decision.
An officer allegedly had sexual encounters with a community member
while on duty. The officer also allegedly brought the community member
on unauthorized ride-alongs, shared confidential information with the
community member, and feigned illness to avoid work. The officer resigned
during the IAB investigation.
An officer was arrested for driving under the influence (DUI) in a county
outside of Denver and had a firearm in his vehicle at the time of his arrest. This
was the officer’s second arrest for DUI. The officer resigned while discipline
was pending.

SEMIANNUAL REPORT 2013 |

Chapter 3 :: DPD Discipline Monitoring

Commendations and Awards
Table 3.2: DPD Commendations, January 1, 2013 – June 30, 2013
Total

Percent

Commendatory Action Report

129

47.8%

Citizen Letter

20.0%

Official Commendation

10.4%

Distinguished Service Cross

6.3%

Letter of Appreciation

5.2%

No Award Type Listed

3.7%

Commendatory Letter

2.2%

Department Service Award

1.1%

Purple Heart

0.7%

STAR Award

0.7%

Citizens Appreciate Police

0.4%

Community Service Award

0.4%

Medal of Honor

0.4%

Medal of Valor

0.4%

Military Service Award

0.4%

270

100.0%

Award

Total

| Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 3 :: DPD Discipline Monitoring

Highlighted Commendations
CITIZEN LETTER
A resident wrote to commend the professional performance of two DPD officers for
helping to diffuse a grave situation involving the threat of suicide. Upon arrival at
the scene, the officers displayed great skill and compassion to develop a rapport with
the distressed party until he agreed to emergency hospitalization and psychiatric
evaluation. The resident wrote: “it is particularly impressive to me that they were
able to deal attentively, patiently and effectively with our painful situation.”

COMMUNITY SERVICE AWARD
Officers assigned to District 1/Detail 3 were recognized by the Denver Post for
working alongside the Director of Denver’s Office on Aging, and Denver’s Agency
for Human Rights and Community Partnerships, to clean and restore the home of
a 90-year old Denver woman, who was found living in uninhabitable conditions.
The officers spent several days of their off time working on the resident’s home,
cleaning garbage and painting walls, while paying for her stay at a local motel until
they were finished. For their selflessness and community spirit, the officers were
awarded the Community Service award.

DISTINGUISHED SERVICE CROSS AWARD
Five DPD officers received the Distinguished Cross Award for exceptional
teamwork that led to the successful rescue of a female victim and a small child who
were held in a domestic violence incident that escalated into a barricade/hostage
situation. The responding officers developed a plan in which they entered the
residence, applied crisis intervention techniques toward the suspect until he was
taken into custody, and secured the safe release of the victims.

SEMIANNUAL REPORT 2013 |

Chapter 3 :: DPD Discipline Monitoring

STAR AWARD
An officer responded to a domestic violence incident in which officers exchanged
gunfire with the suspect, and were “pinned” down by the gunman. The officer was
part of the team that initiated a tactically sound search for the victim, and was
commended for selfless service to fellow officers and the citizens of Denver.

OFFICIAL COMMENDATION
Three armed males forced entry into a home during a child’s birthday party. They
went to a back room, pistol-whipped an elderly male, and left with a blue duffel bag.
An officer responded to the scene, quickly assessed the situation, called for medical
assistance, and aired a description of the suspects and their vehicle. Another officer
spotted the suspect vehicle and aired this information. He pulled the vehicle over
and waited for cover. Once other officers arrived they executed a felony stop and
took three suspects into custody. The officers were commended for being part of
a team that demonstrated excellent teamwork, communication, and officer safety.

| Office of the Independent Monitor

Denver Sheriff Department (DSD)
Monitoring
New Complaints and Allegations
The following chart shows the number of DSD IAB complaints
recorded during the first half of 2013, and for the same time period
for each of the previous five years.57 The complaint counts do not
include “reprimand”58 cases or complaints filed against civilian DSD
employees.
Figure 4.1: DSD Complaints
300

250

246
222

200

195
186

150
135
100

0
First Half
2008

First Half
2009

First Half
2010

First Half
2011

First Half
2012

First Half
2013

SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT 2013 |

Chapter 4 :: DSD Discipline Monitoring

Most Common Complaint Allegations
Table 4.1 lists DSD IAB complaint allegations recorded in the first half of 2013.
Single complaints may contain one or more allegations.
Table 4.1: Allegations Received, January 1 - June 30, 2013
Allegation

Number

Percent

Not recorded in DSD Database

29.0%

Lost/Missing Property

13.9%

Unauthorized Leave

7.4%

Failure to Shoot

7.4%

Improper Procedure/Conduct

4.3%

Excessive Force

5.6%

Discourtesy

3.0%

Service Complaint

1.7%

Obedience to Traffic

1.3%

Other

26.4%

Total

231

100.0%

Outcomes on DSD Internal Affairs Cases
In past reports, we have reported quantitative information about the outcomes
of DSD complaints and allegations. However, the DSD recently adopted a new
internal affairs database (“IAPro”), and has yet to resolve several data collection
issues as a result of that change. Until those issues are resolved, we will not be able
to report on statistics related to the outcomes of DSD cases. We look forward to
working with the DSD to solve these data collection issues.

| Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 4 :: DSD Discipline Monitoring

