Denver Police Department Discipline
Handbook: Conduct Principles and
Disciplinary Guidelines
By order of the Chief of Police and approval of the Manager of Safety,
these principles and guidelines shall apply to all violations occurring on or after
October 1, 2008.

Policy Statement
An effective discipline system is one that is fair, rational, efficient and
consistent, reflects the values of the Department, protects the rights of
officers and citizens, promotes respect and trust within the Department and
with the community and results in a culture of public accountability, individual
responsibility and maintenance of the highest standards of professionalism.

The purpose of this Discipline Handbook: Conduct Principles and Disciplinary Guidelines is to provide
sworn members of the Denver Police Department with notice of the principles and guidelines which shall
be employed by the Department in making disciplinary decisions. This Handbook should be reviewed
and considered in conjunction with revisions to Department Rules and Regulations, all other Department
policies and procedures related to discipline, and all Civil Service Commission rules regarding appeals.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
16.0
17.0
18.0
19.0
20.0
21.0
22.0
23.0
24.0
25.0
26.0

27.0
28.0
29.0
30.0
31.0
32.0
33.0
34.0
35.0
36.0
37.0
38.0
39.0

Title
The Purpose and Importance of an Effective Disciplinary System
General Principles of Discipline
Achieving Consistency in Discipline
Practices in Support of an Effective, Efficient Disciplinary System
Specific Notice Regarding Practices in Support of the Disciplinary
System
Specific Notice Regarding the Ancillary Consequences of the
Disciplinary System
Summary of Determinations to be Made in the Disciplinary Process
Determining the Facts: Statement with Regard to Internal Investigations
Determining Whether a Violation Has Been Proven
Determining Whether a Violation Has Been Proven – Instructions
Determining Appropriate Discipline – The Goals and Purposes of
Disciplinary Sanctions
Development of the Discipline Matrix
Categories of Conduct
Assigning Conduct Categories to Specific Rules and Regulations
Determining Appropriate Conduct Categories – Analysis
Brief Description of Matrix Tables
Establishing Presumptive Penalties
Considering Prior Violations which Shall Increase Discipline Levels
Consideration of Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances
Rank as an Aggravating Factor
Prior Disciplinary History as an Aggravating Factor
Weighing Mitigating and Aggravating Factors
Explanation for Definitive Ranges of Mitigated/Aggravated Penalties
Policy of Maximum Suspension of 90 Days
Special Circumstances
Assessing the Seriousness of Misconduct, the Harm Arising from that
Misconduct and the Causal Connection Between the Conduct and the
Harm for the Purposes of Determining the Appropriate Conduct
Category, the Weight to be Given to Mitigating and Aggravating
Circumstances, or in the Consideration of “Special Circumstances”
Issues Related to Disciplinary Recommendations made to the Chief of
Police and the Manager of Safety – Requirement of Written Justification
Chain-of-Command Recommendations in the Discipline Process
Recommendations from the Use of Force Review Board and the
Disciplinary Review Board
The Role of the Chief of Police in the Disciplinary Process
The Role of the Manager of Safety in Imposing Discipline
The Role of the Independent Monitor
Department Sources of Disciplinary Specifications
Application Considerations Regarding Certain Violations
Negotiated Settlement of Disciplinary Actions
Establishment of an Enhanced Discipline Database
Establishment of the Manager of Safety’s Discipline Advisory Group
Standing Committee
Application of these Conduct Principles and Disciplinary Guidelines
The Vital Role of All Persons Involved in the Discipline Process

ii

Page
1
1
3
3
6
6
8
8
9
9
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
26
27
27

31
32
34
35
36
37
40
41
41
42
42
42
43
43

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)
Appendices
Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Appendix G -

Department Mission, Vision and Values
Law Enforcement Code of Ethics
Comment on Department Values and the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics
Application Considerations Regarding Certain Violations
Non-Disciplinary Programs
Discipline Matrix: Penalty Table and Category Violations and Level Assignment
Revised Rules and Regulations

iii

1.0

2.0

The Purpose and Importance of an Effective Disciplinary System
1.1

The overall objectives of this disciplinary system are to facilitate the
orderly functioning and operation of the Denver Police Department; to
ensure employee adherence to reasonable and acceptable standards
of performance and conduct; and to provide fair and equitable
consequences for failing to adhere to those standards.

1.2

Police officers hold a “position of trust” – a trust bestowed upon them by
the Department and the community and are, in large part, the
community’s most visible representatives of government. Arguably more
than any other representative of government, they are given enormous
discretion in carrying out their duties – discretion which also carries
tremendous responsibility. Officers are granted the legal authority to
seize property, restrict personal freedom and use force, including deadly
force, when appropriate.

1.3

Because of the trust placed in them and the enormity of the discretion and
authority granted to them, officers must understand that the community
has every right to expect and demand the highest level of accountability
from the Department as well as individual officers. Officers must know
that, when they engage in misconduct, they will receive fair and
appropriate discipline commensurate with the level of misconduct.
Discipline should not be an unexpected event but rather an anticipated
consequence of inappropriate conduct.

1.4

An effective system is one that is fairly administered, consistent and
based upon Department-wide standards known and enforced by all
members of the Department and designed to ensure timely results. This
system serves the public, the officers and the administration by uniformly
reinforcing the acceptable standards of conduct and presenting a clear
methodology for consequences related to a failure to abide by such
standards.

1.5

An effective disciplinary system results in strengthened relationships and
increased levels of trust within the Department as well as with the
community by ensuring both clarity in expectations and accountability for
actions by both the Department and the individual officer.

General Principles of Discipline
2.1

The discipline system must be fairly, efficiently, and consistently
administered so as to promote and maintain a culture of public
accountability, individual responsibility and maintenance of the highest
standards of professionalism.

2.2

Discipline should reflect the Mission and Values of the Department and
promote respect and trust within the Department and with the community.
1

2.3

Discipline should be based upon reasonable notice of the standards by
which conduct will be judged and the likely consequences of the failure to
adhere to Department rules and policies.

2.4

Programs and practices outside the discipline system, such as triage (also
known as “filtering”), mediation, early intervention systems, education,
training, mentoring and the like, which assist officers in adhering to
Department standards and modifying behaviors should be promoted and
utilized to their fullest extent.

2.5

The investigation of allegations of misconduct must be fair, thorough,
conducted with full regard for the rights of officers and designed to
develop all relevant facts necessary for the fair determination of the issue
in question.

2.6

Truthfulness is vital to the investigation and review process and shall be
expected and demanded of all subject officers, witness officers,
complainants, other witnesses, and all persons involved in the
investigation and review of allegations of misconduct.

2.7

The determination of whether an allegation of misconduct should be
sustained must be based upon the application of Department-wide
standards and the fair consideration of only those facts relevant to that
determination.

2.8

Where allegations of misconduct are sustained, disciplinary sanctions
must be imposed for legitimate purposes and must reflect all facts and
circumstances relevant to the determination of appropriate discipline.

2.9

Timeliness is essential to the fair administration of discipline. Adherence
to reasonably established timelines for the investigation and review of
allegations of misconduct must be a Department priority.

2.10

The administration of the discipline process shall not discriminate against
anyone on the actual or perceived basis of race, color, creed, national
origin, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion, political
affiliation, physical or mental disability, military status, marital status, or
other basis protected by Federal, State or local law or regulation.

2.11

All persons involved in the administration of the discipline process have
the duty to fairly and conscientiously carry out their responsibilities in
accordance with Departmental procedures and policies.

2.12

The administration of discipline must be based upon the fair, consistent
application of disciplinary principles and guidelines and the exercise of
reasonable and prudent judgment.

2.13

No rule or policy shall be created, interpreted or applied so as to lead to a
result which is unjust, unreasonable or unconscionable, and contrary to
the goals and purposes of these Conduct Principles and Disciplinary
Guidelines.
2

3.0

Achieving Consistency in Discipline
3.1

4.0

To achieve consistent discipline requires the consistent application of
guidelines, policies and procedures throughout the Department and at
every level of disciplinary review to:
3.1.1

Ensure consistency in determining whether a violation of
Department rules has been proven;

3.1.2

Ensure consistency in determining a fair and reasonable
disciplinary sanction if a violation has been proven; and

3.1.3

Ensure that the disciplinary sanction imposed on any officer is
consistent with that imposed on other officers in similar
circumstances.

Practices in Support of an Effective, Efficient Disciplinary System
4.1

An effective and efficient disciplinary system requires an approach that
will provide officers with fair notice and a clear understanding of the
potential consequences of misconduct and that will result in fair, equal
and consistent treatment of all officers. In addition, the tremendous
importance of programs and practices that can make the disciplinary
system more efficient and effective or that may assist officers in modifying
behaviors without the imposition of disciplinary sanctions is of equal
value. Among them are triage or filtering, mediation, early intervention
systems, education and training, mentoring, and recognition of officers’
positive actions on behalf of the Department and the public.

4.2

Triage or Filtering
4.2.1

When the Office of the Independent Monitor (OIM) was created
in 2005, the Monitor recommended that the Department initiate
a “triage” or filtering approach to the review and handling of all
complaints. This approach, which the Department has adopted,
ensures a better allocation of Department and Internal Affairs
resources. More investigation and command review time
should be devoted to serious cases of misconduct as opposed
to minor violations of Departmental rules and expectations. A
filtering process allows for the proper allocation of Department
resources in this regard. The result of the current filtering
system has been greater timeliness in the handling of
complaints, and fewer delays in the completion of investigations,
the determination of findings and the ultimate imposition of
discipline. This strategy has resulted in more equitable,
meaningful and credible outcomes for both officers and citizens.

3

4.3

4.4

4.5

Mediation
4.3.1

The mediation of police-citizen complaints is strongly endorsed
and encouraged by the Department. As a voluntary option,
mediation provides both officers and citizens the opportunity to
gain a better understanding of each other’s perspective. When
conducted by professional mediators in a neutral, nonconfrontational and confidential manner, mediation can increase
understanding and trust between officers and citizens.

4.3.2

Miscommunication and misunderstanding either create or
exacerbate the vast majority of complaints made by citizens.
Mediation is an exceptional tool for creating common ground
between the Department’s officers and the community. Officers
and citizens are encouraged to recognize mediation as an
opportunity to educate and explain. When officers who have
acted entirely within policy are offered mediation to resolve a
citizen complaint, the hope is that they will recognize mediation
as an educational opportunity which will allow them to help a
community member understand Department policy and the
police perspective. Likewise, providing officers the opportunity
to mediate in lieu of conducting an internal investigation gives
officers a unique opportunity to understand the perspectives of
complainants and the effects of officers’ behavior on those
persons.

Early Intervention Systems
4.4.1

Identifying problem behaviors before they result in disciplinary
violations is a necessary and useful tool for both officers and
supervisors. An early intervention system, to correct problem
behavior as soon as it is identified, needs to be outside the
disciplinary process and cannot be used in a punitive manner.
Early intervention has the potential of benefiting officers and
supervisors and the Department as a whole.

4.4.2

The Personnel Assessment System (PAS) is specifically
designed to give supervisors the tools necessary to assess the
performance of officers and to identify when an officer is in need
of additional training, mentoring, supervision or re-assignment.

Education and Training
4.5.1

All successful professional organizations recognize the
importance of continuing education and training. The Denver
Police Department has long embraced “in-service” training and
education as essential to its success as an organization. By
providing officers with the knowledge, skills and abilities needed
to effectively and safely perform their duties, the Department will
ensure that its officers can provide effective, safe and ethical
police services to the community.
4

4.6

4.5.2

Continuing education and training is intended to teach and
develop new skills and knowledge, while reinforcing and
strengthening knowledge and skills already learned. Officers,
supervisors and command personnel are encouraged to avail
themselves of the training opportunities afforded by the
Department as well as outside sources.

4.5.3

In addition, Department managers and supervisors should
always consider whether an officer is in need of any remedial
training as the result of observations made by peer officers or
supervisors or as the result of information obtained from the
Personnel Assessment System. In cases where an officer is
under investigation for misconduct or has been found to have
committed misconduct, additional training, in addition to any
possible imposition of discipline, should be considered. If the
Department is committed to an officer’s remaining on the job,
supervisors have a responsibility to ensure that the officer
receives whatever additional training is necessary to ensure he
or she will serve as an effective member of the law enforcement
community.

4.5.4

A menu of programs which may be considered for certain types
of misconduct is included as Appendix E in this Handbook.
Command and supervisory officers must be aware of these
programs and make them available, when appropriate, to all
officers.

Mentoring
4.6.1

Mentoring programs provide officers with role models who
exemplify the highest level of integrity and competence. The
Denver Police Department’s mentoring process begins with the
Field Training Officer (FTO) program for officers who have
recently graduated from the police academy. Recent graduates
are subject to close supervision by Field Training Officers who
have been identified as having the skill and knowledge
necessary to train new officers. The Field Training program is
mandatory and may include officers who have completed the
program but are temporarily reassigned for re-training.

4.6.2

The Department recognizes, however, that mentoring can be of
great value to other officers as well. An effective mentoring
program would team officers who are particularly successful in
certain areas with other officers who could learn from them.
Supervisors and Commanders should consider the value of
one-on-one mentoring as they become more familiar with the
specific strengths and weaknesses of individual officers and as
they conduct their regular performance reviews. The mentoring
process would be voluntary for both the involved officer and the
mentor.
5

4.6.3

4.7

5.0

Recognition of Positive Actions
4.7.1

The need for recognition of good work done by officers on an
ongoing basis is crucial. Department and community
acknowledgement of officers through the giving of honors and
awards is essential to maintaining good morale within the
Department and ensuring community pride and respect for its
law enforcement officers.

4.7.2

Personal recognition by peer officers, supervisory and
command staff, and citizens, is strongly encouraged to provide
balance to the necessities of the disciplinary system. To
accomplish that goal, efforts are being made to make it easier
for the community and the Department to give positive
recognition to officers in numerous locations throughout the
City, on the Department web site and in the reports of both the
Department and the Independent Monitor’s Office. Informing
the public and the Department when officers receive Citizens
Appreciate Police, Top Cops, District and other awards, is a
critical component in providing the community with a balanced
view of the officers who serve the community.

Specific Notice Regarding Practices in Support of the Disciplinary System
5.1

6.0

Mentoring is not discipline, nor is it part of the disciplinary
process. Its effective practice has the potential of helping
officers to avoid the disciplinary process.

Practices such as filtering, mediation, early intervention, remedial training,
mentoring, and the like are means to affect the performance and conduct
of officers apart from the imposition of disciplinary sanctions and to
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the disciplinary system.
However, none of these is intended to relieve officers of responsibility for
their misconduct. Therefore, the failure of the Department to provide any
of the above or the failure to apply any of the programs or practices to a
particular officer or a particular disciplinary case does not create a
defense to misconduct or constitute a mitigating circumstance.

Specific Notice Regarding the Ancillary Consequences of the Disciplinary
System
6.1

Pursuant to Section 9.4.13 of the Denver City Charter, the disciplinary
penalties that may be imposed on Department members are “reprimand,
discharge, reduction in grade, fine and/or suspension.” The Manager of
Safety is responsible for imposing all disciplinary penalties except for
reprimands, which may be issued by the Chief of Police. As a matter of
practice, the Chief of Police remains primarily responsible for other
internal practices, procedures and operational decisions within the
Department subject to the approval of the Manager of Safety, as
appropriate.
6

6.2

As a result, the Chief of Police may establish practices, make decisions
and enter orders with regard to matters not directly related but ancillary to
the imposition of discipline. These can include, but are not limited to, nocontact orders, temporary or permanent assignments, regulating on-duty
work hours and responsibilities, regulating secondary employment
privileges, ordering psychological or other work related examinations,
determining necessary remedial training or entering any other order,
restriction or condition deemed appropriate under the circumstances.
These practices do not constitute the imposition of discipline and are not
regarded as a part of any disciplinary sanction. Therefore, the imposition
of any of the above orders, conditions or restrictions may not be
considered in determining whether a violation should be sustained and, if
so, what the appropriate penalty should be.

6.3

Similarly, the imposition of disciplinary sanctions may also have an impact
on future status and benefits including, but not limited to, assignments,
promotions or appointments. The Chief of Police, the Manager of Safety
or the Denver Civil Service Commission may establish policies and
practices with regard to any of these. These practices do not constitute
the imposition of discipline and should not be regarded as a part of any
disciplinary sanction. Therefore, the future impact of the imposition of
disciplinary sanctions may not be considered in determining whether or
not a violation should be sustained and, if so, what the appropriate
penalty should be.

6.4

Finally, the imposition of disciplinary sanctions will no doubt have
personal and financial impact on the officer disciplined. Understandably,
that impact will vary from officer to officer based upon his/her personal
circumstances. For example, a 10-day suspension imposed on a single
officer with other sources of income may have less of an impact than the
same 10-day suspension imposed on a married officer with three
dependents and no other source of income. Similarly, the same
suspension imposed on a Captain and a 1st grade police officer will
amount to a greater loss of income to the Captain. Because of the
endless variables that may exist, it should not be expected that a system
of consistent discipline should reasonably take these kinds of differences
into account. Therefore, these types of variables may not be considered
in determining whether a violation should be sustained and, if so, what the
appropriate penalty should be.

6.5

In summary, officers should always bear in mind that the imposition of
discipline may have ancillary consequences which result from the
particular facts and circumstances of the violation and the personal
circumstances of the officer being disciplined. Those consequences
cannot be regarded as part of the disciplinary sanction. In attempting to
treat officers in a consistent manner, these ancillary consequences must
not play a part in the decision of whether a violation should be sustained
or what the appropriate penalty should be.