Significant Discipline on Sustained Cases (January 1 - June 30, 2013)
A deputy was terminated for using excessive force on an inmate, failing
to report that use of force, and making misleading and deceptive comments
about the incident during the IAB investigation and disciplinary process. The
decision has been appealed.
A sergeant was terminated after pleading no contest and entering into a
deferred judgment and sentence for charges relating to misdemeanor child
abuse. The decision has been appealed.
A sergeant received a 10-day suspension after it was found that the sergeant
logged on to a work computer and then left that computer unattended for
an extended period of time. An unprofessional and inappropriate entry was
made into a DSD database under the sergeant’s computer profile. It was
unclear who made the entry. The penalty in this case was increased due to
the sergeant’s previous disciplinary history. The decision was appealed and
the City negotiated a settlement decreasing the discipline from a 10-day
suspension to a 3-day suspension.
A deputy conducted a “welfare check” and entered the home of a
community member without a warrant or legal authorization in order to
serve court documents. The deputy was suspended for 10 days in a negotiated
settlement agreement.
Two sergeants were disciplined for failing to follow protocol to initiate
drug and alcohol testing for a potentially intoxicated civilian employee who
was at work at the jail. The two sergeants then failed to prevent the employee
from driving away from work in his personal vehicle. The sergeants also did
not record any pertinent details about the employee’s vehicle, the direction in
which the employee drove, nor did they notify the Denver Police Department.
The first sergeant, who did not accept responsibility for the incident, received a
10-day suspension. The second sergeant accepted responsibility and received
a four-day suspension. Both decisions have been appealed.
A deputy was alleged to have released confidential information to a news
reporter. The deputy retired during the IAB investigation.

SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT 2013 |

Chapter 4 :: DSD Discipline Monitoring

A deputy was terminated after it was determined that the deputy knowingly
made inaccurate and deceptive statements about an inmate’s actions in a use
of force report and during an IAB interview. The deputy appealed and was
allowed to resign in settlement of the appeal.
A deputy was terminated for allowing two inmates to harass, dump dirty
water on, spray chemicals on, and hose down a third inmate who was in a
locked shower cell. The incident lasted for an extended period of time.
A deputy was disciplined in two complaints arising from incidents that
occurred during the deputy’s probationary period. In the first case, the deputy
was found to have spent an inordinate amount of time on the internet and
failed to conduct required rounds. In the second case, the deputy failed to
prevent three inmates from assaulting a fourth inmate in an unlocked cleaning
closet. The deputy was demoted to security specialist in the first case, and
terminated as a result of the second case. The termination decision has been
appealed.
A deputy resigned after allegedly conspiring with an inmate and helping
him illegally escape from a DSD facility. This deputy was criminally charged
and recently pled guilty to attempting to influence a public servant, which is a
class-four felony. The former deputy is currently awaiting sentencing.

| Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 4 :: DSD Discipline Monitoring

Commendations and Awards
Table 4.3: DSD Commendations ( January 1 - June 30, 2013)
Total

Percent

Letters of Appreciation (from Supervisors/Director)

41.8%

P.R.I.D.E. Award (Personal Responsibility in Delivering Excellence)

30.6%

Commendations (from Supervisors/Director)

9.9%

Merit Award

3.4%

Community Service Award

3.0%

Employee of the Month (Downtown)

2.6%

Employee of the Month (COJL)

2.6%

Distinguished Service

1.3%

Employee of the Quarter

0.9%

Commendation Award

0.9%

Unit Citations

0.9%

#1 Physical Fitness Award

0.4%

Most Improved Physical Fitness

0.4%

Top Gun

0.4%

#1 Defensive Tactic Award

0.4%

#1 Academic Award

0.4%

232

100.0%

Award

Total

SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT 2013 |

Chapter 4 :: DSD Discipline Monitoring

Highlighted Commendations
LETTER OF COMMENDATION
A security specialist observed what appeared to be a suicidal party standing on
an overpass on Interstate 270, and immediately pulled off to the side of the road
and telephoned 9-1-1. After an Adams County Deputy Sheriff arrived and
made contact, the suicidal party fell from the overpass. The security specialist and
another bystander assisted the injured party, keeping his head stable so as to prevent
additional injury from occurring, while relaying the necessary information to the
Adams County deputy in order to assist the paramedics responding to the incident.
For attention to detail, rendering assistance and remaining on scene until the first
responders arrived, the security specialist received a letter of commendation.

LETTER OF COMMENDATION
A deputy sheriff stopped to assist with a serious roll-over traffic accident. Upon
coming onto the scene and observing an unresponsive female occupant in the
driver seat with her seat belt on, the deputy broke the window, cut the seat belt,
removed the occupant from the wreckage, helped bring her to consciousness, and
ultimately escorted her to safety. For these actions, the deputy was awarded a letter
of commendation.

LETTER OF COMMENDATION
A DSD Division Chief was awarded a letter of commendation for outstanding
efforts with the coordination of contractors, architects, training staff, and developing
policy and procedures for the successful refurbishment of Building 24. The logistics,
planning and operational aspects of this project came to fruition through dedication,
commitment, and attention to detail, which made the transition as seamless as
possible.

| Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 4 :: DSD Discipline Monitoring

DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARD
A deputy received a strike to the face and sustained a severe bite injury to his
left thumb while trying to restrain an inmate. Despite his injury and being in
considerable pain, the deputy did not withdraw from the incident to seek immediate
medical attention. He remained engaged in an effort to gain control of the inmate
until another deputy came to assist. For displaying extraordinary bravery under
critical conditions, and for putting the safety of fellow officers and the jail facility
above his own safety and well being, the deputy was honored with a Distinguished
Service Award.

SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT 2013 |

Highlighted Case
During the first half of 2013, we agreed with the Manager of Safety’s
Office in many disciplinary cases. However, the Manager of Safety’s
Office recently closed a case that we believed involved the use of
inappropriate force without disciplining or retraining the involved
officer.
On September 18, 2012, a DSD deputy (“Deputy A”) entered the
cell of an inmate who refused to get out of bed to go to court. Deputy
A informed the inmate that if he did not get out of bed he would be
tased. The inmate continued to refuse. Deputy A left the cell and
went to an administrative office to retrieve a Taser from storage. In
that office, he spoke with a sergeant,59 and they discussed tasing the
inmate due to his refusal to go to court.
Deputy A returned to the inmate’s cell along with several other
deputies, and again informed the inmate that he would be tased if he
did not get out of bed. The inmate again refused to move. Deputy A
tased the inmate, immobilizing him, and placed him into handcuffs.
The inmate was then escorted for a medical evaluation.
DSD policy is clear that Tasers “will not be used . . . to effect
compliance with verbal commands where there is no physical
threat.”60 Utilizing a Taser to force compliance with non-emergency
orders is not authorized. Moreover, the United States Department
of Justice (“DOJ”) has also been clear that Tasers are to be used only
against subjects who are exhibiting active aggression, and should not
be used to enforce non-emergency orders.61

SEMIANNUAL REPORT 2013 |

Chapter 5 :: Highlighted Case

No written decision was issued by the Manager of Safety’s Office regarding its
decision to take no disciplinary action in this case. However, the Manager of
Safety’s Office recently provided the following explanation:
“[T]he Manager did not find by a preponderance of the evidence that the
deputy’s use of the Taser violated policy. The Manager believed it was more
likely than not that Deputy A was telling the truth in describing the events
that led to his Taser use and that Deputy A was reasonable in interpreting
the inmate’s actions as aggressive and threatening. The Manager found that
when the inmate refused to go to Court, Deputy A went to Deputy B and
asked Deputy B if the inmate had to go to court. Deputy A suggested
to Deputy B that they just let the inmate sleep and mitigate the whole
situation given that the inmate had a history of assaultive and unpredictable
behavior. Deputy B told Deputy A that the inmate had to go to court since
the Judge would not postpone a court date just because an inmate refused to
get out of bed. After the inmate repeatedly refused to get out of bed to go
to Court, Deputy A obtained backup, entered the cell, showed the inmate
the Taser in his hand, and told the inmate if he continued to refuse to go to
court he would be Tased. This is an appropriate threat that can be used to
get an inmate to comply with verbal orders. Deputy A and Deputy C said
that the inmate rolled over quickly, started yelling, and appeared to make an
aggressive move as he was getting out of the bed. The Manager determined
that the evidence supported a conclusion that Deputy A found these actions
threatening to himself and the other deputies, so the use of the Taser was
within policy.”62
In contrast, we believed that the evidence indicated that the inmate was tased due
to his refusal to go to court, rather than for aggressive, threatening, or defensive
resistant behavior. Deputy A wrote two reports shortly after this incident. Neither
of these reports asserted that the inmate had been aggressive or was tased due to
concerns about deputy safety. To the contrary, Deputy A’s reports clearly state that
the reason the inmate was tased was because the “Inmate refused to go to court,”
and had been informed that “if he continued to refuse to go to court, he would be
tased.” Four witness officers and one sergeant also completed reports related to this
incident. None of these witness reports stated that the inmate had been aggressive
or resistive.

| Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 5 :: Highlighted Case

The two deputies who were in the cell with Deputy A also reported that Deputy
A told the inmate that he had one final chance to obey commands or he would be
tased, including one deputy who heard Deputy A state “This is your last chance, are
you going to court or not?”
Further, we noted that it was only during the IAB investigation that threatening
behavior was ever suggested as a reason for tasing the inmate. Of all the witness
officers interviewed, only one deputy (who was positioned outside the cell) indicated
that he “vaguely” remembered the inmate “shooting” out of the bed and yelling
aggressively. However, this was neither consistent with the testimony of any other
witness, nor corroborated in the deputy’s own report prepared shortly after the
incident. During Deputy A’s IAB interview, the deputy asserted for the first time
that the tasing had been prompted by a possibly aggressive move by the inmate,
stating that the inmate had rolled over in bed and placed his arm on the floor,
indicating a possible intention to stand up. This assertion was not corroborated by
the other witness officers or any of Deputy A’s own previous statements about the
incident.
We recommended that the Manager of Safety’s Office discipline Deputy A for
failing to follow the Taser policy and for using inappropriate force against the
inmate. The Manager of Safety’s Office did not accept these recommendations, and
no disciplinary action was taken.

SEMIANNUAL REPORT 2013 |

Critical Incidents
Introduction and Overview
Officer-involved shootings and deaths in custody (collectively
“critical incidents”) can have a profound impact on the lives of both
officers and community members, and on the overall relationship
between law enforcement and the community. All investigations
into critical incidents should be completed thoroughly and
efficiently, with a goal of determining whether the incidents were
handled lawfully and according to Departmental policy. To promote
transparency in the investigation and review of critical incidents, the
OIM publishes regular reports regarding the status of investigations
into critical incidents and the disciplinary decisions, if any, made by
the Departments regarding officer conduct during critical incidents.
In all critical incidents, DPD’s Major Crimes Unit and the Denver
District Attorney’s Office immediately respond to the scene to begin
an investigation to determine whether any person should be held
criminally liable. The OIM also generally responds to the scene
for a walk-through and a debriefing from command staff. Major
Crimes detectives interview civilian witnesses and involved officers,
and obtain documentary evidence. The OIM monitors all video
interviews and may suggest additional questions at the conclusion
of each interview. After the criminal investigation is complete, the
administrative review process begins.