7

7.0

Summary of Determinations to be Made in the Disciplinary Process
7.1

8.0

There are four basic determinations which need to be made during the
course of the disciplinary process. They include the following:
7.1.1

The viability of a complaint must be assessed and a
determination made of how it will be handled.

7.1.2

Where appropriate, an investigation must be conducted to
determine the facts of the case, the issues in dispute and what,
if any, Department rule violations should be considered.

7.1.3

Upon review of the specifications to be considered, a
determination must be made as to whether there is sufficient
evidence to sustain a given specification or whether some other
finding should be made.

7.1.4

If a specification is sustained, the appropriate disciplinary
sanction must be determined.

Determining the Facts: Statement with Regard to Internal Investigations
8.1

The integrity of the internal investigation process is essential to the fair
administration of discipline. No system of discipline can be effective
without investigations that can be considered unbiased and trustworthy by
members of the Department as well as the general public.

8.2

Investigations must be fair, thorough, timely and in accordance with
accepted Department policies and procedures. Investigations must be
conducted with full regard for the Officers’ Bill of Rights and all other rights
and respect due to fellow officers. Likewise, they must be conducted with
regard for the rights and respect due to non-sworn members of the
Department, all complainants and witnesses and all other members of the
public. Investigations shall not discriminate against anyone on the basis
of actual or perceived race, color, creed, national origin, ancestry, gender,
sexual orientation, age, religion, political affiliation, physical or mental
disability, military status, marital status, or other basis protected by
Federal, State or local law or regulation.

8.3

Investigations must be designed to develop all relevant facts necessary
for a fair determination of the issue in question. They should not be
slanted to favor any particular interest, affect any particular outcome or
shield any relevant facts from disclosure.

8.4

Truthfulness is vital in an internal investigation. It must be expected and
demanded. Department personnel are required to cooperate and be
completely truthful or face disciplinary sanctions. Non-Departmental
personnel must also be truthful. A failure to do so will result, where
appropriate, in a referral of the case to the appropriate prosecutor’s office
for consideration of criminal charges.
8

9.0

10.0

Determining Whether a Violation Has Been Proven
9.1

Upon completion of the internal investigation, the disciplinary process
requires a determination of whether the violation should be sustained, that
is, whether the violation has been proven to have occurred by a
preponderance of the evidence. There is a perception that there have
been, historically, inconsistencies in decision-making regarding whether
violations should be sustained. Because of the multiple steps of review
within the Department, the determination of whether a violation should be
sustained must be addressed on multiple levels. Inconsistency in those
determinations can create concerns about the fairness of decisionmaking. Such fairness can only be accomplished by Department-wide
consistency at every level of review. Fairness can be viewed in two ways.
First, it requires that Department rules, regulations, policies and
procedures be applied equally to all officers, regardless of rank. Second,
it requires that the same standards be used when any individual is
reviewing evidence and information with regard to any allegation of
misconduct.

9.2

To help ensure that all reviewers of discipline cases at every level of the
Department are applying the same standards, the instructions detailed
below (Section 10.0) must be followed by all persons involved in the
review of allegations of misconduct and the determination of whether a
violation has been proven.

Determining Whether a Violation Has Been Proven – Instructions
10.1

In determining whether a violation of any Departmental rule, regulation,
policy, procedure or directive has been proven, the reviewer must act as a
finder of fact. This process is separate and distinct from any consideration
of what disciplinary sanction, if any, is appropriate if it is decided that a
violation has been proven.

10.2

As a finder of fact, the reviewer must rely only upon the evidence in the
case, which must be thoroughly reviewed. Evidence consists of witness
statements, including those of subject officers, witness officers, and
civilian witnesses. Evidence also includes documents, photographs,
diagrams and facts which are part of the case file. All other items which
are contained in the investigative file, including the complaint and the
subject officer’s disciplinary history, are also evidence in a disciplinary
case.

10.3

The reviewer must consider only the evidence that is contained in the
investigative file and any reasonable inferences to be drawn from that
evidence. An inference is a deduction or a conclusion which reason and
common sense lead the finder of fact to draw from other facts that have
been proved.

9

10.4

Evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Circumstantial evidence is the
proof of facts or circumstances from which the existence or nonexistence
of other facts may reasonably be inferred. All other evidence is direct
evidence. The law makes no distinction between direct and circumstantial
evidence.

10.5

The reviewer is expected to use his/her common sense and life
experiences when acting as a finder of fact. However, he/she is not to
base any conclusions on information known to him/her regarding the
matter or the persons involved in the matter if that information is not part
of the investigative file.

10.6

As the finder of fact, the reviewer must judge the credibility of witnesses
and the weight to be given their statements.
In doing so, he/she should take into consideration the witnesses’ means
of knowledge, strength of memory and opportunities for observation; the
reasonableness or unreasonableness of their statements; the consistency
or lack of consistency in their statements; their motives; whether their
statement has been contradicted or supported by other evidence; their
bias, prejudice, or interest, if any; their manner or demeanor while making
statements; and all other facts and circumstances shown by the evidence
which affect the credibility of the witnesses.
In considering witness credibility, the reviewer should apply the same
criteria to all witnesses regardless of whether the witness is a subject
officer, a witness officer, a complainant, a civilian witness, a supervisor or
a command officer. The reviewer should not automatically consider any
type of witness, such as a citizen or a subject/witness officer, to be more
credible than another type of witness simply because that witness is or is
not a police officer. Furthermore, he/she is not to afford any particular
degree of credibility to a witness simply because of that witness’ rank or
grade.
There may be instances where a fact finder receives conflicting evidence
and different accountings from different witnesses. It should be
remembered that this does not necessarily mean that a witness is
intentionally being untruthful, although that is a possibility to be
considered. Discrepancies in a witness' statement or between one
witness and another do not necessarily mean that either witness should
be discounted. Failure of recollection is common. An innocent mistake in
recalling events is not uncommon. Two persons witnessing the same
event may see, hear, or otherwise perceive it differently. Where such
discrepancies exist, the reviewer should consider, based upon all the facts
and circumstances, whether the discrepancies result from an intentional
falsehood or from some other reason. Additionally, the reviewer should
consider whether any discrepancy relates to a matter which is significant
or insignificant to the issue to be determined.

10

Based on all of these stated considerations and all the facts,
circumstances, and evidence in the case, the reviewer may believe all,
part or none of any witness’ statements. He/she may also determine what
weight, if any, to give to any witness’ statements.
10.7

The weight or sufficiency of evidence is not necessarily determined by the
number of witnesses presenting evidence in support of or against a
particular issue. An issue should not be decided by the simple process of
counting the number of witnesses on opposing sides. The test to be
applied is not the number of witnesses but the convincing force of the
evidence presented by the witnesses.

10.8

The reviewer must thoroughly review the policy, procedure, rule,
regulation or directive alleged to be violated and apply it to the facts as
he/she determines them. The reviewer must do so without regard for
whether he/she personally agrees with the particular policy, procedure,
rule, regulation or directive or whether he/she believes it should be
amended or repealed.

10.9

The Department always bears the burden of proving that a violation has
been committed by an accused officer. In determining whether there is
sufficient evidence to establish that a violation has occurred, the reviewer
must apply the standard of proof known as the “preponderance of the
evidence.” To prove something by a “preponderance of the evidence”
means to prove that it is more likely than not. Therefore, the Department
has the burden of proving that the evidence establishes that it is more
likely than not that the alleged violation was committed and that the
accused officer committed it.

10.10

In determining whether the burden of proof of “preponderance of the
evidence” has been met, reasonable care and caution should be used to
consider all the evidence in the case and the weight that evidence should
be afforded. The quantum of evidence that constitutes a preponderance
must be sufficient to lead to the reasonable conclusion that the accused
officer committed the violation which is being considered. A suspicion,
belief or opinion not supported by the weight of the evidence is not
sufficient.

10.11

A finding of whether or not a violation has been proven by a
preponderance of the evidence must be based on a fair and rational
consideration of all of the evidence and only the evidence in the case.
The finding must not be based on or be influenced by any of the
following:
10.11.1

Guesses or speculation;

10.11.2

Facts not contained in the investigative file;

10.11.3

Sympathy, bias, or prejudice for or against the subject officer,
any witness, any other person involved, the Department or its
administration, or any other person or entity having an interest
in the case;
11

10.11.4

The reviewer’s personal assessment of the subject officer’s
reputation, work history or discipline history, where such
evidence is not a part of the investigative file or is not relevant to
the determination of whether there is sufficient evidence to
sustain the violation currently being considered;

10.11.5

The rank of the subject officer unless rank is an element of the
alleged violation;

10.11.6

The anticipated or perceived effect which the finding may have
on the subject officer, such as the penalty that might be
imposed or the effect that the finding may have on areas outside
of the discipline system but within the discretion of the Chief of
Police/Manager of Safety such as secondary employment,
assignment, appointment, promotion or the like; or

10.11.7

The anticipated or perceived effect which the finding may have
on any witness or other involved person, the Department or its
administration, the public or public opinion, or any other person
or entity having an interest in the case.

It is again emphasized that the finding of whether a violation has been
proven, and therefore sustained, must be based on the evidence and the
evidence alone.
10.12

If the evidence fails to establish, by a preponderance, that the subject
officer has committed the violation in question or if the evidence is so
balanced that a preponderance cannot be determined, the allegation must
not be sustained. If the evidence does establish by a preponderance that
the officer committed the violation in question, then the allegation must be
sustained.

10.13

After thoroughly reviewing all the evidence, the reviewer must make one
and only one of the following findings for each of the specifications
considered:
10.13.1

Unfounded: The investigation indicates that the subject officer’s
alleged actions relating to the Department policy, procedure,
rule, regulation or directive in question did not occur.

10.13.2

Exonerated: The investigation indicates that the alleged actions
of the subject officer were within the policies, procedures, rules,
regulations and directives of the Department.

10.13.3

Not Sustained: There was insufficient evidence to either prove
or disprove the allegation.

10.13.4

Sustained: The subject officer’s actions were found, by a
preponderance of the evidence, to have been in violation of the
Department policy, procedure, rule, regulation, or directive in
question.
12

11.0

10.14

Each specification of an alleged violation should be considered separately
and a separate decision reached as to whether there is a preponderance
of evidence establishing that the alleged violation occurred. The
sustaining of any one specification does not compel the sustaining of
other specifications.

10.15

As a finder of fact, the reviewer may be reviewing the disciplinary
recommendations of others with regard to the same case or participating
in a group deliberation process. In doing so, the reviewer should carefully
consider the recommendations and opinions of others but he/she is
entitled to give them whatever weight, if any, he/she believes they
reasonably deserve based on the evidence. As a finder of fact, the
reviewer is entitled to independently assess the evidence and reach
his/her own independent findings in accordance with all of the
instructions given herein and a fair consideration of all the evidence
presented.

10.16

As a finder of fact, the reviewer may be participating in an official
disciplinary proceeding such as a Use of Force Review Board,
Disciplinary Review Board or Chief’s Hearing where information, in
addition to the investigative file, such as a statement by the subject
officer, is presented for consideration. The reviewer may properly consider
that additional information, assess its credibility, and afford it whatever
weight he/she deems appropriate.

10.17

At each level of review, the reviewer must document his/her findings and
the reasons/rationales for those findings in accordance with these
Conduct Principles and Disciplinary Guidelines and other established
Department policies and procedures.

Determining Appropriate Discipline - The Goals and Purposes of Disciplinary
Sanctions
11.1

Discipline that is to be considered “fair and rational” should be imposed
for legitimate purposes reasonably related to the misconduct being
addressed. This is a concept that must be consistently applied throughout the Department. The purposes of discipline must also be understood
by all members of the Department, as well as the community if they are to
trust that discipline is being justly administered.

11.2

The purposes to be achieved by the imposition of discipline in a
particular case are properly dependent on all the facts and circumstances
of that case. Those purposes may vary based upon a consideration of
numerous factors including, but not limited to, the nature and seriousness
of the misconduct, the circumstances under which the misconduct was
committed, the harm or prejudice arising from the misconduct, and the
existence of any relevant mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

13

11.3

11.4

11.5

Among the primary purposes of disciplinary sanctions are the following:
11.3.1

To modify/correct the conduct of the disciplined officer

11.3.2

To deter future misconduct by the disciplined officer

11.3.3

To impose an appropriate penalty on the disciplined officer,
taking into account the nature and seriousness of the
misconduct, any mitigating or aggravating factors, and the
officer’s disciplinary and work history

11.3.4

To address/reflect the harm or risk of harm arising from the
misconduct and the effects of the misconduct both inside and
outside of the Department

11.3.5

To provide notice of the consequences of misconduct to all
members of the Department and to deter future misconduct by
all members

In addition, the imposition of appropriate discipline will also serve to help
accomplish other goals of the discipline system to include:
11.4.1

Ensuring the orderly functioning and operation of the
Department and adherence to its established standards of
conduct

11.4.2

Reinforcing Department values

11.4.3

Reinforcing training

11.4.4

Effectively managing risk and potential civil liability for officers,
the Department, and the City

11.4.5

Establishing trust in and respect for the discipline system and
the Department, both internally and in the community

It is important for all members of the Department and the public to
understand that the goals and purposes of the discipline system are
different from those of the criminal justice and civil law systems. Those
systems are administered under separate rules and principles and provide
for sanctions which are different from the discipline system.
11.5.1

While some of the factors taken into consideration in the civil
and criminal systems may overlap with factors considered in the
discipline system, it must be remembered that the purposes of
disciplinary sanctions are different from the purposes of civil and
criminal law sanctions. Disciplinary sanctions are not intended
to function as “damages” which may be available to an
aggrieved party under the civil law. Similarly, disciplinary
sanctions are not intended to function as “sentences” or
“punishment” which may be available under the criminal law for
14

officer misconduct that rises to the level of a provable criminal
offense. It is not the function of the prosecutor’s office, through
the criminal justice system, to enforce the rules, regulations and
policies of the Police Department. Nor is it necessary that an
officer be criminally convicted in order for the Department to
discipline the officer for misconduct which is prohibited by law.
11.5.2

12.0

As noted previously, the imposition of appropriate discipline is
designed to accomplish, among other things, the orderly
functioning and operation of the Department and ensure
adherence to established standards of conduct. The
responsibility for accomplishing this goal rests with the Chief of
Police and the Manager of Safety through a properly
functioning, fair and effective discipline system.

Development of the Discipline Matrix
12.1

The discipline matrix was designed through extensive input from
representatives of the Police Department, City Management, appointed
officials, legal advisors and concerned members of the public.

12.2

The matrix was designed to accomplish the following goals:

12.3

12.2.1

Define conduct categories and set discipline levels;

12.2.2

Identify, to the extent possible, what rules and regulations fall
into each conduct category;

12.2.3

Identify sanctions that would be appropriate for each conduct
category and discipline level, while recognizing that all situations
are not alike and some flexibility is required;

12.2.4

Identify a fair and reasonable presumptive penalty for each
discipline level;

12.2.5

Provide fair and reasonable ranges of penalties at each
discipline level in the event there are compelling mitigating
and/or aggravating factors to be considered;

12.2.6

Provide notice to officers and the community of the likely
sanction for a particular violation unless the particular facts and
circumstances justify a different result; and

12.2.7

Provide a framework for consistent discipline based upon
Department established standards applicable to all members of
the Department.

In defining categories of conduct, deciding what Rules and Regulations
(R&R’s) should be placed in each category, and determining reasonable
presumptive, mitigated and aggravated penalties, consideration was given
15

to the nature and seriousness of the conduct proscribed by each R&R;
how the violation of the R&R impacts the operations, mission, values and
professional image of the Department; the potential or actual harm, injury
or prejudice arising from the violation; and the purposes and goals of
disciplinary sanctions. Consideration was also given to prior “similar”
discipline cases, how the Department had previously handled them and
the range of disciplinary sanctions which had been previously imposed.
12.4

13.0

The overall goals and principles contained in these Conduct
Principles and Disciplinary Guidelines shall apply to all disciplinary
recommendations and decisions by the Denver Police Department.
However, the specific provisions of the Discipline Matrix shall not apply to
those violations which are currently covered by rules and policies
regarding scheduled discipline. These violations include:
12.4.1

OMS 103.01 - Failure to Appear in Court (filed under RR-502)

12.4.2

OMS 105.07(5)(a) - Failure to Shoot for Efficiency

12.4.3

OMS 112.09 - Photo Radar

12.4.4

OMS 112.12 - Safety Restraining Devices

12.4.5

OMS 116.11(1)(a)(2) - Required Minimum Annual Continuing
Education

12.4.6

OMS 116.11(1)(b)(2) - CEP Cancellation/CEP Failure to Attend

12.4.7

OMS 203.09(2)(a)(5)(d) - Preventable Accidents (filed under
RR-809)

12.4.8

OMS 502.01(3) - Punctuality (filed under RR-125)

Categories of Conduct
13.1

There are six categories of conduct on the matrix. Categories range from
the least serious to most serious with regard to the nature of the conduct
and its harm/impact on the Department and community (See Appendix F).
13.1.1

Category A - Conduct that has a minimal negative impact on the
operations or professional image of the Department.

13.1.2

Category B - Conduct that has more than minimal negative
impact on the operations or professional image of the
Department; or that negatively impacts relationships with other
officers, agencies or the public.

13.1.3

Category C - Conduct that has a pronounced negative impact
on the operations or professional image of the Department; or
on relationships with other officers, agencies, or the public.
16

14.0

13.1.4

Category D - Conduct that is substantially contrary to the values
of the Department or that substantially interferes with its
mission, operations or professional image, or that involves a
demonstrable serious risk to officer or public safety.