SEMIANNUAL REPORT 2013 |

Chapter 6 :: Critical Incidents

Administrative Review of Critical Incidents Involving DPD
Officers
Once the District Attorney’s Office has made a decision regarding the filing of
criminal charges against anyone involved in the incident, the Major Crimes reports
are submitted to DPD IAB to commence the administrative review. The OIM
confers with IAB to determine whether further investigation is necessary to assess
whether there have been violations of Department policy. Once all relevant evidence
is gathered, the case is submitted to a DPD Use-of-Force Board to determine
whether any violations of the DPD’s use-of-force policies have occurred. The OIM
is present during all Use-of-Force Board proceedings and deliberations.
If the Use-of-Force Board finds that the officer’s actions were in compliance with
DPD policy (“in-policy”), the case is forwarded to the Chief of Police. If the Chief
and the OIM agree there were no policy violations (in non-fatal shootings), the
case is closed and no further administrative action is taken. In fatal shootings, the
Manager of Safety makes the final determination and issues a public report. The
OIM reviews the Manager’s findings and either concurs or disagrees.
If the Use-of-Force Board finds that the officer’s actions were in violation of any
Department policy (“out-of-policy”), the officer is then given the opportunity to
respond to the allegations and provide mitigating evidence to the Chief of Police at
a “Chief ’s Hearing.” Both the Chief ’s disciplinary recommendation and that of the
OIM are forwarded to the Manager of Safety for his or her consideration.
If the OIM disagrees with a recommendation made by the Use-of-Force Board or
the Chief of Police, the OIM recommendation will be forwarded to the Manager of
Safety, who is the ultimate disciplinary decision-maker regarding critical incidents.

| Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 6 :: Critical Incidents

DPD Officer-Involved Shootings (January 1 - June 30, 2013)
Incident #1
On January 17, 2013, Denver’s Combined Communications dispatch center
received information from another county that armed suspects might be driving
into Denver in a stolen red pick-up truck. The DPD was also informed that the
suspects had family members in Denver and may have been involved in a shooting
in Aurora. Approximately two hours later, two DPD officers spotted the suspects in
Northwest Denver and initiated a pursuit, which went on for an extended period of
time and came to involve a large number of DPD officers. During the pursuit, the
suspects allegedly drove at a high rate of speed, drove onto a sidewalk in an attempt
to run a police officer over, and allegedly fired a large number of rounds at pursuing
DPD officers. One DPD officer was shot in the shoulder during the chase. The
pursuit ended when the suspects crashed into a tree. After the crash, one male
suspect was wounded by DPD officers after he appeared to reach into the cab of the
truck, possibly for a weapon. A second male suspect was shot and killed after he
allegedly pointed a black handgun at officers. Two other male suspects were taken
into custody. A fifth occupant of the truck, a female witness, was transported to
the hospital, treated, and released. Multiple handguns and many spent shell cases
were found in and around the truck. The criminal charges filed against several of
the suspects are now pending.
The Denver District Attorney reviewed the incident and declined to file charges
against the involved officers. The DA prepared a detailed letter reviewing the
shooting, which can be found here: www.denverda.org/News_Release/Officerinvolved_shooting_investigations.htm. The DPD Use of Force Review Board
reviewed the case and concluded that the shooting was justified and within policy.
The OIM agreed with this assessment.

Incident #2
On May 14, 2013, the Denver Fire Department responded to a 911 call regarding
a suicidal party. When Fire personnel approached the person at his house, he
displayed a gun and indicated that would shoot himself if the police were called.
The firefighters retreated and a number of Denver Police officers responded to the
scene. The DPD officers took up positions around the subject’s house and began

SEMIANNUAL REPORT 2013 |

Chapter 6 :: Critical Incidents

trying to communicate with him by loudspeaker. After a few minutes, the subject
exited his house with a handgun to his head, stood in his yard, and yelled “shoot me”
several times at the officers. During this time, a DPD officer repeatedly urged the
suspect to put the gun down. A short time later, the subject cycled the slide of the
gun, walked into the street, waved the gun in the direction of officers, and continued
to yell “shoot me.” One officer shot the subject once in the torso with a round
from a less lethal 40mm weapon. The round did not appear to have an effect on
the subject, who picked up the projectile, threw it back at one of the other officers
and yelled “shoot me again. Shoot me again.” After the subject continued to walk
in the street, the DPD officer shot the subject again in the torso with a second
less lethal round, which had no apparent effect. While officers continued to yell
commands to drop the gun, the subject turned and began to jog toward a residence
that contained civilians. Concerned that the bystanders would be harmed or that
the subject would attempt to take hostages, a DPD officer shot the subject once in
the back with a shotgun, killing him. It was later determined that the subject’s gun
was not loaded and did not contain a firing pin.
The Denver District Attorney reviewed the incident and declined to file charges
against the involved officers. The DA prepared a detailed letter reviewing the
shooting, which can be found here: www.denverda.org/News_Release/Officerinvolved_shooting_investigations.htm. The DPD Use of Force Review Board met
on November 22, 2013 and concluded that the shooting was justified and within
policy. The OIM concurred with this assessment.

Incident #3

On April 29, 2013, a Denver police officer responded to an assisted living facility
after a report of a suicidal party armed with a large pair of scissors. The officer
found the subject in his room at the facility in an agitated state and holding large
scissors. The officer asked the subject multiple times to put the scissors down. The
suspect allegedly refused and began to take steps toward the officer while opening
and closing the scissors. The officer shot the subject in the ribcage with a 40mm
less lethal round. The strike had no apparent effect on the subject, who allegedly
threw the spent 40mm projectile back at the officer. The officer continued to order
the subject not to come any closer. However, the subject continued to step toward
the officer while holding the scissors. The officer switched to his handgun and shot
the subject several times. The subject was hit but survived.

| Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 6 :: Critical Incidents

The Denver District Attorney reviewed the incident and declined to file charges
against the involved officers. The DA prepared a detailed letter reviewing the
shooting, which can be found here: www.denverda.org/News_Release/Officerinvolved_shooting_investigations.htm. The DPD Use of Force Review Board met
on November 22, 2013 and concluded that the shooting was within policy. The
OIM concurred with this assessment.