13.1.5

Category E - Conduct that involves the serious abuse or misuse
of authority, unethical behavior, or an act that results in an
actual serious and adverse impact on officer or public safety, or
to the professionalism of the Department.

13.1.6

Category F - Any violation of law, rule or policy which:
foreseeably results in death or serious bodily injury; or
constitutes a willful and wanton disregard of Department values;
or involves any act which demonstrates a serious lack of the
integrity, ethics or character related to an officer’s fitness to hold
the position of police officer; or involves egregious misconduct
substantially contrary to the standards of conduct reasonably
expected of one whose sworn duty is to uphold the law; or
involves any conduct which constitutes the failure to adhere to
any contractual condition of employment or requirement of
certification mandated by law.

Assigning Conduct Categories to Specific Rules and Regulations
14.1

Although the pre-determined categories contained in the matrix will likely
cover the vast majority of disciplinary violations, several issues of
importance are here noted:
14.1.1

The individual Rules and Regulations have been placed into
particular conduct categories (see Appendix F) based upon the
nature and type of misconduct to which the Rule and Regulation
has historically been applied. However, the unique and
extraordinary factual circumstances of a given case may justify
the application of a different conduct category than that
previously assigned to the particular violation in the matrix. As
such, command officers, any reviewing board, the Chief of
Police, the Manager of Safety, the Hearing Officers, and the
Civil Service Commission can and may determine that a
previously assigned conduct category is not appropriate under
the unique and extraordinary factual circumstances of the case.
In this situation, a deviation from the Matrix is allowed. Any
such deviation must be documented, be reasonable under the
circumstances and be justified by the facts of the case. Such
deviation shall be guided by the analysis contained in Section
15.0 below.

14.1.2

A limited number of Rules and Regulations could fit into any or
all of the conduct categories based upon the nature of the
conduct being addressed. An example is RR-105, Conduct
17

Prejudicial. Anyone reviewing such a case will need to analyze
the factors noted below (Section 15.0) and consider the various
facts present in order to determine the most appropriate conduct
category.

15.0

14.1.3

Certain Rules and Regulations could fit more than one but not
all conduct categories. An example of this is RR-117,
Disobedience of an Order. Any violation of that Rule has been
determined to be at least a Conduct Category “C” but could fall
into a higher category based upon the particular facts and
circumstances. Again, anyone reviewing such a case will need
to analyze the various factors noted below (Section 15.0) in
order to determine whether the violation should fall into a
category higher than “C”.

14.1.4

No attempt has been made to categorize all sources of
specifications of alleged misconduct such as Operations Manual
sections, other policies and procedures, directives, special
orders, training bulletins, or the like. As a general practice,
violations of any of these are usually alleged as a violation of
RR-102, which then references the particular Operations
Manual section, directive, policy, etc. violated. Again, anyone
reviewing misconduct based upon any of these will have to
analyze the conduct based upon the factors outlined below
(Section 15.0) in order to determine the appropriate conduct
category.

Determining Appropriate Conduct Categories - Analysis
15.1

Situations will arise where personnel charged with the responsibility of
recommending or ordering disciplinary sanctions will have to determine
the appropriate Conduct Category into which the misconduct falls and
whether the alleged misconduct satisfies the definition of a particular
category. This is a necessary first step in determining the appropriate
sanction. In analyzing the misconduct, the following questions, among
others, should be considered:
15.1.1

What is the general nature of the misconduct?

15.1.2

How does the misconduct relate to the mission, vision and
values of the Department, including the Law Enforcement Code
of Ethics?

15.1.3

How does the misconduct impact the operations and image of
the Department and its relationship with other agencies or the
community?

15.1.4

What is the actual and demonstrable harm or risk of harm
involved?
18

16.0

15.1.5

Does the misconduct involve an actual and demonstrable
impact on officer or public safety, or a demonstrable serious risk
to officer or public safety?

15.1.6

Did the violation result in actual injury to an officer or a member
of the public? If so, what is the extent of the injury?

15.1.7

Does the misconduct involve unethical behavior or a serious
abuse or misuse of authority?

15.1.8

Did the misconduct forseeably result in death or serious bodily
injury?

15.1.9

Does the misconduct constitute a failure to adhere to any
contractual condition of employment or requirement of
certification mandated by law?

15.1.10

Is there a Rule and Regulation which has a pre-determined
conduct category which addresses similar misconduct that gives
any guidance?

15.1.11

Has there been a previous case decided after the
implementation of these Conduct Principles and Disciplinary
Guidelines that gives guidance to the appropriateness of the
conduct category to be chosen?

15.2

In determining the conduct category, the reviewer must continually bear in
mind that this analysis focuses on the nature of the misconduct and how it
conforms to the specific definitions of conduct categories already
established. It is not the analysis of mitigating and aggravating factors
which determines penalties within a given conduct category.

15.3

In determining the conduct category, the definition of the category and the
analysis described in this section should control the determination of what
category applies to the violation in question. No attempt should be made
to unjustifiably or unreasonably “fit” a violation into a particular conduct
category based upon the desire to reach or avoid a certain discipline level
or a certain penalty.

Brief Description of Matrix Tables
16.1

The disciplinary matrix has two primary tables: The Category, Violations
and Discipline Level Assignments Table and the Penalty Table (Appendix
F).

16.2

The Categories, Violations and Discipline Level Assignments Table
identifies:
16.2.1

The definitions of each Conduct Category (A through F);
19

16.3

17.0

16.2.2

Example violations in the form of rules and regulations (R&Rs)
that are found within each of these conduct categories; and

16.2.3

The discipline level assigned to each conduct category based,
in part, on the number of offenses of an equal or greater
conduct category that have occurred during the specific time
periods assigned to that conduct category. This table also
shows how the discipline level (levels 1-8) increases by one
level for each repeated violation of an R&R of an equal or
greater conduct category during the specified time period.

The Penalty Table identifies:
16.3.1

Eight discipline levels (1–8), ranging from least serious to most
serious; and

16.3.2

The penalties associated with that discipline level; with
specification of the presumptive penalty and the mitigated and
aggravated penalty ranges.

Establishing Presumptive Penalties
17.1

The Penalty Table (Appendix F) identifies a “presumptive penalty” for
each discipline level. The “presumptive penalty” is tied to the discipline
level but will increase if an officer has prior sustained violations of the
same or higher conduct category within the specified time frame. Only
prior sustained violations occurring within the specified timeframe will be
considered in the determination of whether the discipline level must be
increased.

17.2

To achieve consistency, presumptive penalties are presumed to be the
reasonable and appropriate penalties that should be given. It is only
when mitigating or aggravating factors are established that a departure
from the presumptive penalty may be justified. Even then, the penalty will
remain within the penalty ranges established for that particular discipline
level unless “special circumstances,” as explained below (Section 25.0),
exist. The factors or circumstances relied upon to find mitigation,
aggravation, or “special circumstances,” must be articulated and justified
in writing.

17.3

A presumptive penalty has been established for each conduct category
and each discipline level. That presumptive penalty is presumed to be the
appropriate sanction and shall be imposed, absent specific articulable
mitigating, aggravating or special circumstances overcoming the
presumption and justifying a departure from that penalty.

20

18.0

Considering Prior Violations which Shall Increase Discipline Levels
18.1

The matrix addresses repeated violations of the same offense or offenses
of an equal or greater conduct category by raising discipline levels when
the second and subsequent offenses fall within specified time frames.
This is set out in the Category, Violations and Offense Assignments Table
(Appendix F). Once the current violation is sustained, a disciplinary
history review will determine whether it is a repeat violation or whether
there are prior violations of an equal or greater conduct category within
the prescribed time frame. The time frames are as follows:
18.1.1

Violations of rules falling into Category A have a limitation of 3
years

18.1.2

Violations of rules falling into Category B have a limitation of 4
years

18.1.3

Violations of rules falling into Category C have a limitation of 5
years

18.1.4

Violations of rules falling into Category D have a limitation of 7
years

18.1.5

Violations of rules falling into Categories E and F have no time
limitations

18.2

Calculating the Time Frame for Considering Prior Violations - For the
purpose of calculating the above time frames, the date of prior violations
being considered is the date of imposition of discipline by the Manager of
Safety or the date of the issuance of a reprimand by the Chief of Police.
The date of the current violation is considered to be the date on which the
violation occurred. However, where an incidence of misconduct involves
multiple rule violations or multiple acts of related misconduct, the date of
violation shall be considered the date on which the earliest act of
misconduct occurred. For example, where an alleged violation gives rise
to an internal investigation and during the course of that investigation an
officer intentionally gives a materially false statement in violation of RR112.2, the date of occurrence for the violation of RR-112.2 shall be
considered the date upon which the initial violation giving rise to the
investigation occurred.

18.3

For violations within the applicable time period which occurred prior to the
implementation of the discipline matrix, the conduct category to be
assigned to the prior violation shall be the specific conduct category
currently assigned to that violation.

18.4

When the prior violation is one which now could fall into more than one
conduct category under the matrix, the analysis detailed in Section 15.0
above shall be used to determine the appropriate conduct category for the
prior violation.
21

19.0

18.5

As indicated in Section 11.4 above, the discipline matrix does not apply to
violations penalized under the Department’s system of scheduled
discipline. Therefore, those violations should not be considered as a
violation which would automatically increase the discipline level of the
current violation. However, these violations may be considered as
aggravating circumstances, if appropriate (See Sections 19.0, 21.0 and
22.0 below).

18.6

For the purpose of determining prior violations which will increase the
discipline level, multiple rule violations arising from a single prior incident
shall be considered as only one prior violation. The highest conduct
category of this prior violation shall be used to determine whether the
current discipline level must be increased.

18.7

It should be carefully noted that the use of prior sustained violations
involving an equal or higher conduct category within the specified time
period to increase the discipline level on the matrix is intended as a form
of progressive discipline. These prior violations operate to increase the
discipline level and the corresponding presumptive penalty. This increase
in discipline is automatic. Prior violations that result in an increase in the
discipline level are not to be considered as “aggravating factors or
circumstances” as explained below (Section 19.0).

Consideration of Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances
19.1

The presumptive penalty assigned to each discipline level may be
increased or decreased, based upon mitigating or aggravating
circumstances. The reviewer must take into account all of the
circumstances of a case to determine whether the mitigated penalty, the
presumptive penalty or the aggravated penalty should be imposed.

19.2

In determining mitigating and aggravating factors, the reviewer may look
to the misconduct itself, the history of the officer involved in the
misconduct or any other circumstance that might justify a departure from
the presumptive penalty.

19.3

The mitigating and aggravating circumstances considered must be
documented.

19.4

In determining mitigating and aggravating factors, care should be used to
ensure that a potentially mitigating or aggravating factor has not already
been taken into consideration in the definition of the specific conduct
category into which the violation falls or the definition/elements of the
specific violation which has been sustained.

19.5

Mitigating circumstances may justify a penalty less than the presumptive.
However, the presence of mitigating circumstances does not
automatically require the imposition of a penalty in the mitigated range. In
addition, the presence of mitigating circumstances cannot support a
penalty less than the mitigated range for that discipline level unless there
are specified special circumstances as described below (Section 25.0).
22

19.6

Mitigating circumstances may include, but are not limited to:
19.6.1

Willingness to accept responsibility and acknowledge wrongdoing;

19.6.2

Circumstances under which the rule was violated;

19.6.3

The culpable mental state of the officer in the commission of the
violation;

19.6.4

Complimentary history, including awards, commendations and
positive public recognition;

19.6.5

If minimal, the severity of the current offense and the lack of or
minimal nature of any consequences caused by the current
offense;

19.6.6

Prior work history, such as positive evaluations and/or work
performance, or voluntary, advanced, job-related training; or

19.6.7

Minimal or lack of prior disciplinary history relative to the
officer’s years of service.

19.7

The above are intended only as a guide in determining mitigating factors.
It is impossible to list all the circumstances which might be considered
mitigating in a particular case. The question any reviewer should
contemplate is: Are there any factors not already taken into consideration
in the conduct category or the definition of the specific violation that might
justify decreasing the disciplinary sanction below the presumptive
penalty?

19.8

Aggravating circumstances may justify a greater penalty than the
presumptive. However, the presence of aggravating circumstances does
not automatically require the imposition of a penalty in the aggravated
range. In addition, the presence of aggravating circumstances cannot
support a penalty that exceeds the aggravated range for that discipline
level, unless there are specified special circumstances, as described
below (Section 25.0).

19.9

Aggravating circumstances may include, but are not limited to:
19.9.1

Injury or harm to a member of the public or an officer;

19.9.2

Endangerment to a member of the public or an officer;

19.9.3

The existence of an actual and demonstrable legal or financial
risk to the Department or the City (including, but not limited to,
cases involving allegations of civil rights violations, unlawful
search and seizure, excessive use of force or unlawful detention
or arrest);
23

19.10

20.0

19.9.4

The supervisory or command rank of the officer who committed
the violation (See 20.0 below);

19.9.5

The officer’s prior disciplinary history (See 21.0 below);

19.9.6

Actual and demonstrable prejudice to the Department;

19.9.7

Jeopardizing the Department’s mission and/or relationship with
other agencies;

19.9.8

Loss or damage to city or private property;

19.9.9

A criminal conviction of the involved officer arising out of the
underlying event;

19.9.10

Dishonesty on the part of the officer;

19.9.11

Prejudicial conduct regarding race, color, creed, national origin,
ancestry, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion, political
affiliation, physical or mental disability, military status, marital
status, or other protected classifications;

19.9.12

Harassment or retaliatory conduct;

19.9.13

The culpable mental state of the officer in the commission of the
violation; or

19.9.14

Unsatisfactory work history.

The above potential aggravators are intended as a guide only. It is
impossible to list all the circumstances which might be considered
aggravating in a particular case. The question any reviewer should
contemplate is: Are there any factors that have not already been taken
into consideration in the conduct category or the definition of the specific
violation that might justify increasing the disciplinary sanction above the
presumptive penalty?

Rank as an Aggravating Factor
20.1

The rank of an officer is not used in any determination of whether or not a
violation should be sustained, unless that rank is an element of the
violation alleged.

20.2

However, the supervisory/command rank of an officer who committed a
violation may be considered a factor in aggravation which may warrant a
penalty higher than the presumptive penalty for that violation. It is
appropriate for the Department to have higher expectations for
supervisors and command officers than subordinate officers. Further, it is
appropriate for the Department to expect that a supervisor or command
officer should exercise even greater restraint and circumspection than a
subordinate officer. Supervisors and Commanders are expected to lead
by example. They are responsible for holding others accountable and
should likewise be accountable.
24

21.0

20.3

Nevertheless, the rank of an officer, like other arguably aggravating
factors, must be weighed in relation to all other factors to determine its
significance. It should not be regarded as an “automatic” aggravator. The
question any reviewer must consider is whether the rank of the officer
sufficiently justifies any increase in the disciplinary sanction over that
which would be imposed on a non-supervising or non-command officer for
similar misconduct, recognizing that the goal of this discipline system is to
treat all officers, regardless of rank, similarly.

20.4

At the same time, a supervisor or command officer’s prior complimentary
history, including awards, commendations and positive public recognition
and prior work history, such as positive evaluations and exceptional work
performance, should not be ignored as potential mitigating circumstances
when considering the appropriate penalty.

Prior Disciplinary History as an Aggravating Factor
21.1

An officer’s prior disciplinary history not already used to increase the
discipline level may be considered in determining whether the disciplinary
sanction should be increased from the presumptive penalty to the
aggravated range. It may also be considered in determining whether
special circumstances exist justifying a penalty in excess of that allowed
under the matrix up to and including reduction in rank or termination.

21.2

As with any other potentially aggravating factor, the reviewer must
determine the weight or significance of the history. Factors which may be
considered in the weighing process include, but are not limited to:

21.3

21.2.1

The nature and seriousness of any prior violation;

21.2.2

The number of prior violations;

21.2.3

The length of time between prior violations and the current case;

21.2.4

The relationship between any prior violation and the present
misconduct;

21.2.5

Whether the prior history demonstrates a continuation or pattern
of the same or similar misconduct; and

21.2.6

Whether the prior history demonstrates continuous misconduct,
even if minor, evidencing a failure to conform to rules or to
correct said behavior.

Remoteness – Where there has been an appreciable amount of time
between the prior and present misconduct and the prior misconduct was
minor, the prior misconduct should not be considered as an aggravating
factor. An exception to this rule would be where the prior misconduct,
even if remote/minor, evidences repeat, continual or pattern misconduct.
25

22.0

23.0

Weighing Mitigating and Aggravating Factors
22.1

As noted earlier, the presence of possible mitigating or aggravating
factors do not lead automatically to the conclusion that a departure from
the presumptive penalty is justified. The factors must be weighed against
each other and against the misconduct in question. The presence of one
or more mitigating circumstances along with one or more aggravating
circumstances may well justify the imposition of the presumptive penalty.

22.2

The concept of “weighing” basically means determining how significant or
insignificant the factors are when compared to each other and to the
misconduct in question. This is not a simple process of counting the
number of mitigators or the number of aggravators. Nor is it an attempt to
assign a certain numerical “weight” to each factor considered. It is a
determination of whether or not the factors are sufficiently significant to
justify a decrease or increase in the presumptive penalty.

22.3

In this weighing process, consideration must be given to the nature and
gravity of the misconduct, the harm, injury or prejudice arising from the
misconduct, the impact of the misconduct on Department values, and the
specific purposes of discipline to be achieved in the case.