Incident #4

On March 18, 2013, two officers responded to a report that a juvenile male suspect
was “stabbing at people” and “stabbing a door” with butcher knives. Upon arriving
at the scene, the officers observed the juvenile standing on a porch with a knife in
each hand. They also heard people “screaming and yelling” from behind the closed
front door of the house. Since they did not know whether any of the individuals
inside the house had been stabbed, the officers were concerned that the subject
was blocking the front door and preventing them from potentially helping the
individuals inside. During the short stand-off, the officers repeatedly asked the
subject to drop the knives, however, the suspect refused and told officers they would
have to shoot him. He raised a knife as if to throw it at the officers, yet they still
held their fire. After a brief time, the subject turned from the officers and began to
open the screen door to the house. Fearing for the safety of the occupants in the
house, both officers fired their handguns at the subject, who was hit and injured, but
not killed.
The Denver District Attorney reviewed the incident and declined to file charges
against the involved officers. The DA prepared a detailed letter reviewing the
shooting, which can be found here: www.denverda.org/News_Release/Officerinvolved_shooting_investigations.htm. The DPD Use of Force Review Board met
on July 24, 2013 and concluded that the shooting was justified and within policy.
The OIM concurred with this assessment.

SEMIANNUAL REPORT 2013 |

Chapter 6 :: Critical Incidents

DPD In-Custody Deaths (January 1 - June 30, 2013)
2013 Incident # 1
A subject died on January 5, 2013 from natural causes while being transported in
a Denver Cares van after being contacted by a DPD officer. The Denver Police
Department reviewed the case and determined that there were no policy violations.
The OIM concurred with this assessment.

2012 DPD Critical Incidents Pending or Closed Between
January 1 - June 30, 2013
2012 Incident #1
On November 6, 2012, two officers initiated a traffic stop at night. The officers
approached the stopped vehicle, with one officer on the driver’s side and one on
the passenger’s side. The suspect reached out the window and fired at the officer
approaching on the driver’s side. The officer on the passenger’s side returned fire.
The suspect sped away and, notwithstanding an extensive search that night, escaped.
Neither the suspect nor the officers were injured in the shooting.
On April 17, 2013, the DPD Use of Force Review Board concluded that the
shooting was justified and within policy. The OIM concurred with this assessment.

2012 Incident #2
On November 9, 2012, DPD officers became involved in a highway pursuit of a
person believed to be a suspect in two separate firearms discharges at officers during
traffic stops. The pursuit ended in Aurora, Colorado, when officers utilized a vehicle
immobilization technique on the suspect’s car. The car crashed along with two
police vehicles, and a DPD officer fired multiple shots at the suspect, hitting him
twice. The suspect was arrested after a physical struggle. The suspect survived. No
weapon was recovered from the suspect.
Because the incident occurred in Aurora, the Arapahoe District Attorney’s Office
and the Aurora Police Department handled the criminal investigation into the

| Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 6 :: Critical Incidents

officer-involved shooting. The Arapahoe County District Attorney’s Office
determined that it would not file criminal charges against any involved officer.
The OIM reviewed the criminal investigation, and requested that the DPD conduct
a more comprehensive administrative investigation to determine whether there were
any violations of DPD policy. The DPD and Manager of Safety’s office declined
to conduct the requested investigation. We were thus unable to certify that the
administrative investigation was thorough or complete or complied with national
standards on officer-involved shooting investigations. On April 17, 2013, the DPD
Use of Force Review Board concluded that the shooting was within policy. The
OIM was unable to make a recommendation to the Use of Force Review Board due
to insufficient information about this case. Charges are currently pending against
the suspect involved in this incident.

2012 Incident #3
On November 9, 2012, officers responded to an individual acting strangely and
causing a disturbance at a barber shop. The individual was contacted and handcuffed.
He then became unconscious and unresponsive. He was transported to a local
hospital, where he died days later.
The DPD Use of Force Review Board concluded that there were no policy violations.
The OIM concurred with this assessment.

SEMIANNUAL REPORT 2013 |

Chapter 6 :: Critical Incidents

Denver Sheriff Department
In-Custody Death Investigation and Review Protocol
In all critical incidents, DPD’s Major Crimes Unit immediately responds to the
scene to begin an investigation to determine whether any person should be held
criminally liable. If the incident warrants it, the OIM also responds to the scene of
the incident for a walk-through and a debriefing from command staff. Homicide
detectives interview all witnesses, every involved officer, and obtain documentary
evidence. The OIM monitors all video interviews conducted by the Major Crimes
Unit and may suggest additional questions at the conclusion of each interview. After
the criminal investigation is complete, the administrative review process begins.

Administrative Review of Critical Incidents Involving DSD
Deputies
Once the District Attorney’s Office has made a decision in regard to the filing of
criminal charges against anyone involved in the incident, the Major Crimes Unit’s
reports are submitted to DSD IAB to commence the administrative review. The
OIM confers with IAB to determine whether further investigation is necessary to
assess whether there have been violations of Department policy. If, after reviewing
the investigation, a Division Chief finds that the involved deputy’s actions were in
compliance with DSD policy (“in-policy”), the case is forwarded to the Director of
Corrections. If the Director agrees there were no policy violations, the case is closed.
The OIM reviews the Division Chief ’s findings and makes recommendations to the
Director and the Manager of Safety.
If the Division Chief finds that the involved deputy’s actions were in violation of
any Department policy (“out-of-policy”), the case is referred to the Director for a
“Pre-Disciplinary Hearing.” That hearing is attended by the Department’s three
Division Chiefs and is chaired by the Director of Corrections. The OIM observes
the hearing and the deliberations of the Command Staff. At that hearing, the
involved deputy is given the opportunity to present his or her side of the story,
including mitigating evidence, if any. After hearing from the involved deputy, the
OIM makes disciplinary recommendations to the Director. Both the Director’s
recommendation and that of the OIM are forwarded to the Manager of Safety

| Office of the Independent Monitor

Chapter 6 :: Critical Incidents

for consideration. The Manager of Safety determines whether the deputy’s actions
were “in-policy” or “out-of-policy” and the appropriate level of discipline, if any.