22.4

As a general rule, the absence of any mitigating factors should not be
considered aggravating. Likewise, the absence of any aggravating
factors should not be considered mitigating.

22.5

The reviewer’s consideration of mitigating or aggravating circumstances
and their relative significance or insignificance must be documented.

Explanation for Definitive Ranges of Mitigated/Aggravated Penalties
23.1

In this discipline system, repeated emphasis has been placed on the need
to achieve consistency and for all officers to have a clear understanding of
the consequences of their misconduct and the likely sanction for that
misconduct.

23.2

The creation of a disciplinary matrix which clearly defines the discipline
that will result from specific misconduct has been shown to have a
positive impact on establishing and maintaining consistency, and
reasonably managing supervisory discretion. Additionally, a genuinely
positive impact on officers can result from a clear understanding of the
potential consequences of misconduct and demonstrable consistency in
the penalties given to all officers, regardless of rank, for that misconduct.

23.3

It is important that officers and citizens can feel confident that they know
the likely disciplinary consequences of a sustained violation. As a result,
the matrix has been intentionally created with definitive presumptive
penalties. By the same token, it is also important that the matrix
incorporate some flexibility to account for unexpected considerations. For
26

these reasons, the matrix allows for definitive mitigated and aggravated
ranges of penalties in order to better ensure consistency among all
officers similarly situated, yet allow for varying degrees of mitigation and
aggravation within a set range. Therefore, if the determination is made
that the conduct violation is either appropriately mitigated or aggravated,
the reviewer is allowed to assign a mitigated or aggravated penalty within
the ranges prescribed.
23.4

24.0

Policy of Maximum Suspension of 90 Days
24.1

25.0

When compared with prior discipline cases in which the penalty imposed
was within the same mitigated or aggravated range as the present case,
any mitigated or aggravated penalty within these definitive ranges shall be
deemed to be consistent discipline as required by City Charter and within
a reasonable range of discipline imposed in similar circumstances as
referenced in Civil Service Rules.

The Manager of Safety and Chief of Police have instituted a policy of a
90-day maximum suspension in cases where lengthy suspension as
opposed to termination is considered the appropriate penalty. The
Manager of Safety has determined that the purposes of discipline and the
interests of the Department, the disciplined officer, and the community are
all sufficiently served by reasonable limits on the length of suspensions.

Special Circumstances
25.1

It should be recognized that any matrix system can only be designed for
the large majority of cases and that on limited occasions there will be
extraordinary circumstances which would justify a penalty less than or
greater than that allowed under the matrix. This is what is generally
referred to as “going outside the matrix.” The authority to do so is within
the sound discretion of the Chief of Police and the Manager of Safety and
is reasonable and necessary to avoid injustice. A properly functioning
matrix system cannot be so rigidly applied as to mandate a certain
sanction or limit a certain sanction where doing so would lead to an unjust
result or fail to reflect the totality of the particular circumstances.

25.2

These issues will generally arise in the following situations:
25.2.1

Cases involving extraordinary mitigation,

25.2.2

Cases involving extraordinary aggravation,

25.2.3

Cases involving the questions of reduction in rank or grade, or

25.2.4

Cases involving termination where termination is not the
presumptive or aggravated penalty indicated by the matrix.

27

25.3

25.4

Extraordinary Mitigation
25.3.1

In the event that a command officer, the Disciplinary Review
Board or any other reviewing Board, the Chief of Police or the
Manager of Safety believe that the facts and circumstances of a
particular case warrant a penalty less than the mitigated penalty
allowed for in the matrix, a lesser penalty may be recommended
or imposed.

25.3.2

In order to impose a penalty less than the mitigated penalty
established in the matrix, it must be concluded that the matrix
fails to appropriately address the conduct, issues specific to the
case, or issues specific to the officer such as his/her
performance, disciplinary history, etc. This could include a
factor in mitigation that is so extraordinary that the mitigated
penalty called for in the matrix would be unjust or would not
reflect the totality of the circumstances.

25.3.3

The reasons for departing downward from the minimum penalty
called for in the matrix as well as the basis for determining the
particular penalty must be documented and explained.

Extraordinary Aggravation
25.4.1

In the event that a command officer, the Disciplinary Review
Board or any other reviewing Board, the Chief of Police or the
Manager of Safety believe that the facts and circumstances
surrounding a particular case warrant a penalty greater than that
allowed for in the matrix, the following are available:
25.4.1.1 Suspension of up to 90 days;
25.4.1.2 Reduction in rank or grade; or
25.4.1.3 Termination, regardless of whether termination is the
presumptive or aggravated penalty specified in the
matrix for the current violation.

25.4.2

In order to recommend or impose a penalty greater than the
maximum penalty called for in the matrix, it must be concluded
that the matrix fails to appropriately address the conduct or the
officer specific to the case. This could include a factor in
aggravation that is so extraordinary that the maximum penalty
called for in the matrix would be inadequate to effect the
purposes of discipline or to reflect the gravity of the
circumstances even if the maximum penalty were to be
imposed.

28

25.4.3

The reasons for departing upward from the maximum penalty
called for in the matrix as well as the basis for determining the
particular penalty must be documented and explained.

25.4.4

Listed below are factors to consider in determining whether
extraordinary aggravation exists that would warrant the
imposition of discipline over and above what is anticipated by
the matrix and could result in a penalty up to and including
termination, even above and beyond the presumptive or
aggravated penalty range of the matrix for the current violation.
These factors include, but are not limited to:
25.4.4.1 Commission of a series of acts which constitute a
course of conduct characterized by a continued
inability or unwillingness on the part of the officer to
conform to expected standards of conduct;
25.4.4.2 Commission of an act or acts which clearly cause a
continuing, disruptive effect on the efficient and/or
safe operations of the Department or clearly
constitute a substantial risk to public safety;
25.4.4.3 Commission of an act or acts which call into serious
question the officer’s trustworthiness and/or integrity
so as to interfere with the continued performance of
his or her assigned duties and responsibilities, or
which demonstrate a serious lack of the ethics,
character or judgment necessary to hold the position
of police officer;
25.4.4.4 Commission of an act or acts which have had or may
be reasonably demonstrated to have, an appreciable
negative effect on the general public’s confidence
and/or trust in the operations of the Department; or
25.4.4.5 Creation of a serious legal or financial risk for the
Department or the City arising from the misconduct of
an officer or the retention of that officer.

25.5

Reduction in Rank or Grade
25.5.1

Reduction in rank of an officer may occur if, after considering all
of the facts and circumstances surrounding an incident, it is
determined that a supervisor or command officer lacks the
ability, willingness or worthiness to perform in the current rank.
Reduction in rank reflects the determination that an officer has
demonstrated by his/her misconduct that he/she is unfit to fulfill
the responsibilities and duties required for his or her current
position at the specific rank.
29

25.5.2

In making a decision to recommend or impose a reduction in
rank or grade, the reviewer should consider the effect on the
organization of maintaining the officer in a supervisory or
command position. If the commission of the violation prior to
attaining the current rank would have raised substantial
questions as to the officer’s fitness to hold that rank in the first
place, a reduction in rank may be considered.

25.5.3

The importance of the ability to lead by example, to possess
and exhibit integrity, and to perform the duties and
responsibilities of the rank in a credible and professional
manner cannot be minimized. Supervisory and command
officers must maintain a culture in which subordinate officers will
“behave with prudence, justice, courage, intellectual honesty,
responsibility, self-effacement of interests and trustworthiness
and where these virtues can be continuously exercised as
standard operating procedure.” (See, Ethics, integrity and the
police culture, Swope, International Criminal Police Review – No
483 (2001).)

25.5.4

A reduction in rank may be imposed in conjunction with or in lieu
of other appropriate disciplinary sanctions.

25.5.5

Reductions in grade within the rank of “police officer” (PO1
through PO4) are a legitimate and allowed disciplinary sanction
under the City Charter. However, such reductions in grade
have not historically been imposed by the Department. Within
the rank of “police officer”, reprimands, fined time (as opposed
to monetary fines) and suspensions rather than reductions in
grade have been deemed adequate to achieve the purposes of
effective discipline. These practices will continue unless or until
a change in practices is deemed appropriate and prior notice is
given to all members of the Department.

25.5.6

As used in these Conduct Principles and Disciplinary
Guidelines, the term “reduction in Rank or Grade” is intended to
apply only to reductions which affect rank or grade within the
Classified Service (Police Officer 1 through Police Officer 4,
Sergeant, Lieutenant and Captain). Positions outside of the
Classified Service based upon appointments made by the Chief
of Police (Detective, Technician, Corporal, Commander,
Division Chief and Deputy Chief) are subject to revocation and
re-assignment at the discretion of the Chief of Police, with
approval of the Manager of Safety, as appropriate. Reassignment from any appointed position is not considered a
disciplinary sanction as defined by the City Charter (See Section
6.0).

30

25.6

26.0

Termination
25.6.1

It must be universally recognized that certain acts of misconduct
are so serious that the appropriate penalty is discharge. This
may result from the severity of the act or acts or from the
damage the misconduct causes to the Department or public. In
other circumstances, discharge may be an option when there
have been repeated acts of misconduct. Repeated misconduct
may result in termination when it is clear that lesser corrective or
punitive actions are not likely to be effective or would only serve
to depreciate the seriousness of the offense. Repeated acts of
misconduct may also result in termination where the pattern of
conduct gives rise to a demonstrable concern of future civil
liability on the part of the Department or the City.

25.6.2

Discharge, while a disciplinary option to be used only after
careful deliberation, provides a necessary management tool for
dealing with the most serious acts of officer misconduct.
Certain acts of misconduct are so egregious that discharge is
necessary. Discharge may be necessary to both punish the
officer and protect the public and the Department from the
possibility of future egregious misconduct. In the same vein,
certain acts of misconduct require the penalty of discharge
because they are indicative of the officer’s inability to continue
serving in a position of trust. Discharge may also be necessary
because the commission of certain acts of misconduct has
caused such damage to the Department that the continuation of
employment would prevent the Department from effectively
performing its mission in the community, or the retention of the
officer would constitute deliberate indifference to the duty of the
Department to protect the public.

25.6.3

As noted above, the factors listed with regard to extraordinary
aggravation apply equally to the issue of whether discharge may
be appropriate (See Section 25.4).

Assessing the Seriousness of Misconduct, the Harm Arising from that
Misconduct and the Causal Connection Between the Conduct and the Harm
for the Purposes of Determining the Appropriate Conduct Category, the
Weight to be Given to Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances or in the
Consideration of “Special Circumstances”
26.1

In assessing the seriousness of any conduct/violation, a reviewer should
carefully consider the following questions:
26.1.1

What is the purpose of the rule or policy which forbids the
conduct?

31

27.0

26.1.2

What is the “harm” against which the rule or policy is intended to
guard?

26.1.3

What is the overall effect of the misconduct on the goals,
values, operation, image or professional standards of the
Department?

26.2

When assessing the “harm” or “risk of harm” which arises from a particular
violation, it should be understood that “harm” is not limited to physical
injury. The term “harm” is intended to apply to any demonstrable wrong,
prejudice, damage, injury or negative effect/impact which arises from the
violation.

26.3

In certain instances, conduct is categorized based, in part, upon the
foreseeable harm or injury which arises from the conduct (For example,
conduct which foreseeably results in serious bodily injury). In determining
whether the injury or harm “results” from the conduct, caution must be
used to determine whether there is a sufficient causal connection between
the conduct and the foreseeable result in order to justify holding the
subject officer accountable for the result.

26.4

In determining the causal connection between an officer’s violation and
the result, the violation may be based upon an officer’s act (for example,
inappropriate force which causes serious bodily injury) or an officer’s
omission or failure to act (for example, an intentional violation of RR130.2, Aiding and Protecting Fellow Officer, which results in serious bodily
injury or death to the fellow officer).

26.5

When determining whether the “results” of a violation were “foreseeable,”
caution must be used to consider whether the harm, risk of harm or result
was known to or reasonably should have been anticipated by the officer at
the time of the violation. In determining foreseeability, the reviewer must
look to all the facts and circumstances known or which reasonably should
have been known to the officer at the time of the violation.

Issues Related to Disciplinary Recommendations made to the Chief of Police
and the Manager of Safety – Requirement of Written Justification
27.1

In accordance with the provisions of the City Charter, the Manager of
Safety is charged with the responsibility of ordering all discipline issued to
uniformed members of the Denver Police Department greater than a
reprimand. Consequently, all input into the issue of whether or not an
officer has violated a Departmental rule or policy and, if so, what the
appropriate sanction should be are in the form of recommendations to the
Chief of Police/Manager of Safety. Likewise, any findings made by the
Chief of Police with regard to those same issues are also in the form of
recommendations to the Manager of Safety.

32

27.2

The Manager of Safety considers the above recommendations but is not
bound by them. As provided by City Charter, the Manager may approve,
modify or disapprove any recommendation made to him/her. No provision
of the City Charter or Civil Service Commission Rules requires the
Manager to follow the recommendations or to give “due weight” to them.

27.3

Upon appeal, the issues to be determined, based upon grounds
enumerated in City Charter provisions and Civil Service Commission
Rules, are whether the Manager of Safety was justified in finding that an
alleged violation was proven and in imposing the disciplinary sanctions
that were ordered.

27.4

While not being bound to follow disciplinary recommendations made to
them, the Chief of Police and the Manager of Safety have routinely
considered the recommendations as a part of their review of a disciplinary
case and shall continue to do so. These recommendations are intended
to better inform the Chief’s and Manager’s decision-making process.
However, the Manager’s failure to follow any particular recommendation is
not grounds for appeal.

27.5

In order to more effectively communicate any recommendation made to
the Chief of Police or the Manager of Safety, all reviewers or Boards
making recommendations will be required to articulate in writing the basis
for the recommendation. It is vital for the Chief and the Manager to
understand the reasons underlying any recommendation made to them in
order for the recommendation to be useful in their disciplinary decisionmaking, and to determine what weight, if any, the recommendation should
be afforded.

27.6

The Department shall develop forms and institute practices to satisfy this
requirement of written justifications. The written recommendation shall
contain a summary of the relevant facts, the specifications reviewed, the
findings as to each specification and an explanation of the evidence
relied upon in sustaining or not sustaining each specification. The
recommendation shall also contain the penalty recommendation made,
the basis of the recommendation, the mitigating and aggravating
circumstances considered, any special circumstances considered, and all
other factors which contributed to the discipline recommendation.

27.7

Disciplinary recommendations and their underlying rationale are
considered part of the Manager of Safety’s deliberative process.
Therefore, the Department may develop policies and procedures to limit
access to, keep confidential, or otherwise protect recommendations/
rationales from public disclosure except as required by law or to the
extent necessary to facilitate decision-making at various stages of the
disciplinary process.

33

28.0

Chain-of-Command Recommendations in the Discipline Process
28.1

As a general rule, once the fact-finding investigation relating to a specific
incident or complaint against an officer has been completed, the
investigative file is sent to the subject officer’s chain of command for
recommendations as to whether the subject officer’s conduct violated one
or more Department rules or policies and what, if any, discipline sanctions
should be imposed.

28.2

The recommendations will normally be made by some combination of the
subject officer’s Lieutenant, Captain or Commander, and Division Chief.
These recommendations must be made by applying the matrix and all
principles and guidelines contained herein.

28.3

As a general practice, a Lieutenant or someone else in the subject
officer’s chain of command will write a report explaining why the officer’s
actions violated or did not violate one or more Department rules. This
initial report is a detailed analysis of the facts of the case and justification
for recommended findings as to the violations being considered. These
recommendations must be made by applying all the relevant principles
and guidelines contained herein.

28.4

The initial report is then reviewed by the subject officer’s
Commander/Captain, who makes further disciplinary findings, and then
makes a recommendation as to the disciplinary sanction he/she believes
is appropriate. The documentation of this recommendation should include
findings as to the appropriate conduct category, the discipline level,
relevant disciplinary history, the presumptive penalty, and any mitigating
and aggravating factors considered. The documentation should also
contain an explanation of the reasons why a disciplinary recommendation
deviates from the presumptive penalty, and if applicable, the rationale for
a penalty outside the matrix resulting from special circumstances.

28.5

Any reviewer in the subject officer’s chain-of-command who makes
a recommendation subsequent to the initial findings and penalty
recommendation must also document the basis for his/her
recommendation. This documentation need not be as detailed as the
initial recommendation but must be sufficient to inform the Chief of Police
and the Manager of Safety of the reasons for the recommendation, the
factors considered in making the recommendation, and the reasons why
the recommendation differs from those of previous reviewers, if
applicable.

28.6

At every level of review, each reviewer must recommend a separate
penalty for each violation sustained. For each sustained violation, the
presumptive penalty is presumed to be the appropriate penalty absent
articulable factors which overcome the presumption. As a general rule,
penalties should be imposed consecutively. However, where suspension
is determined to be the most appropriate penalty, the total suspension
shall not exceed 90 days.
34

29.0

28.7

In making their recommendations to the Chief of Police and/or the
Manager of Safety concerning alleged policy violations which could be
sustained, reviewers are cautioned to avoid what has been described as a
“stacking” of charges or the inclusion of multiple violations which address
the same misconduct. A balanced disciplinary system should impose fair
and appropriate discipline based upon the nature of the misconduct alone
and not simply upon the number of specifications that could arguably be
charged and sustained.

28.8

A recommendation of discipline should be based upon the most specific
violation(s) possible which adequately addresses the misconduct. Every
reviewer should ensure that each specification addresses separate and
distinct conduct or different aspects of, or different harm arising from, the
same misconduct. Specifications which amount to nothing more than an
alternate theory of addressing the same conduct have the effect of
unfairly increasing the penalty.

28.9

If multiple violations are sustained which are merely alternate theories of
addressing the same misconduct, each sustained violation should be
separately penalized, but the recommended penalties should run
concurrently with the most serious violation. Only if separate and distinct
misconduct or different aspects of, or different harm arising from, the
same misconduct are found shall penalties run consecutively.

28.10

As always, the specific rationale for these recommendations should be
provided.

28.11

At the conclusion of this recommendation process, the subject officer is
advised of the recommendation and given the opportunity to accept the
recommended penalty and waive the Disciplinary Review Board process,
if applicable. This acceptance and waiver must be approved by the Chief
of Police and the Manager of Safety.

Recommendations from the Use of Force Review Board and the Disciplinary
Review Board
29.1

Both the Use of Force Review Board and the Disciplinary Review Board
are designed to allow for citizen participation in the Department’s use of
force and discipline review processes. Consequently, the Department
has a particularly strong interest in keeping the deliberation processes of
those two boards confidential.

29.2

Both the Use of Force Review Board and the Disciplinary Review Board
are subject to the provisions of these Conduct Principles and Disciplinary
Guidelines, including the discipline matrix. In reviewing any case, making
any findings as to whether a Departmental rule or policy has been violated
or making disciplinary recommendations, all participants in these boards
must follow the guidelines, principles and procedures outlined herein,
including the requirement of written justification.
35

30.0

29.3

The Department shall establish procedures to ensure the confidentiality of
the deliberations of these Boards. As with all other disciplinary
recommendations, the recommendations of the Use of Force Review
Board and the Disciplinary Review Board and their underlying
rationale are considered a part of the Manager of Safety’s deliberative
process. Therefore, the Department may develop policies and
procedures to limit access to, keep confidential, or otherwise protect these
recommendations/rationales from public disclosure except as required by
law or to the extent necessary to facilitate decision-making at various
stages of the disciplinary process.

29.4

At the conclusion of the Disciplinary Review Board process, the subject
officer is advised of the Board’s recommendation and given the
opportunity to accept the recommended penalty and waive the predisciplinary hearing normally conducted by the Chief of Police. This
acceptance and waiver must be approved by the Chief of Police and the
Manager of Safety.

The Role of the Chief of Police In the Disciplinary Process
30.1

The City Charter provides that it is the responsibility of the Chief of Police
to initiate disciplinary action against members of the Police Department by
a written order submitted to the Manager of Safety for approval.

30.2

Prior to submitting that order, the Chief must provide written notice to the
subject officer advising him/her of the charges, an explanation of the
evidence supporting those charges and an opportunity to respond to the
charges at a pre-disciplinary meeting (Chief’s Hearing).

30.3

In reviewing disciplinary recommendations made to him/her and in making
any recommendation to the Manager of Safety, the Chief of Police is
guided by the provisions of the Charter, the Rules of the Civil Service
Commission, the Rules and Regulations and policies and procedures of
the Department, and all other laws relevant to the imposition of discipline.

30.4

As such, the Chief of Police shall be guided by these Conduct Principles
and Disciplinary Guidelines, including the discipline matrix, as is the
Manager of Safety and all other persons responsible for reviewing
allegations of misconduct.

30.5

The Chief shall make findings as to each specification considered and
shall determine the discipline he/she believes to be appropriate by
applying the principles, guidelines and procedures detailed herein.

30.6

The Chief’s recommendation to the Manager of Safety shall contain a
written summary of his/her findings, the basis for any disciplinary sanction
recommended, and an explanation of how the sanction was determined.
This summary shall include the facts relied upon, the findings as to each
specification, a determination of the appropriate conduct categories and
36

discipline levels, the officer’s commendatory and/or disciplinary history,
any mitigating or aggravating circumstances considered, and any factors
which justify the decision to impose a penalty other than the presumptive
or a penalty “outside the matrix” as a result of special circumstances. The
report shall also include a statement that the officer was given oral or
written notice of the charges against him/her, an explanation of the
evidence supporting those charges, and an opportunity to respond to
those charges prior to the imposition of discipline.
30.7

31.0

In making any recommendation of discipline to the Manager of Safety, the
Chief of Police shall consider the disciplinary principles detailed in Section
31.14.

The Role of the Manager of Safety in Imposing Discipline
31.1

Authority of the Manager of Safety - By the authority vested in the Office
by the City Charter, the Manager is responsible for ordering all discipline,
with the exception of reprimands, in the Denver Police Department. In
doing so, the Manager is guided by the provisions of the Charter, the
Rules of the Civil Service Commission, the Rules and Regulations and
policies and procedures of the Denver Police Department and all other
laws relevant to the imposition of discipline.

31.2

The Manager of Safety is also empowered with reasonable discretion in
exercising his/her authority to administer the Department of Safety.

31.3

Review of Investigative File – The Manager of Safety reviews the entire
investigative file, a copy of the pre-disciplinary letter containing a
summary of the facts, the officer’s disciplinary and commendation history,
the audio recording of the pre-disciplinary hearing held by the Chief of
Police, and a listing of the violations considered. The recommended
finding as to each violation is listed along with the recommended penalty
as to each. The investigative file also contains recommendations from the
officer’s chain of command and, if applicable, the Disciplinary Review
Board or any other boards that may have been involved in the review of
the case. The Manager thoroughly reviews the entire file and considers
the recommendations of the Chief of Police as well as all other
recommendations, but is not bound by them. In the exercise of
reasonable discretion, the Manager may give them any weight he/she
believes they should be accorded.

31.4

In determining his/her findings as to whether or not any of the violations
should be sustained, the Manager of Safety must follow the same rules
and instructions followed by all other reviewers.

31.5

If the Manager of Safety finds that there are insufficient facts or
information to make a final determination of appropriate discipline, the
Manager may return the case for further investigation or otherwise order
that the facts or information be provided.
37

31.6

Determining the Appropriate Discipline – In sustaining any violations or
determining the appropriate discipline, the Manager of Safety must follow
the same rules, principles and guidelines, including the matrix, followed by
other reviewers. The Manager must determine the Conduct Category, the
discipline level and the presumptive penalty for each violation. He/she
must consider whether any relevant disciplinary history within the
specified time period justifies an increase in the discipline level and the
corresponding presumptive penalty. The Manager must then consider
whether there are any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that justify
the imposition of a penalty in the mitigated or aggravated ranges for the
appropriate discipline level. The Manager shall also consider whether
there are any special circumstances such as extraordinary mitigation or
extraordinary aggravation that would justify a lesser or greater penalty
than that allowed by the matrix. Finally, he/she shall consider whether
there are any special circumstances that justify reduction in grade or
termination, where termination is not the presumptive or aggravated
penalty listed by the matrix.

31.7

Penalty as to Each Specification Sustained - The Manager of Safety shall
impose a separate penalty for each violation sustained. For each
sustained violation the presumptive penalty is presumed to be the
appropriate penalty absent articulable factors which overcome the
presumption. As a general rule, penalties shall be imposed consecutively,
except as noted in Section 31.8, 31.9 or 31.10. However, where
suspension is determined to be the most appropriate penalty, the total
suspension shall not exceed 90 days.

31.8

Avoiding the Impact of “Stacking” – A balanced disciplinary system should
impose fair and appropriate discipline based upon the nature of the
misconduct and not simply upon the number of specifications that could
arguably be charged and sustained. Discipline should be based upon the
most specific violation(s) possible to adequately address the misconduct.
In fashioning a final order of discipline in cases involving multiple
specifications, the Manager of Safety must ensure that each specification
addresses separate and distinct conduct or addresses a different aspect
of or a different harm arising from the same conduct. Specifications which
are only alternate theories of addressing the same conduct should not
operate so as to unfairly increase the penalty. If multiple violations are
sustained which are merely alternative theories of addressing the same
conduct, the sustained violations should run concurrently with the most
serious violation. Only if separate and distinct misconduct or different
aspects of, or different harm arising from, the same misconduct are found,
should penalties run consecutively.

31.9

To avoid unfair impact on the subject officer, the Manager of Safety may
elect to choose among the specifications sustained, to impose suspension
or fine concurrent to each other, to hold penalties or portions of penalties
in abeyance, or to otherwise fashion a disciplinary sanction which more
appropriately addresses the nature and totality of the misconduct.
38

31.10

Other Uses of Concurrent Discipline - The Manager of Safety, in the
reasonable exercise of his/her discretion, may elect to impose concurrent
discipline or hold penalties in abeyance in situations which further the
interests of fairness and reasonableness. For example, where an officer
is sustained for serious violations which are the core issue or essence of
the misconduct and which subject him/her to a lengthy suspension, then
any other penalty for a violation arising out of the same episode may be
imposed concurrently.

31.11

Maximum Suspension of 90 Days
31.11.1

Where the application of the matrix or any of the principles and
guidelines supporting it results in a suspension in excess of 90
days and termination or reduction in rank is not otherwise
appropriate, the Manager of Safety shall fashion the penalty so
as to not exceed a 90-day suspension. While the Manager may
order all suspended days indicated by the matrix for each
specification, he/she may impose the suspensions concurrently
or suspend the execution of the order for that portion of the
suspension which exceeds 90 days.

31.12

Viewing Misconduct in Its Entirety - The Manager of Safety may impose a
penalty greater or less than that provided for in the matrix when the
conduct taken as a whole justifies a finding of special circumstances. If
special circumstances are found, the Manager may impose a penalty less
than that provided for by the matrix or may impose a suspension of up to
90 days, a reduction in rank, or termination.

31.13

Manager’s Final Order of Discipline

31.14

31.13.1

The Manager of Safety’s Final Order of Discipline shall contain
a summary of the facts relied upon in reaching his/her decision,
the mitigating/aggravating/special circumstances considered,
the officer’s disciplinary and commendation history, and an
explanation of how the final discipline sanction was determined.

31.13.2

A copy of the Manager’s Final Order of Discipline shall be
maintained pursuant to established Department policy

Imposition of Discipline which is Not Inconsistent with Others in Similar
Circumstances – While these Conduct Principles and Disciplinary
Guidelines were specifically designed to better accomplish consistency in
discipline, the Manager of Safety, nonetheless, should consider whether
the discipline imposed in any case is “not inconsistent” with discipline
imposed on others in similar circumstances. A determination of whether
“similar circumstances” exist shall be based upon an assessment of the
relative degree to which the present case and any prior cases contain the
following factors:
31.14.1

Similar factual situations
39

31.14.2

Similar disciplinary histories

31.14.3

The same or similar facts in aggravation and/or mitigation

31.14.4

The same or similar rule violations

31.14.5

The application of the same or similar disciplinary policies,
principles, disciplinary matrix and/or guidelines

31.14.6

Notice to members of the Department of any change in the
disciplinary policies, principles, disciplinary matrix or guidelines

For discipline to be considered “inconsistent” it must be outside a
reasonable range of discipline imposed in similar circumstances.
32.0

The Role of the Independent Monitor
32.1

The Office of the Independent Monitor (OIM) was created by City
Ordinance to provide for fair and objective professional civilian oversight
of the uniformed personnel of the Police and Sheriff Departments and to
ensure public confidence in the ability of these Departments to police
themselves.

32.2

The OIM is responsible for: (1) actively monitoring and participating in
investigations of uniformed personnel in the City and County of Denver’s
Police and Sheriff Departments; (2) making recommendations to the Chief
of Police, the Director of Corrections and the Manager of Safety regarding
administrative actions, including possible discipline for such uniformed
personnel; and (3) making recommendations regarding broader policy
and training issues.

32.3

The OIM has created policies to ensure that the complaint and
commendation process is accessible to all members of the community.
As such, community members can file complaints and commendations
through the OIM. The OIM refers these complaints and commendations,
as appropriate, to the Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB) and to Department
supervisors. Once complaints are received, the OIM works with IAB
command staff to ensure timely and thorough formal investigations by
engaging in a triage process. Complaints that do not require a formal
investigation are filtered out of the traditional IAB process by declining
complaints that do not need further investigation, assigning complaints to
the Monitor’s citizen-police mediation program and assigning complaints
to be handled informally (without findings or the imposition of discipline).

32.4

The OIM actively monitors some IAB investigations and reviews all formal
investigations to ensure they are thorough and objective. At the
conclusion of the Command Review process, the OIM reviews all findings
and disciplinary recommendations for reasonableness. Subsequently, the
OIM makes recommendations to the Chief of Police and the Manager of
Safety regarding the reasonableness of disciplinary recommendations
made through the chain-of-command and the Disciplinary Review Board
process.
40

33.0

32.5

The OIM is empowered by ordinance to have access to the proceedings
of Departmental boards involved in the disciplinary process. As such, the
OIM is empowered by Department policy to attend all Use-of-Force Board
and Disciplinary Review Board proceedings and deliberations. The
deliberations of those boards are used by the OIM to evaluate the
appropriateness of any findings and disciplinary recommendations.

32.6

The OIM issues quarterly discipline reports, which are published on its
website, summarizing all disciplinary actions taken by the Department in
the prior quarter. The OIM also issues an Annual Report (in March of
each year) which provides detail about the Department’s complaint
handling and disciplinary processes.

32.7

In carrying out its duties, the OIM, like all others involved in the
investigation and review of allegations of misconduct, follows the
provisions of these Conduct Principles and Disciplinary Guidelines,
including the discipline matrix. The Manager of Safety may consider, but
is not bound by, any recommendations made by the OIM.

Department Sources of Disciplinary Specifications
33.1

34.0

Specifications are in essence “charges” brought against subject
officers as notice of the specific violation alleged. Throughout these
Conduct Principles and Disciplinary Guidelines, sources of disciplinary
specifications have been variously referred to as Rules and Regulations,
directives, policies, procedures, Operations Manual sections and the like.
The use of one reference is not intended to exclude the other. Nor is the
use of the references noted in this section intended to exclude any
Departmental source upon which specifications may be based, such as
the violation of a Mayor’s Executive Order.

Application Considerations Regarding Certain Violations
34.1

Conduct involving Untruthfulness, Conduct Prohibited by Law, Use of
Inappropriate Force, Sexual Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial have
been identified as violations which may require special consideration in
applying the matrix and the guidelines and principles contained herein.
These rules and regulations are discussed in Appendix D.

34.2

Certain additional definitions to include Bodily Injury and Serious Bodily
Injury are also contained in Appendix D.

34.3

Each individual officer and all persons who review/recommend penalties
on any case shall consult Appendix D for a better understanding of the
issues surrounding the specific violations contained therein.

41

35.0

36.0

37.0

Negotiated Settlement of Disciplinary Actions
35.1

The Department and the Manager of Safety recognize that, notwithstanding the consistency which is to be achieved by the application of the
disciplinary matrix, circumstances may arise which necessitate meaningful
settlement discussions between the officer, the Department, and the
Manager of Safety. Therefore, the Manager of Safety or the Chief of
Police or his/her designee with the approval of the Manager of Safety,
may engage in settlement discussions with the subject officer. These
discussions may focus either on the specific violation(s) to be charged
and/or the discipline to be imposed. Nonetheless, officers should
understand that settlement negotiations are not a matter of right and
refusal by the Department or the Manager of Safety to enter into
settlement discussions or to reach a settlement agreement cannot be a
basis of any claim of inconsistent treatment.

35.2

Settlement, while encouraged in appropriate cases, should occur only for
legitimate purposes and not in an effort to circumvent the application of
the matrix or the purposes and goals of these Conduct Principles and
Disciplinary Guidelines. All settlement agreements must be approved by
the Manager of Safety.

35.3

Any settlement which is achieved is intended to be unique to the
circumstances involved and is not to be used in the evaluation of other
disciplinary actions or in the determination of whether discipline in a
subsequent case is “inconsistent with discipline received by other
members of the Department under similar circumstances” as referenced
in the City Charter and Civil Service Rules.

Establishment of an Enhanced Discipline Database
36.1

The Department maintains data related to the imposition of discipline in its
CUFFS II database.

36.2

This database shall be enhanced and allow for research of the Manager’s
final orders of discipline for all violations committed after the effective date
of the implementation of these Conduct Principles and Disciplinary
Guidelines.

36.3

The Department shall restrict access to this enhanced database, except
as provided by law

Establishment of the Manager of Safety’s Discipline Advisory Group
Standing Committee
37.1

The Manager of Safety shall establish a Standing Committee to review
and suggest changes, where appropriate, to these Conduct Principles and
Disciplinary Guidelines and other Departmental policies and procedures
related to discipline.
42

37.2

38.0

39.0

The Standing Committee shall be composed of a cross section of
Department personnel, including representatives of the bargaining agent
as well as persons outside the Department, as referenced in the Denver
Police Department Operations Manual, and shall meet on a regularly
established basis.

Application of these Conduct Principles and Disciplinary Guidelines
38.1

The provisions outlined herein shall apply to all alleged violations of
Department rules, policies, etc. committed on or after the announced
implementation date of these Conduct Principles and Disciplinary
Guidelines.

38.2

The implementation date will be announced by the Chief of Police, with
the approval of the Manager of Safety after a reasonable period of training
and notice to all members of the Department.

38.3

Any amendments to these Conduct Principles and Disciplinary Guidelines
or other policies and procedures related to discipline shall take effect only
upon reasonable prior notice to all members of the Department.