DSD Officer-Involved Shootings (January 1 - June 30, 2013)
Incident #1
On January 30, 2013, two DSD deputies assigned to the DSD Warrant Detail
arrived at an apartment complex in an attempt to apprehend a female with an
outstanding arrest warrant. One of the deputies observed her step out of her
apartment and onto her patio with two children. This deputy approached the
subject, identified himself, told her she was under arrest, and placed a hand on her
shoulder. The subject, who was not facing the deputy, turned suddenly and fired
one round from a pistol, causing the deputy to fall. After hearing the gunshot and
seeing his partner fall, the second deputy advanced on the patio and began to return
fire, killing the female. One of the deputies suffered a gunshot wound to the hand.
The two children were uninjured.
The Denver District Attorney reviewed the incident and declined to file charges
against the involved officers. The DA prepared a detailed letter reviewing the
shooting, which can be found here: www.denverda.org/News_Release/Officerinvolved_shooting_investigations.htm. Command staff from the Denver Sheriff
Department reviewed the incident and concluded that the shooting was justified
and within policy. The OIM concurred with this assessment.

Incident #2
On March 27, 2013, a DSD deputy was driving to work on I-25 in the early morning
when he began to exchange words and hand gestures with the driver of another
vehicle. Both drivers got off at an off-ramp. The deputy, who was in uniform but
off-duty, indicated that he exited his car, went to the other vehicle, and saw the
driver reaching for an unidentified object. The deputy grabbed the driver’s arm
and delivered a palm heel strike to the driver’s face. The driver began to drive away,
then stopped, and allegedly began to back up towards the deputy. The deputy drew
his firearm and fired multiple times at the other vehicle, which then drove away.
Neither the other vehicle nor its driver were ever identified.

SEMIANNUAL REPORT 2013 |

Chapter 6 :: Critical Incidents

No criminal charges were filed against the deputy. The case was reviewed by DSD
command staff, the OIM, and the Manager of Safety’s Office. The Manager of
Safety’s Office terminated the deputy after determining that the deputy’s conduct
violated several rules and policies, including the DSD’s use of force policy. The
OIM concured with this decision.

2012 DSD Critical Incidents Pending or Closed Between
January 1 - June 30, 2013
Incident #1
On September 29, 2012, an inmate discovered that a fellow inmate was not breathing
and had died. The Medical Examiner’s report reflects that the death resulted from
natural causes. DSD command staff reviewed the incident and found no policy
violations. The OIM concurred with their assessment.

| Office of the Independent Monitor

Endnotes

Endnotes
1. D.R.M.C art. XVIII § 2-375(a).
2. Id.
3. National Guidelines for Police Monitors, Police Assessment Resource Center (2008), at 1617 and 77 (“monitoring reports should examine performance on a systemic as well as a caseby-case basis” and to determine “whether the monitored agency’s investigative protocols and
practices as a whole produce fair results on a consistent and repeated basis”) available at: http://
www.parc.info/client_files/monitoring%20guidelines.pdf.
4. Id. at 1.
5. Office of the Independent Monitor, 2012 OIM Annual Report (2013), at 51-52.
6. The OIM requested access to DSD electronic records relating to inmate grievances, and the
DSD provided us with 46 electronic worksheets used to record information about the inmate
grievances filed between January 1, 2011 and June 30, 2013. To analyze these data, OIM staff
collapsed and aggregated the separate spreadsheets into one analyzable data file, then reviewed
the DSD’s grievance summaries to identify complaints that appeared to relate to the conduct
of sworn DSD staff. We then requested access to the paper case files relating to 898 grievances
(out of 5,979) that appeared to relate to officer conduct, or where the grievance summary was
ambiguous or blank. The DSD provided us photocopies of the paper files for 861 grievances.
7. This chapter is not a performance audit of the DSD grievance process overall, nor is the OIM
an audit agency.
8. We thank Prof. Annett Gaston (University of Maryland), Prof. Joseph Sandoval (Metropolitan
State University of Denver), and Prof. Margo Schlanger (University of Michigan Law School)
for their willingness to talk with us about national best practices in civilian oversight and inmate
grievance processes and law enforcement oversight.
9. This council of inmates at the DDC was generally familiar with the inmate grievance process,
and reported no strong concerns about its overall function or effectiveness.
10. See American Bar Association, ABA Standards for Criminal Justice: Treatment of Prisoners,
3rd Edition (Washington, DC: American Bar Association, 2011) at 198 and 200-201; see also
David Bierie, Procedural Justice and Prison Violence: Examining Complaints Among Federal
Inmates, 19 Psych., Pub. Pol., and Law, 15-27 (2013).
11. For a discussion of the value of early intervention, see Samuel Walker, Early Intervention
Systems for Law Enforcement Agencies, (Community Oriented Policing Services, Department
of Justice, 2003), at 54-70.
12. See Van Swearingen, Imprisoning Rights: The Failure of Negotiated Governance in the Prison
Inmate Process, 96 California L. Rev. 1335 (2008).

SEMIANNUAL REPORT 2013 |

Endnotes

13. For example, one of the central demands of the inmates who participated in the riots at Attica
was that the prison grievance process be reformed. See Bierie, supra note 10, at 15; see also E.
Flynn, The Ecology of Prison Violence, in Prison Violence, Albert Cohen, George Cole, and
Robert Bailey (eds.), 115-133 (Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath).
14. Swearingen, supra note 12, at 1359.
15. In fact, under federal law, inmates are generally required to exhaust an inmate grievance process
before they can file a lawsuit. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
16. DSD D.O. 4810.1D(1).
17. The DDC asks inmates to try and resolve their concerns informally with a housing deputy and
a supervisor before filing a written grievance. The County Jail adds another layer of required
informal resolution and directs inmates to informally discuss their concerns first with a housing
deputy, then a supervising sergeant, and then with a Watch Captain. DSD Inmate Handbook,
at 13-14.
18. Notwithstanding this directive in DSD policy, we were told during interviews that in practice,
an inmate’s failure to attempt “informal resolution” will often not prevent them from filing a
formal grievance.
19. DSD D.O. 4810.1D(4)(A).
20. DSD D.O. 4810.1D(4)(C).
21. The Inmate Handbook includes explicit language that inmate KITES will not be accepted by
one inmate on behalf of another inmate, or accepted by more than one inmate. It contains no
similar restrictions for inmate grievances. DSD Inmate Handbook, at 13.
22. At the County Jail, a sergeant within the operations center is responsible for determining how to
route each inmate grievance. At the DDC, a floor sergeant decides how to route each grievance.
23. DSD D.O. 4810.1D(4)(C).
24. DSD D.O. 4810.1D(4)(D-E).
25. See U.S. Department of Justice, Principles for Promoting Police Integrity, (Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2001) (“Misconduct investigations of serious misconduct
allegations, including allegations of excessive force, false arrest, improper search or seizure, or
discriminatory law enforcement, should be conducted by an entity that has special responsibility
for conducting misconduct investigations.”), at 8.
26. U.S. Department of Justice, Standards and Guidelines for Internal Affairs: Recommendations
from a Community of Practice, (Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of
Justice, 2009), at 31.
27. See Lou Reiter, Law Enforcement Administrative Investigations, Third Edition, (Indianapolis,
IN: Public Agency Training Council, 2006), at 3.4.

| Office of the Independent Monitor

Endnotes

28. DSD IAB Procedures Manual § 300.
29. DSD D.O. 4810.1D(2).
30. Although “improper conduct” and “improper procedure” are included within IAB’s jurisdiction,
we believe that these categories are too broad, and encompass too many of the grievances filed
by inmates to be useful for the purposes of defining what grievances should be referred to
IAB. We therefore omitted grievances that fell within these categories from our selection
of grievances that should have been referred to or investigated by IAB, unless they alleged
“improper conduct” or “improper procedure” that could have had a significant impact on inmate
safety or if the “improper conduct” or “improper procedure” allegation, if true, could result in
significant discipline under DSD policy.
31. Only a fraction of the grievances related to concerns about deputy misconduct. For example,
based on the grievance summaries recorded in the DDC and County Jail spreadsheets, only 13%
of the grievances related to inmate concerns about deputy conduct. Most grievances related to
other more mundane topics, such as medication/medical care (14%), property (11%), access to
services (11%), the quality/quantity of facility food (9%), facility fees/accounts (9%), housing/
classification (7%) or other various concerns (26%).
32. The Director has indicated his belief that the process used for handling the 54 grievances
accords with National Accreditation Standards and with the general approach to the triage and
filtering of complaints that is discussed in the Manager of Safety’s Disciplinary Handbook. We
note, however, that we do not challenge complaint triage as a general approach or principle. To
the contrary, the OIM has long advocated for fair and consistent triage of complaints as a way of
managing the workload of IAB. However, we believe that giving individual jail supervisors the
discretion to determine whether serious complaints—including inappropriate force and sexual
misconduct—merit investigation or not could expose the DSD to the risk of mishandling
serious inmate claims.
33. D.R.M.C art. XVIII § 2-375.
34. DSD D.O. 2440.1.N(9)(A).
35. D.R.M.C. art. XVIII § 2-388(b).
36. D.R.M.C. art. XVIII § 2-388(c).
37. D.R.M.C. art. XVIII § 2-388(a).
38. D.R.M.C. art. XVIII § 2-388(a).
39. IAPro was implemented in March 2013. Before IAPro, the database was known as “CUFFS.”
For ease, we refer to both databases as “IAPro” throughout this report.
40. DSD IAB Procedures, rev. May 2013, at §§ 201.0 and 303.0.
41. Standards and Guidelines for Internal Affairs (Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S.
Department of Justice, 2009) at 17 (“A reliable complaint tracking system is a means not only