The Vital Role of All Persons Involved in the Discipline Process
39.1

In order to ensure an effective discipline system consistent with the stated
goals, purposes and policies of these Conduct Principles and Disciplinary
Guidelines, all persons involved in the investigation and review of
allegations of misconduct are obligated to conscientiously apply the
principles and guidelines contained herein and to judiciously follow the
procedures outlined. No system of discipline can be perceived as fair, nor
can it succeed in promoting respect and trust within the Department or
with the community, without such a commitment.

39.2

All persons who are involved in the investigation and the review of
misconduct, recommend disciplinary findings or sanctions, make
decisions at any stage in the disciplinary process, or otherwise
participate in the administration of the disciplinary process, as well as their
legal or Department representatives, are obligated to keep disciplinary
deliberations, recommendations, and rationales confidential except
where:
(a) disclosure is necessary for the administration of the disciplinary
process;
(b) approved by the Chief of Police or the Manager of Safety;
(c) in accordance with established Department policy and procedure; or
(d) required by the rules of the Civil Service Commission, the ordinances
of the City and County of Denver, or any applicable state or federal
laws.
43

Appendix A – Department Mission, Vision and Values

DENVER POLICE DEPARTMENT
MISSION
TO DELIVER HIGH QUALITY PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES SO ALL
PEOPLE MAY SHARE A SAFE AND HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT

VISION
THE DEPARTMENT, IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE COMMUNITY, WILL ENDEAVOR TO ACHIEVE
OUR MISSION BY:

Creating powerful crime prevention and reduction strategies;
Structuring the organization to promote professional, creative, welltrained, ethical, and accountable employees; and
Utilizing the most modern and effective practices and methods.

VALUES
IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH OUR MISSION, WE VALUE AND PROMOTE:

Justice

Use of authority to uphold what is right, just and lawful

Equity

Fair, impartial and equitable treatment of all people

Integrity

Faithful performance of our duties and always doing the
right thing for the right reason

Honesty

Incorruptible character and truthfulness

Accountability

Demonstrating responsibility in all activities

Respect

Treating others as we would like to be treated

Diversity

Encouraging the participation of all people and the
inclusion of diverse points of view

Teamwork

Achieving more through partnerships

Innovation

Encouraging creativity in the performance of our duties

Customer Service

Exceeding our customers’ expectations

Appendix B – Law Enforcement Code of Ethics

LAW ENFORCEMENT
CODE OF ETHICS

As a Law Enforcement Officer, my fundamental duty is to serve mankind, to safeguard lives and property, to
protect the innocent against deception, the weak against oppression or intimidation, and the peaceful
against violence or disorder; and to respect the Constitutional rights of all men to liberty, equality and justice.
I will keep my private life unsullied as an example to all; maintain courageous calm in the face of danger,
scorn or ridicule; develop self-restraint and be constantly mindful of the welfare of others. Honest in thought
and deed in both my personal and official life, I will be exemplary in obeying the laws of the land and the
regulations of my Department. Whatever I see or hear of a confidential nature or that is confided to me in
my official capacity will be kept ever secret unless revelation is necessary in the performance of my duty.
I will never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, animosities or friendships to influence my
decisions. With no compromise for crime and with relentless prosecution of criminals, I will enforce the law
courteously and appropriately without fear or favor, malice or ill will, never employing unnecessary force or
violence and never accepting gratuities.
I recognize the badge of my office as a symbol of public faith, and I accept it as a public trust to be held so
long as I am true to the ethics of the police service. I will constantly strive to achieve these objectives and
ideals, dedicating myself before God to my chosen profession . . . law enforcement.

Appendix C – Comment on Department Values and the
Law Enforcement Code of Ethics
The Department’s Mission, Vision, and Values
All Departmental policies, practices and decisions, including those involving discipline,
should be rooted in the Department’s Vision and Values and designed to accomplish its
stated mission. Therefore, the following is a discussion of how the Department’s
Mission Statement, Vision and Values were developed and how they relate to discipline.
It is included as an important part of this handbook.
In 2003, the Denver Police Department undertook a review of its internal philosophies
and policies with the intent of creating a substantial, action oriented strategic plan.
As a prelude to the creation of this strategic plan, the Department researched mandates
from Department of Justice consent decrees and memoranda of understanding from
jurisdictions all over the country. Also reviewed were recommendations from the
Department of Justice’s “Principles for Promoting Police Integrity” and a study from the
University of Maryland called “Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s
Promising.”
Best practices were researched through the International Association of Chiefs of Police
(IACP) and 26 major U.S. cities. Included in this research were the best practices in the
areas of citizen complaint investigations, early warning systems, citizen review, use of
force, in-custody deaths, mentally disabled individuals, crisis intervention teams,
pursuits, citizen injuries, sexual harassment, discrimination, gangs, crime analysis,
accountability, civil enforcement, gun violence, crime reduction, performance
assessments, and crime prevention.
The Department also retained Joseph Brann, formerly the Director of the Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office). Mr. Brann worked with a team of
law enforcement professionals to conduct a top to bottom organizational assessment of
the Department. The Department assembled the fruits of its research, the Brann report,
and the Denver City Council Law Enforcement 2000 Committee’s study of the
Department, and created a comprehensive strategic plan to guide its mission for the
next several years.
As part of this historical review, the Department also reviewed prior compilations
pertaining to Departmental values, mission, goal and vision statements, purposes and
philosophies. Among those historical materials were the Law Enforcement Code of
Ethics, which the Department adopted in April of 1999, and early discussions of the
Department’s philosophies and goals.

The overall review focused on providing a clear, direct statement of the principles and
vision which should guide the Department and its officers. This review was also seen
as a necessary foundation for establishing the disciplinary priorities of the Department.
The process began with the creation of a clear statement of the Department's mission
and how that mission could be accomplished. The interaction of the community and the
Department was seen as essential to carrying out the mission - this was described as
the vision of the Department. Of paramount importance was the need to acknowledge
the core values to which every officer of the Department must be fully committed.
The result of this extensive undertaking was the creation of the Department’s Strategic
Plan and, in April of 2003, the adoption of the Department’s Mission, Vision, and Values
- all of which can be found in the front of the Operations Manual. It cannot be
overemphasized that the Department’s Values are its guiding principles. To achieve its
Vision and accomplish its Mission, the Department must be committed to these values.
All members of the Department, whether sworn or civilian, rank and file or
supervisor/command, must embrace their values and strive to demonstrate them in their
professional and private lives. Below is an assessment of what each value means and
how each relates to discipline.
Justice
The use of authority to uphold what is right, just and lawful
Justice is the result of being honorable and fair in the treatment of others. Only when
the Department’s officers act with integrity and use their authority to uphold what is
right, just and fair, can justice be achieved.
Achieving justice means to accomplish an outcome which is, on its face, the right result.
When the Department shows that it is committed to justice, the expectations of both
citizens and officers are to be treated in a fair and just way. A department that is known
for seeking justice instills trust in its citizens and its officers.
Equity
Fair, impartial and equitable treatment of all people
Equity is best achieved when officers are fair and impartial in all of their contacts.
Equity means that officers do not allow personal bias or prejudice to interfere with their
judgment and actions. When the Department applies the rules, regulations and laws in
an impartial and unbiased manner, equity is achieved.
Equitable treatment ensures that all citizens are heard by the Department. Similarly,
when all officers feel that they are treated fairly, impartially and with respect, they have
greater faith in the organization to which they have devoted their lives.

2

Appendix C

Integrity
Faithful performance of our duties and always doing the right thing for the right reason
Integrity means acting out of a sense of moral principle and having the courage to do
the right thing. Officers with integrity are officers whose word can be trusted and whose
decisions are fair and equitable.
Integrity is the cornerstone of the public’s trust of the Department and is essential to the
creation of partnerships with the community. It is also the foundation for officers’ belief
in and respect for the Department.
A lack of integrity can have severe consequences, including corruption, bias,
ineffectiveness and loss of respect, and can undermine everything for which the
Department is supposed to stand.
Honesty
Incorruptible character and truthfulness
Honesty is defined as being truthful, upright and genuine.
Honesty is expected of each individual officer. Avoiding any deception, misrepresentation or omission of relevant facts and telling the complete truth are necessary
to ensure honesty in the Department.
There is no basis for respect or trust without honesty. If the Department fails to demand
honesty, it breaks faith with the public and its own officers. The Department must
reinforce the core value of honesty with its actions, words and conduct. Honesty must
be expected of everyone, from the Chief to the newest officer or recruit. No decision
can be fairly made or no case completely investigated without honesty.
Accountability
Demonstrating responsibility in all activities
Accountability means accepting responsibility. Being accountable requires that an
officer is answerable, to both the public and the Department, for his or her conduct.
Officers demonstrate accountability by acknowledging their own conduct, whether good
or bad, mistaken or intentional, and accepting the consequences. Being accountable
also means that officers understand that their community looks to them to set a positive
example in their professional and personal lives.
Likewise, the Department and its administration must be accountable to its officers and
the general public. Accountability is a major component in community confidence as
well as officer confidence in the Department.
A lack of accountability can negatively impact every aspect and function of the
Department, both internally and externally.
3

Appendix C

Respect
Treating others as you would like to be treated
Respect is achieved by acting properly and showing due regard for all those with whom
an officer has contact.
Respect means that all officers give courteous, considerate and fair treatment to
everyone. Respect requires that officers acknowledge the dignity of each individual
they contact and act in an appropriate and honorable way in their dealings with every
person.
Citizen support for the Department is grounded in respect. Respect is a two-way street.
When the Department commits to the respectful treatment of all citizens, citizens return
that respect to the Department. It is equally necessary for every officer, from the Chief
to the rank and file, to treat each other with respect.
Diversity
Encouraging the participation of all people and the inclusion of diverse points of view
By selecting diversity as one of its core values, the Department emphasized the
importance of considering multiple views and differing perceptions in providing service
to the community. Both within the Department and in the community, seeking and
accepting diversity - people, orientations, backgrounds, views and interests – unifies
the Department and brings it closer to the community it serves.
Valuing diversity is a statement against bias based policing, stereotyping and prejudice.
Valuing diversity demonstrates appreciation and respect for the citizens that make up
this city. Valuing diversity shows recognition of changing demographics, changing
societal values and changing cultures.
When the Department’s officers have contact with citizens whose manner, appearance
and behavior are culturally different from their own, they have an opportunity to create a
positive impression. By working to understand these differences, officers can create a
foundation of trust and respect. That type of bond, based upon trust and the
expectation of fair treatment, makes officers safer in all communities, encourages
citizens to help in investigations and crime prevention, and improves the quality of life of
all, citizens and police officers alike.
The perception that people are treated differently because of prejudice or bias can
quickly destroy the faith of a citizen, a community, or an officer in the Department. Such
prejudices and biases, if acted upon, can result in humiliation, injustice, lawsuits and
disciplinary action. The long term damage done to police-community relations is
incalculable and sometimes irreparable. The damage that can occur within the
Department from internal expressions of prejudice and bias can be just as destructive.
It is essential that all officers understand the need for diversity in the organization,
respect diversity in the community and understand the destructive consequences of
acting in a prejudicial or biased manner.

4

Appendix C

Teamwork
Achieving more through partnerships
Teamwork is combining individual strengths to accomplish a common goal. Teamwork
includes all officers working in partnership with each other and the community to carry
out the Department’s Mission and to achieve its Vision.
Teamwork means that every officer recognizes that both citizens and the police are
essential to supporting a safe community. With teamwork, the Department can draw
upon both the wisdom of the individual and the collective wisdom of the group to move
the Department and community forward. Within the Department, teamwork results in
safer policing, creativity in addressing problems and making improvements, and greater
job satisfaction overall.
If teamwork is discounted, officers may put their fellow officers at risk. Without
teamwork, officer and citizen safety can be compromised and the ability to achieve the
goals, objectives and plans of the team, the Department, and the community is
diminished.
Innovation
Encouraging creativity in the performance of our duties
Innovation is the end result of valuing the inventiveness, originality and creativity of
officers. It can only be achieved when the Department as a whole is open to new ideas.
Encouraging innovation means that it is safe to propose a new approach or to provide
constructive criticism of an existing strategy. Encouraging innovation means that each
and every member of the Department knows that they are expected to constantly
evaluate how things are done and look for ways to do things better.
By embracing innovation as a core value, the Department sends the message that its
officers are an integral part of improving the organization. A department that prizes
creativity and innovation is saying to its officers that critical review and new ideas are
both desired and needed. In an innovative department, officers fully understand that
they are viewed as important contributors to the overall quality of the organization.
When encouraged, innovation gives the Department opportunities to change outdated
and inadequate approaches and implement better and more meaningful strategies. The
outcome of embracing innovation is improved morale and better service to the
community, as well as true partnership, both internally among officers and externally
with the community and the Department.
Innovation is also found outside of the Department, from within our community.
Welcoming innovation from the community as it relates to ideas, interactions and
partnerships with the police department will continue to foster a progressive and
productive culture.
Inherent in creativity and innovation is the taking of risks and the acknowledgement that
mistakes will be made.
5

Appendix C

Customer Service
Exceeding our customers’ expectations
Law enforcement is first and foremost a service profession. “To Serve and Protect” is a
long treasured motto that succinctly expresses what law enforcement is about.
Customer service is the expression of the quality of the courtesy, help, advice,
information and resolution officers provide to the community on a daily basis.
From the most violent crime to the most minimal dispute with a neighbor, police officers
are asked to step into situations that are ripe with tension, hard feelings and discomfort.
When police officers are courteous, empathetic and compassionate in dealing with
citizens, when all problems are treated as important, when all people are treated with
dignity and when there is follow through on promises made, officers have provided good
customer service.
The importance of customer service cannot be overstated. Every time that an officer
contacts a citizen, he or she acts as a good will ambassador for the Department.
Taking the extra step to exceed what a citizen expects from an encounter pays
incredible dividends. The quality of customer service will often determine whether a
citizen will greet the police at their door with a helpful or hostile attitude. Officer safety is
also enhanced because citizens who receive good customer service see officers as
being a part of their community and are more willing to help the police.
When officers fail to provide good customer service, not only are all of the potential
positives lost, but suspicion, disbelief and hostility can result. These negative views of
police officers have an effect on every aspect of the Department’s operations. Whether
a fellow officer is serving as a court witness or responding to a citizen's call, the
impression left by each individual officer can affect the way citizens view every other
officer.

6

Appendix C

The Law Enforcement Code of Ethics
In addition to its stated mission, vision and values, the Department has incorporated
another statement of principle that is recognized as vital to setting standards of officer
conduct, “The Law Enforcement Code of Ethics” (Code). The Operations Manual of the
Department incorporates this important document and explains that “the canons defined
by the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics, rules, regulations and duties contained in this
manual are published for the information and guidance of each member of the
Department.” The Code was originally established by the International Association of
Chiefs of Police (IACP) in 1957 to govern the conduct of its members and subsequently
revised unanimously in 1991. The continuing viability of the Code was reaffirmed by the
Department when it set out its specific values in 2003. The integration of the concepts
of the Code into the Department’s Values is necessary to provide a better
understanding of how they interrelate and how the Code relates to discipline.
Among the concepts addressed in the Code are these:
•

The Code sets the tone for the overall mission of the Department by pointing
out the essential service obligation of all law enforcement officers, the
“fundamental duty … to serve mankind.” In today’s context, this extrapolates
not only to the Department motto of “To serve and to protect,” but also to the
value of Customer Service, which the Department has incorporated into its
statement of values.

•

The Value of Justice is demonstrated in the Code’s recognition of that aspect of
“service to all mankind” which is reflected in the statement that officers will work
to “safeguard lives and property, to protect the innocent against deception, the
weak against oppression or intimidation, and the peaceful against violence or
disorder.” This too exemplifies the highest sense of service to which a law
enforcement officer can aspire and it demonstrates the Department’s commitment to care of citizens – its customers.

•

It is a fundamental duty of an officer to “respect the constitutional rights of all” to
“liberty, equality and justice.” This obligation of the Code is part and parcel of
the Department’s core values of Respect, Integrity and Justice. It also reminds
officers that they are trusted to serve as guardians of our Constitution and Bill
of Rights and that their decisions should always be grounded in law.

•

The Code demands that officers keep their private lives “unsullied” as “an
example to all.” Just as with the Department’s core values of Integrity, Honesty
and Accountability, the Code also acknowledges the importance of leadership
by example. Adherence to these important concepts demonstrates a mature
understanding that, to the public, officers are always seen as officers first,
whether they are on or off duty. 1

1

The acceptance of this principle of the Code is not intended to restrict or control the conduct of officers
in matters which are private, not otherwise in violation of the law and not reasonably related to an officer’s
duties and responsibilities or the use/misuse of property or equipment connected with the Department.

7

Appendix C

•

When the Code calls upon all officers to “maintain courageous calm in the face
of danger, scorn or ridicule,” it recognizes the all important core value of
Integrity. It also incorporates the need to act with Respect, understand
Diversity, and provide good Customer Service. In this short phrase, the Code
makes absolutely clear that, even in the most dangerous and difficult situations,
officers are held to the highest standards and are expected to act rationally,
fairly and safely for the benefit of the public, their fellow officers and
themselves.

•

In providing direction to officers that they must “develop self-restraint,” the
Code acknowledges the reality that the law provides police officers with great
power and that it is incumbent upon officers, as servants of the people, to
choose the least intrusive use of power which will allow them to fulfill their
obligations and perform their duties. Whether, for example, it involves the use
of physical force in making an arrest or staying within the parameters of a
search warrant that is being executed, “self-restraint” is a critical tool in
ensuring that the power given to police officers is used judiciously. This
mandate is echoed in the Department’s incorporation of the Values of Integrity,
Justice, Honesty and Accountability. Additionally, there are occasions when
some citizens may act unfairly, disrespectfully and inappropriately. Those are
the times that test the Integrity, Accountability and Respect of any officer.
However, the Code, like these core Department Values, will remind officers that
they are expected to rise above bad behavior by those they are entrusted to
help and still provide good Customer Service.

•

The Code also requires that officers must be “constantly mindful of the welfare
of others.” While this directive reinforces the need to “develop self-restraint,” it
demonstrates a different focus. By requiring officers to “constantly” think of the
welfare of other people, this phrase emphasizes that the touchstone of all
decision-making for law enforcement officers must, necessarily, be the public
good. The Department assimilates this important requirement of the Law
Enforcement Code of Ethics into its Values of Integrity, Justice, Equity,
Accountability, Respect, and Customer Service.

•

Without question, the Code and the Department value of Honesty emphasizes
the importance of truthfulness in all facets of an officer’s responsibilities. A lack
of truthfulness or integrity is detrimental to all law enforcement. Reinforcing this
treasured principle from the Code in its Values was of critical importance to the
Department.

•

The Code explains the very essence of the high standards that the Department
embraces in the phrase “I will be exemplary in obeying the laws of the land and
the regulations of my department.” It is a fundamental expectation of everyone
in law enforcement and every citizen in the community that officers always
follow the law. Regardless of whether an officer is acting in their personal or
professional life, there must be strict adherence to all laws by every single
8

Appendix C

officer on the Department. Without this most basic requirement, the
Department’s Values, such as Justice, Honesty, Integrity and Accountability,
even Customer Service, which is grounded in this principle, would be
meaningless.
•

The history of law enforcement is full of examples of why officers are entrusted
with confidential information and the consequences that result when
confidential information is divulged. The Code stresses the need for officers to
accept this trust by directing officers to keep all confidential materials and
information confidential, without exception. The Department underscored this
important concept when it adopted the values of Integrity, Accountability and
Respect.

•

The Code requires that officers “never act officiously or permit personal
feelings, prejudices, animosities or friendships to influence decisions.” As
important today as when the Code was first written decades ago, this is the
foundational guidepost for the Department’s core values of Respect, Diversity,
Integrity, Accountability, Justice and Customer Service. The Code was the first
recognition that inappropriate influences of any kind will undermine the public
trust.

•

Courteous treatment is the underpinning of Equity, Respect, Diversity and
Customer Service and is a necessary component of all the Department’s
values. Courtesy towards all results in better citizen cooperation, greater public
trust and increased safety for officers. The Code addressed this important
issue by directing all officers to “enforce the law courteously.”

•

An officer who is unnecessarily violent or excessively forceful in carrying out his
or her duties will quickly undermine the confidence of the community.
Recognition of this concern is found in the Code when it mandates that an
officer should “never” employ “unnecessary force or violence.” The Department
embraces this mandate in its rules and regulations and in its adopted values of
Justice, Respect and Integrity.

•

The Code sets out another mandate that is essential to the public trust when it
requires that an officer “never” accepts gratuities. The underlying concept of
this Code statement is found in the Department’s adoption of Accountability,
Integrity, Justice and Equity as core values. Accepting a gratuity can create an
expectation that an officer will provide better service to the community member
offering the gratuity. It can also create a perception among other community
members that officers will enforce the law in favor of those granting gratuities or
that in order to maintain a good relationship with an officer, special treatment
must be provided.

9

Appendix C

•

No officer can fulfill his/her obligation to the community and fellow officers
unless he/she fully accepts that the position he/she holds is, in the words of the
Code, “a public trust.” Without this most fundamental understanding of the
importance, sensitivity and necessity of their work, neither officers nor the
Department can be successful. In adopting each of the Code’s ten core values,
the Department recognizes that this most important concept is an integral part
of every aspect of its policies, philosophy and mission.

The Mission, Vision, Values and Law Enforcement Code of Ethics set the standards of
the Denver Police Department. Read together, they establish a baseline of exemplary
conduct, professional service and true concern for community and officers which is
expected from every officer in the Department. They also provide guidance for officers
in making the tough decisions and choices with which they are confronted daily and
they help to keep officers safe. Officers who follow the precepts and philosophies
encompassed in these documents bring pride to their Department, their fellow officers,
their community and themselves.

10

Appendix C

Appendix D – Application Considerations Regarding Certain Violations
Untruthfulness
In the past, the Department has dealt with issues of untruthfulness through RR-112,
entitled “Departing from the Truth.” RR-112 previously read: “Officers shall not willfully
depart from the truth, either in giving testimony or in connection with any official duties.”
Honesty is a core value of the Denver Police Department. As indicated previously in
this Handbook: Honesty is defined as being truthful, upright and genuine. Honesty is
expected of each individual officer. Avoiding any deception or misrepresentation and
telling the complete truth are necessary to ensure honesty in the Department. There is
no basis for respect or trust without honesty. If the Department fails to demand
honesty, it breaks faith with the public and its own officers. The Department must
reinforce the core value of honesty with its actions, words and conduct. Honesty must
be expected of everyone, from the Chief to the newest officer or recruit. No complaint
can be fully investigated, no finding can be legitimately reached, and no discipline can
be fairly imposed without honesty.
One issue at hand is whether the Department should attempt to distinguish between
falsehoods which have a serious impact and falsehoods which are not as serious. One
opinion is that any attempt to distinguish between the two would send the message both
to the Department and the community that “lying” was tolerated by the Denver Police
Department. Some police departments have adopted so-called “zero tolerance” policies
against untruthfulness. In fact, untruthfulness by a police officer has often been
described as a “death penalty offense” for an officer’s career. However, in many
departments that claim a zero tolerance policy for untruthfulness, less impactful
falsehoods are not referred through the disciplinary process in order to avoid
terminating an officer.
False statements have special significance in the disciplinary process because they go
to the integrity of officers in fundamental ways. It is the conclusion of the Manager of
Safety and the Chief of Police, however, that a false statement allegation, if proven,
need not automatically lead to discharge. Otherwise, those false statements that do not
require termination will not be brought to the attention of the Department’s
Administration and may not be dealt with in an appropriate manner.
Over the past several years, “comparative discipline” for “departing” violations has
ranged from fined time to suspended time to termination. A review of past and recent
“departing” cases shows that the Department has not been hesitant to bring “departing”
charges, even in cases involving what would be considered less impactful falsehoods.
As noted above, not all cases of false statements warrant the penalty of termination. In
addition, in some cases, an officer’s early admission of untruthfulness could be a
mitigating factor for a false statement that was made without premeditation. As such,
RR-112 has been recreated into two separate sections.

RR-112.1: Misleading or Inaccurate Statements: “Officers shall not knowingly make a
misleading or inaccurate statement relating to their official duties.” This new section
applies to inaccurate and misleading statements that are made without premeditation or
without any intent to influence the outcome of an official investigation. The possible
penalties for a first time violation of this section (absent any prior disciplinary history or
special circumstance) would range from a mitigated penalty of 4-6 days suspension
(with the presence of mitigating factors) to a presumptive penalty of 10 days suspension
to an aggravated penalty of 13-17 days suspension (with the presence of aggravating
factors).
RR-112.2: Commission of a Deceptive Act: “In connection with any investigation or any
judicial or administrative proceeding, officers shall not willfully, intentionally, or
knowingly commit a materially deceptive act, including but not limited to, verbally
departing from the truth, making a false report, or intentionally omitting information.”
This new section refers to untruthfulness violations that impact official investigations or
proceedings and amount to a willful disregard of the Department’s core values of
Integrity, Honesty and Accountability. A first-time offender of this section should expect
to be terminated. Only with the existence of appropriate mitigating circumstances would
the mitigated penalty of 90 days be imposed. Only with extraordinary mitigation would
an offender of this section receive anything less than a 90 day suspension.
A factor in mitigation that may be considered would be that the untruthfulness would not
have been discovered but for the officer coming forward and making a truthful
statement. In those circumstances, the presumptive penalty of termination may be
avoided. Similarly, in those cases in which an admission of untruthfulness is made after
an officer has been untruthful, the presumptive penalty of termination may also be
avoided. The Department must be cognizant, however, that even in these
circumstances, an officer’s failure to be truthful may need to end that officer’s career.
Untruthfulness of the type contemplated in RR-112.2 may justifiably raise questions of
the officer’s trustworthiness and integrity and may impact the officer’s ability to
effectively perform his/her duties and responsibilities with regard to the criminal justice
system. Instances of untruthfulness may also be disclosable to the District Attorney’s or
City Attorney’s Offices in order for prosecutors to meet their discovery obligations under
the law.
New Rule & Regulation – RR-312.2: Interfering with Internal Investigation/Questioning
A professional, respectful, competent and trustworthy Internal Affairs process is
essential to many of the Department’s core values: Integrity, Justice, Equity,
Accountability, Respect and Customer Service. As such, an officer’s failure to
cooperate with, or an officer’s interference with, an Internal Affairs investigation would
be a violation that would demonstrate a serious lack of the integrity, ethics or character
related to a person’s fitness to hold the position of police officer.
As such, the creation of a new Rule was necessary to deal specifically with this issue.
The new Rule reads: “An officer shall not knowingly engage in conduct or have direct or
indirect contact with any witness, complainant or investigator which is intended to, or
actually does, obstruct, compromise or interfere with an Internal Investigation. Internal
2

Appendix D

Investigations shall include those initiated by the Internal Affairs Bureau, the
Professional Standards Unit, the Office of the Independent Monitor or any other
Division, Bureau, Section or Unit.”
The presumptive penalty for a first-time violation of this rule is termination. Only with
the existence of appropriate mitigating circumstances would the mitigated penalty of 90
days be imposed. Only with extraordinary mitigation would an offender of this section
receive anything less than a 90 day suspension.
It should be noted that these new Rules and Regulations ensure accountability for
officers who either make materially false statements in any investigation or any judicial
or administrative proceeding or who interfere with Internal Affairs investigations. There
needs to be recognition, however, that certain rights beget certain responsibilities.
Specifically, the Police Department and the Independent Monitor have created a system
that makes the complaint handling process accessible to all members of the community
and the Department. In those unfortunate cases where a complainant makes a false
complaint against an officer, there should be accountability for such a false statement.
As such, the Internal Affairs Bureau policy is that a referral for possible criminal
prosecution be made to the appropriate prosecutorial agency upon the review and
determination of the IAB command staff.
Conduct Prohibited by Law
Undoubtedly, the Manager of Safety and Police Department need to be able to
discipline police officers for engaging in conduct that is prohibited by criminal statutes or
other laws. A primary reason for that need is that officers are employed in large part to
enforce the law and, consequently, conduct by officers that violates the law is totally
antithetical to a police officer’s role in society and diminishes the public image of law
enforcement officers. Engaging in conduct that violates a law, particularly a criminal
law, may also negatively affect an officer’s ability to perform his/her job functions.
Revision to RR 115 – Re-titled Conduct Prohibited by Law - Conduct that violates any
type of law can be used as the basis for a violation of RR-115.1, Conduct Prohibited by
Law, or RR-115.2, Aggravated Conduct Prohibited by Law. Thus, whenever a
preponderance of the evidence shows an officer engaged in conduct that is forbidden
by a felony statute, misdemeanor statute, municipal ordinance, or other law, the
Department may discipline the officer for violating RR-115.1 or RR-115.2 (depending
upon the type of misconduct).
No Requirement of Criminal Conviction - The standard of proof in an administrative
setting for establishing the violation of a disciplinary rule by an officer who has passed
probation is “the preponderance of the evidence” standard, which is a lower standard
than the standard of proof in a criminal proceeding, “the proof beyond a reasonable
doubt” standard. Therefore, there is no requirement that an officer actually be convicted
of a criminal offense or receive a judgment against him/her in a civil proceeding for the
Department/Manager of Safety to find that the officer has engaged in conduct that is
prohibited by law. Nor is there any necessity for the officer even to be arrested,
charged with a crime, or sued civilly.
3

Appendix D

Refusal of Criminal Filing by Prosecutor Not Dispositive - It is noteworthy that a District
Attorney can refuse to file a criminal case for a variety of reasons that may not be
relevant to the decision to bring a disciplinary action, such as:
(a)

The DA may believe there is no reasonable likelihood of obtaining a
criminal conviction;

(b)

There may be insufficient identification of the perpetrator;

(c)

The victim of the crime may be reluctant to testify (e.g., the victim
may not want to see the perpetrator charged criminally);

(d)

Municipal charges may be more appropriate than state charges;

(e)

The matter is primarily civil in nature and, therefore, not suitable for
resolution in a criminal proceeding; or

(f)

The matter is better handled through an administrative action than
through the criminal justice system.

Therefore, refusal to file a criminal case does not constitute evidence that an action
under RR-115.1 or RR-115.2 should not be brought or not sustained against the officer.
Nor would such a decision not to file a criminal case in any way mitigate the
administrative action. Thus, so long as the Department/Manager of Safety can
establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the officer has engaged in the
conduct that is prohibited by law, it is not necessary that there be any action taken
against the officer in the criminal or civil justice systems.
Effect of Finding or Plea of Guilty - On the other hand, actions that occur within the
criminal justice system that establish an officer’s violation of a criminal law (such as a
guilty verdict following a trial or a guilty plea) generally will be considered by the
Department/Manager of Safety as proving, for disciplinary purposes, that the officer has
engaged in conduct that is prohibited by law. The reason that a conviction or guilty plea
is generally dispositive of conduct prohibited by law is that, as noted above, the
standard of proof for a criminal conviction is higher than the standard of proof for an
administrative violation. Thus, if a judge or jury determines, under a proof beyond a
reasonable doubt standard, that the evidence proves an officer has violated a criminal
statute or ordinance, that evidence would also prove, under a preponderance of the
evidence standard, that the officer engaged in the conduct that violated the criminal
statute. Hence, a violation of a disciplinary rule based upon the same conduct as the
criminal conviction would be conclusively established. Likewise, any other type of
criminal disposition that essentially requires an admission that the officer engaged in the
forbidden conduct (such as a plea of nolo contendere or a deferred judgment) will
conclusively establish a violation of a disciplinary rule based on the conduct at issue in
the criminal case.

4

Appendix D

Additionally, in order for a criminal defendant to enter a plea of guilty, the defendant
must generally admit on the record to engaging in the conduct that is forbidden by the
criminal statute. Such an admission in the criminal case would also establish for
disciplinary purposes that the officer engaged in the prohibited conduct where the
disciplinary violation is based upon the same conduct prohibited by the criminal statute.
In fact, an officer’s admission in a criminal case can be used to support a violation of
RR-115.1 or RR-115.2 where the criminal conduct admitted constitutes one or more of
the elements of the law that is the basis for the violation of RR-115.1 or RR-115.2.
Effect of Finding of Guilty as to Lesser Charges - If, in the criminal justice system, an
officer is not found guilty of violating the most serious crime with which he/she is
charged but instead is found guilty of a lesser offense, the Department/Manager of
Safety may nevertheless bring an administrative action under RR-115.1 or RR-115.2 for
violating any law for which a preponderance of the evidence establishes that the
officer’s conduct has violated the conduct prohibited by that law. Thus, the
Department/Manager of Safety could assert a violation of RR-115.1 or RR-115.2 for the
lesser crime for which the officer was convicted, any higher level crime for which he/she
was not convicted, or any other crime so long as the conduct at issue in the
administrative matter can be established by a preponderance of the evidence.
Effect of Finding of Not Guilty - A similar situation could arise if an officer is charged with
one or more criminal violations but is found not guilty of all or any of them or if the case
is dismissed for any reason. For the reasons already stated in this section, the
Department/Manager of Safety could still bring an administrative action under RR-115.1
or RR-115.2 for violating any law for which a preponderance of the evidence establishes
that the officer’s conduct has violated the conduct prohibited by that law. However,
sound reasonable judgment and caution must be exercised in such cases in order to
avoid an injustice and to ensure that the administrative action is being taken for
legitimate and appropriate purposes.
Mere Filing of Case Not Evidence - Of course, the mere fact that a criminal case is filed
against an officer is not evidence supporting a violation of RR-115.1 or RR-115.2. Nor
does the mere filing of criminal charges result in an aggravation of the administrative
case because, at the time the criminal case is filed, it is unknown whether the criminal
matter will result in a conviction or some type of plea that effectively admits the
underlying conduct.
Criminal Conviction Not Mitigating But Can Be Aggravating
The fact that an officer has been prosecuted for a possible criminal violation or has
been convicted of a criminal offense should never be a reason for the Department/
Manager of Safety to decide not to bring or to sustain an administrative action against
an officer for engaging in conduct that is prohibited by law. Nor should such
prosecution or conviction in any way be a mitigating factor in imposing a disciplinary
sanction on the officer if he/she is sustained for violating RR-115.1 or RR-115.2. On the
other hand, conviction of a criminal offense based upon the same conduct at issue in
the disciplinary case can be an aggravating factor in the case.