SEMIANNUAL REPORT 2013 |

Endnotes

of managing cases but of providing public accountability for the follow-through on intake
complaints. Absent a tracking system, an agency has no way of efficiently verifying that its cases
are properly assigned, that investigators are providing due diligence, or that cases have been
completed”).
42. See U.S. Department of Justice, supra note 25 at 10 (“Many agencies have developed data-based
personnel management systems (often called “early warning” systems), to identify problem
behavior and allow early intervention to correct that behavior…Agencies should monitor
information relating to the actions of individual officers, supervisors, and specific units or
divisions of the agency.”)
43. Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Inmate Grievance Program:
Annual Report 2011, (2011), http://www.doccs.ny.gov/Research/Reports/2012/
InmateGrievanceAnnualReport2011.pdf.
44. Swearingen, supra note 12, at 1359; See Bierie, supra note 10, at 27.
45. DSD D.O. 4810.1D(4)(I).
46. Since the OIM review of the grievance process began, we understand that the DSD has begun
to do quantitative analysis of its grievance spreadsheets for certain limited information about
grievance patterns.
47. See Samuel Walker, Geoffrey Alpert, and Dennis Kenney, Early Warning Systems: Responding
to the Problem Officer (Washington, D.C., National Institute of Justice, 2001).
48. Walker, supra note 11, at 55-72.
49. During that quarter, more than two dozen inmates filed grievances against a deputy resulting
from a single incident during which the deputy allegedly revoked an entire housing unit’s
privileges and used profanity.
50. Interview with Professor Joseph Sandoval, Metropolitan State University (October 10, 2013).
51. If we expand the pool of grievances to include non-deputy conduct issues, then some inmates
filed a truly outsized number of grievances during the review period. For example, one inmate
filed 33 grievances relating to medical and missing property issues. A second inmate filed 31
grievances, many of which related to court issues and the quality of facility food.
52. See American Correctional Association standard 4-ALDF-6B-01 (“An inmate grievance
procedure is made available to all inmates and includes at least one level of appeal.”).
53. This figure was calculated by averaging race/ethnicity for all DSD inmates across three separate
days: December 31, 2011, December 31, 2012, and October 16, 2013. The data used in this
calculation was provided by the Denver Sheriff Department’s Technology Management
Statistical Unit.
54. See, e.g., Nov. 19, 2009 United States Department of Justice Findings Letter re: the Westchester
County Jail, 16-17 (“Requiring a detainee to pursue the matter informally compromises the

| Office of the Independent Monitor

Endnotes

review and investigative processes, especially in those instances in which unlawful actions
may have occurred. Detainees who may have been subjected to unlawful force will at best be
reluctant to seek resolution from those who may have witnesses or been involved in the very
actions that would form the basis of their grievance”).
55. The data reported in this chapter were extracted from IAPro. The OIM is not an IAPro
administrator and has no control over data entry into the database. The OIM does not conduct
governmentally approved audits of the database for accuracy. As a result, the OIM is unable
to certify the complete accuracy of the DPD’s data entry. Finally, because the OIM is not the
final arbiter of what allegations to record in IAPro and against which officers, the OIM cannot
certify that the data presented (with respect to specific complaint allegations) is as it would
be if the OIM were making those decisions. Since these data were drawn from dynamic, live
databases, the reported complaint, allegation, and outcome numbers will fluctuate over time and
are subject to revision until all of the cases for a particular period are investigated and closed.
The figures reported in this chapter include only complaints against sworn DPD officers.
Community and internal complaint numbers do not include “scheduled discipline” cases (e.g.,
when a DPD officer allegedly violates a traffic law, gets into a preventable traffic accident, or
misses a court date, shooting qualification, or continuing education class).
56. Many reports relating to police oversight and IAB processes talk about complainant “allegations.”
Allegations are assertions, in a complainant’s own words, of particular kinds of purported
misconduct by an officer. The DPD does not systematically track the detailed allegations made
by complainants in its IAB database. Instead, it tracks “specifications.” Specifications are
rule violation categories that are based upon the departmental rules and disciplinary policies
implicated by a complaint. Thus, a specification captures the rule under which an officer might
be punished, rather than the precise allegations communicated in the complaint.
57. The data reported in this chapter were extracted from IAPro. The OIM is not an IAPro
administrator and has no control over data entry into the database. The OIM does not conduct
governmentally approved audits of the database for accuracy. As a result, the OIM is unable
to certify the complete accuracy of the DPD’s data entry. Finally, because the OIM is not the
final arbiter of what allegations to record in IAPro and against which officers, the OIM cannot
certify that the data presented (with respect to specific complaint allegations) is as it would
be if the OIM were making those decisions. Since these data were drawn from dynamic, live
databases, the reported complaint, allegation, and outcome numbers will fluctuate over time and
are subject to revision until all of the cases for a particular period are investigated and closed.
The figures reported in this chapter only include complaints against sworn DSD deputies.
58. Historically the OIM has included DSD “reprimand cases” in its count of complaints against
DSD deputies. Reprimand cases are a type of management complaint filed by an employee’s
immediate supervisor that allege a minor rule violation, such as the failure to wear an appropriate
uniform or losing department property. Reprimand cases are not generally investigated by
Internal Affairs, but have been historically recorded in the IAB database. Unfortunately, it is
not clear whether the DSD is continuing to systematically record reprimand cases in its new
IAPro database. For example, only 14 reprimand cases were recorded in 2012, as compared 149
in 2007, a 90.6% drop. Only two reprimand cases were reported in the entire first six months of

SEMIANNUAL REPORT 2013 |

Endnotes

2013. As a result, we have chosen to exclude reprimand cases from these counts.
59. The sergeant has since retired from the DSD.
60. DSD D.O. 5014.1(I)(2).
61. U.S. Department of Justice and Police Executive Research Forum, 2011 Electronic Control
Weapons Guidelines, 20 (2011), http://cops.usdoj.gov/Publications/e021111339-PERFECWGb.pdf (Tasers “should be used only against subjects who are exhibiting active aggression
or who are actively resisting in a manner that, in the officer’s judgment, is likely to result in
injuries to themselves or others. [Tasers] should not be used against a passive subject.”).
62. Email from Manager of Safety Ashley Kilroy (November 26, 2013).

| Office of the Independent Monitor

DENVER

OFFICE OF THE
INDEPENDENT MONITOR

Office of the Independent Monitor
201 W. Colfax Ave., Dept 1201
Denver, CO 80202
720 913 3306
www.denvergov.org/OIM | oim@denvergov.org
facebook.com/officeoftheindependentmonitordenver