5

Appendix D

The Decision to Bring and Sustain an Administrative Action Based Upon Conduct
Prohibited by Law
Another issue regarding RR-115.1 and RR-115.2 is whether the Department/Manager
of Safety should bring an administrative action based upon the violation of one of those
two disciplinary rules on any occasion when the Department/Manager of Safety believes
the officer has engaged in conduct that is prohibited by law. From a legal standpoint, an
action under RR-115.1 or RR-115.2 could be brought and sustained whenever a
preponderance of the evidence indicates that the officer has engaged in conduct
prohibited by law. However, caution and sound reasonable judgment should guide the
decision to proceed administratively under a “Conduct Prohibited by Law” theory in any
case, but especially where an officer has not been prosecuted criminally or criminal
charges have been dismissed and there are other administrative rule violations which
address the misconduct. A thorough review of all the facts and circumstances of the
case must be undertaken to ensure the appropriateness of any action taken.
Consultation with the appropriate prosecutor’s office may better inform such a decision.
In general, an administrative action for “Conduct Prohibited by Law” should be brought
and sustained only where there is a legitimate and appropriate disciplinary purpose for
doing so.
Cautionary Instructions When Reviewing an Alleged Violation of RR-115.1, Conduct
Prohibited by Law, or RR-115.2, Aggravated Conduct Prohibited by Law
In those circumstances in which either the officer has not been criminally prosecuted
with a law violation or criminal charges have been dismissed, the officer may
nonetheless be sustained for an alleged violation of RR-115.1, Conduct Prohibited by
Law, or RR-115.2, Aggravated Conduct Prohibited by Law. Reviewers, however, are
cautioned that to sustain both a departmental rule violation and a violation of RR-115.1
or RR-115.2 may result in a “stacking of charges” as outlined in Sections 28.7 through
28.9 of these Conduct Principles and Disciplinary Guidelines. Sound reasonable
judgment and caution must be exercised in such cases in order to avoid an injustice and
to ensure that the administrative action is being taken for legitimate and appropriate
purposes.
Start of Administrative Investigation when Criminal Charges Pending - It is also
important for officers to know what will trigger an administrative investigation when a
criminal proceeding is pending against an officer. Generally, the Department will not
proceed with the administrative case while a criminal case is pending but rather will
await the disposition of the criminal matter before proceeding, but need not do so in
every instance. Many factors may influence the decision to proceed. This decision
should be made cautiously and in consultation with the prosecutor’s office. The factors
for consideration include, but are not limited to:
(a)

The seriousness of the officer’s alleged conduct/nature of charges;

(b)

The strength of the evidence;

(c)

The amount of additional investigation necessary;
6

Appendix D

(d)

The length of the criminal process;

(e)

The potential detrimental effect on the criminal prosecution; and

(f)

The potential detrimental effect on the operations of the
Department.

Application of the Matrix and Considerations in Determining the Appropriate Penalty in
“Conduct Prohibited by Law” Cases
As indicated above, violations of the law are now divided into two categories – RR115.1 – Conduct Prohibited by Law and RR-115.2 – Aggravated Conduct Prohibited by
Law.
Under the matrix, RR-115.1 is intended to apply to a wide range of conduct prohibited
by local ordinances and State or Federal statutes. This conduct includes, but is not
limited to criminal, civil, traffic and other violations of law and may range from minor
infractions to extremely serious misconduct.
It is unreasonable to attempt to pre-determine what conduct category would apply when
a violation of RR-115.1 is sustained. Therefore, RR-115.1 is listed in every conduct
category (A - F) in the matrix. A reviewer must analyze the conduct underlying the
violation in accordance with Section 15.0 Determining Appropriate Conduct Categories
– Analysis, in order to determine the appropriate presumptive penalty. As part of that
analysis, the reviewer must determine, among other things, the general nature and
seriousness of the misconduct, how the misconduct relates to the values of the
Department and how it otherwise meets the definition of a specific conduct category. In
doing so, the reviewer should determine whether the alleged violation involves any of
the following, which are considered by the Department to be serious departures from
Department standards:
(a)

Conduct involving dishonesty, a serious lack of integrity or other
forms of moral turpitude;

(b)

Conduct involving assaultive or threatening behavior;

(c)

Conduct involving the use or threatened use of a deadly weapon;

(d)

Conduct involving offenses of a sexual nature;

(e)

Conduct which could affect an officer’s legal authority to possess or
carry a firearm;

(f)

Conduct which would constitute a mandatory disqualifier to being
appointed to the position of police officer under current Civil Service
Commission Rules;

(g)

Conduct involving offenses listed as decertifying under POST
standards; and

(h)

Misconduct foreseeably resulting in serious bodily injury or death.
7

Appendix D

In contrast, RR-115.2, Aggravated Conduct Prohibited by Law, is intended to give all
officers notice of the misconduct prohibited by law which the Department has predetermined to carry a presumptive penalty of termination. These include any conduct
prohibited as constituting a felony or class one misdemeanor or any conduct prohibited
by State or Federal criminal statutes committed while on duty as a Denver Police officer
or while off duty under the color of an officer’s authority as a police officer.
Conduct Prohibited by Law Involving Driving Under the Influence and Driving While
Ability Impaired
The Denver Police Department fully recognizes the serious public safety issues involved
in the use of intoxicants in conjunction with the operation of motor vehicles. The
Department invests significant resources in public education and the enforcement of
laws related to driving offenses involving alcohol/intoxicants. Consequently, the
Department has a significant interest in deterring such misconduct by its officers and in
imposing appropriate discipline for involvement in violations related to such misconduct.
Therefore, the violation of RR-115.1 Conduct Prohibited by Law related to driving
offenses involving alcohol/intoxicants should generally be considered a Conduct
Category D violation – “Conduct substantially contrary to the values of the Department
or that substantially interferes with its mission, operation or professional image or that
involves a demonstrable serious risk to officer or public safety.”
Nonetheless, when warranted by the particular facts and circumstances of the specific
case, certain driving offenses involving alcohol/intoxicants may meet the definitional
criteria described in Conduct Categories E or F or may constitute a violation of RR115.2 Aggravated Conduct Prohibited by Law. Similarly, the particular facts and
circumstances may give rise to allegations of the violation of additional Departmental
rules and regulations, where appropriate.
In determining the appropriate penalty for driving offenses involving alcohol/intoxicants,
the reviewer must follow the principles and guidelines contained in this Handbook. A
factor which may be considered mitigating in addition to those in Handbook Section
19.0 is:
(a)

A blood alcohol content (BAC) level less than .08.

Among the factors which may be considered aggravating (or may result in a higher
conduct category or justify additional allegations of misconduct) in addition to those
contained in Handbook Section 19.0 are:
(a)

Driving resulting in death or physical injury

(b)

Driving resulting in more than minimal property damage

(c)

Reckless driving or excessive speeding (20 mph or more over the
speed limit)

(d)

Threatening, discourteous, abusive, disrespectful or unprofessional
conduct toward investigating officers
8

Appendix D

(e)

Attempts to elude apprehension

(f)

Resisting detention or arrest

(g)

Carrying a firearm on your person or displaying a firearm

(h)

Attempting to improperly influence the investigation by use of the
officer’s rank or position as a law enforcement officer

(i)

Leaving the scene, tampering with or altering evidence, making
false statements to investigators, or other attempts to avoid
detection or responsibility

(j)

Conduct which results in the loss of or restrictions to driving
privileges

(k)

A blood alcohol level of .15 or greater

Apart from the imposition of appropriate discipline, officers should always be aware of
other consequences which may result from driving offenses involving alcohol/
intoxicants. These consequences may affect an officer’s ability to perform an essential
function of his/her position as a police officer. Officers should also be aware of the
provisions of Mayoral Executive Order 94 which addresses alcohol-related conduct “on
duty” or while operating city vehicles.
Use of Inappropriate Force
One of the most important issues that a disciplinary system for any law enforcement
entity must address is officers’ use of force. Some other issues (such as discourtesy)
may result in a greater number of citizen complaints than does use of force. However,
due to the myriad consequences that can flow from such an incident, no issue is likely
to impact the public’s relationship with a law enforcement agency more than an officer’s
use of force. Consequently, law enforcement agencies must be vigilant in ensuring that
they set appropriate standards for officers’ use of force; that allegations of inappropriate
force are thoroughly and objectively investigated; and that, when the evidence points to
a use of inappropriate force, disciplinary penalties commensurate with the seriousness
of the misconduct are imposed.
Among the use of force issues addressed in this Handbook are the following:
(a)

Adopting the term “inappropriate force” to replace the current
classification of force as “unnecessary force” or “excessive force”;

(b)

Defining the types of uses of force that can constitute “inappropriate
force”;

(c)

Identifying factors that can be used to determine whether a
particular use of force was, in fact, appropriate or inappropriate;

9

Appendix D

(d)

Determining the conduct category for a use of inappropriate force
by viewing the totality of the circumstances; and

(e)

Identifying factors that can be used to determine whether the
presumptive disciplinary penalty, a penalty in the mitigated or
aggravated ranges, or some other penalty should be imposed.

Use of Term “Inappropriate Force” and Its Application - All uses of force which fall
outside the standards established by Departmental policy shall be classified as
“inappropriate force.” As such, this will help to eliminate the confusion that has resulted
from using the terms “unnecessary force” and “excessive force” and having to
determine which of those amorphous terms applies to a particular use of force. The
term “inappropriate force” encompasses all of the following situations:
(a)

An officer has used force in a particular circumstance but, under
Departmental policy, no force should have been used;

(b)

An officer has used a particular level of force but, under
Departmental policy, a lesser degree of force should have been
used;

(c)

An officer has used a particular type of weapon, device or
instrumentality but, under Departmental policy, that type of weapon,
device or instrumentality should not have been used or should not
have been used in the manner it was used;

(d)

An officer has used force in a particular way but, under
Departmental policy, the officer was not justified in using force in
the way it was used; and

(e)

Any other situation in which the officer’s use of force is not justified
by Departmental policy.

Factors to Consider in Whether a Use of Force was Inappropriate - A number of factors
should be considered in determining whether a use of force was inappropriate. 1 One
such factor is the vulnerability of the person against whom the force was used. If a
person was unable to pose a credible threat to the officer or unable to defend
himself/herself against the force used by the officer, it is more likely that the use of force
would be inappropriate. An example of a vulnerable person may be someone who is
handcuffed and, generally, compliant.
Another factor in deciding whether a use of force was appropriate or inappropriate is an
officer’s motivation for using the force. If an officer had an inappropriate purpose in
using the force, such as an act of retaliation, a means of intimidation, or improper
coercion, it is more likely that the use of force would be inappropriate.

1

These factors should be considered in conjunction with other factors and considerations discussed in
the Department’s Use of Force Policy as well as other relevant policies.

10

Appendix D

The way in which the force was applied can be significant in the analysis. For example,
if the officer applied the force in such a way as to maximize or minimize the pain or
injury to the person against whom the force was used, the application of force could be
either inappropriate or appropriate. This list of factors to consider in determining
whether an officer’s use of force was appropriate is not exhaustive. Therefore, anyone
reviewing the use of force must decide whether, under the particular circumstances in
which the force was used, the officer was justified in using the force he/she used. The
weight given to any particular factor will vary according to the circumstances. Thus, in
one situation multiple factors might be given equal weight in determining whether the
force used was appropriate, while in a different situation one of the factors may weigh
more heavily than the others.
Multiple Conduct Categories Pertaining to the Inappropriate Use of Force
Because the totality of the circumstances must be considered in analyzing whether a
particular use of force was inappropriate, the level of culpability for using inappropriate
force will vary from situation to situation according to the particular circumstances
surrounding each use of force. Therefore, violations of RR-306, Inappropriate Force,
are listed in the matrix as ranging from at least a Conduct Category D (Conduct
substantially contrary to the values of the Department, etc.) up to Conduct Category F.
Any reviewer must look to all the facts and circumstances of the particular use of
inappropriate force to determine which conduct category (D, E or F) is most appropriate.
In doing so, the reviewer should be guided by the analysis detailed in Section 15.0 of
these Conduct Principles and Disciplinary Guidelines. This same analysis must be
accomplished when an inappropriate use of force is charged by use of RR-102 as it
relates to a violation of a particular provision of the Department’s Use of Force policy.
Use of the Matrix to Determine the Appropriate Penalty - Once a determination has
been made that a particular use of force was “inappropriate” and the proper conduct
category for that particular “inappropriate force” has been identified, the reviewer must
ascertain whether, within the time frame for the current conduct category, the officer has
previously been sustained for any prior violations that fall into the conduct category for
the current violation or a higher conduct category. The presence or absence of a prior
sustained violation in those conduct categories will establish the proper discipline level
on the disciplinary matrix. At that point, the reviewer must determine whether the
disciplinary penalty to be imposed upon the officer will be the presumptive penalty, a
penalty in the mitigated or aggravated range, or in the case of special circumstances, a
penalty less or greater than provided in the matrix.
Mitigation and Aggravation - In determining mitigating and aggravating circumstances,
the reviewer should be guided by Sections 19.0 through 23.0 of these Conduct
Principles and Disciplinary Guidelines. In addition, many of the same factors that were
discussed above in determining whether the use of force was appropriate are also
relevant to determining whether the discipline should be mitigated or aggravated. For
example, the vulnerability of the person against whom force is used is a factor in
considering mitigation or aggravation of the discipline. If a person is unable to pose a
credible threat to the officer or unable to protect himself/herself against the force, that
vulnerability could be an aggravating factor. Another factor to be considered in
11

Appendix D

mitigation or aggravation is the officer’s motive for using the force. It would aggravate
the matter if the officer had an inappropriate purpose in using the force, such as, but not
limited to, retaliation, intimidation, improper coercion or discrimination.
The way in which the force was applied can also be significant in the analysis of
whether to mitigate or aggravate the discipline. For example, if the officer applied the
force in such a way as to minimize or maximize the pain or injury to the person, that
could be either a mitigating or an aggravating factor. Likewise, if the officer chose a
weapon or other device that would allow him/her to control the person with a minimum
or maximum of pain or injury to the person, that too could be a mitigating or an
aggravating factor.
If an involved officer has a history of inappropriate force violations, that history could be
a factor in raising the disciplinary sanction from the presumptive penalty to the
aggravated penalty. Furthermore, even when a prior sustained violation of inappropriate force is used to increase the disciplinary level on the matrix, a pattern of
using inappropriate force could also justify, within the disciplinary level, imposition of the
aggravated penalty rather than the presumptive penalty.
Of course, this list of mitigating and aggravating factors is not exhaustive. Therefore,
the person reviewing the use of force must decide whether, under the particular
circumstances in which the force was used, there are any other mitigating or
aggravating factors to be considered. Furthermore, the weight given to any particular
factor will vary according to the circumstances. Thus, in one situation multiple
mitigating and aggravating factors might be given equal weight, while in a different
situation one of the factors may weigh more heavily than the others (See Section 22.0).
Finally, the reviewer should also consider whether there are special circumstances
which may justify a penalty greater than or less than that indicated by the matrix (See
Section 25.0).
Sexual Misconduct
In the past, the Department has frequently dealt with issues relating to sexual
misconduct by imposing discipline pursuant to RR-106, Immoral Conduct. The rule, as
previously written, prohibited officers from participating in any “immoral, indecent, lewd,
or disorderly conduct.” The substance of RR-106 has been retained (without the word
“disorderly”) in a new rule numbered RR-106.1, and a new disciplinary rule has been
created, RR-106.2, Sexual Misconduct, which reads as follows:
“While on duty, an officer shall not engage in any conduct or solicit another to engage in
any conduct for the purpose of sexual gratification, sexual humiliation or sexual abuse.”
The same conduct is prohibited while off duty, either in uniform in a public place or in
any vehicle or facility to which an officer has access by virtue of the officer’s police
authority. The consent of another to engage in such sexual conduct or sexual acts is
immaterial.

12

Appendix D

The purpose of RR-106.2 is to address sexual conduct that an officer should reasonably
know is inappropriate for a police officer to be engaged in while on duty or when off duty
in uniform in a public place or in any police vehicle or facility. Such inappropriate
conduct is not limited to sexual intercourse or oral sex but includes any sexual conduct
that a reasonable officer should anticipate is offensive to the Department or the public in
light of the duties and authority with which officers are entrusted. It should be
emphasized that the purpose of the rule is not to control an officer’s private sex life.
The rule attempts, rather, to keep officers’ private lives separate from their roles and
responsibilities as police officers.
Sexual misconduct as defined by RR-106.2 constitutes a willful and wanton disregard
for numerous core values of the Department, such as Integrity, Justice, Equity, and
Respect. It also demonstrates a serious lack of integrity, ethics or character related to
an officer’s fitness to hold the position of police officer. As such, the presumptive
penalty for a first-time offender of RR-106.2 is termination.
Only when appropriate mitigating circumstances exist would the mitigated penalty of a
90-day suspension be imposed. And only with extraordinary mitigation would an
offender receive a sanction less than a 90-day suspension.
Conduct Prejudicial
Rule RR-105, which has been modified, now provides: “Officers shall not engage in
conduct prejudicial to the good order and police discipline of the Department or conduct
unbecoming an officer which:
(a)

May or may not specifically be set forth in Department rules and
regulations or the Operations Manual; or

(b)

Causes harm greater than would reasonably be expected to result,
regardless of whether the misconduct is specifically set forth in
Department rules and regulations or the Operations Manual.”

The Department/Manager of Safety may bring an action for violation of RR-105
pursuant to subpart (a) when the misconduct is not specifically set forth in Department
rules or as an alternative to rule violations which are specifically set forth. When the
violation of RR-105 is alleged as an alternative to other specifically charged rule
violations, the penalty for Conduct Prejudicial should not be greater than the underlying
alternative violations, and should run concurrently with the penalties for the alternative
rule violations. A reviewing body may affirm both the RR-105 violation pursuant to
subpart (a) and affirm the alternative rule violations, provided that the penalty for RR105 runs concurrently with the penalties for the alternative rule violations. If the
Department/Manager of Safety brings an action for violation of RR-105 pursuant to
subpart (b) (harm greater than would reasonably be expected), the penalty for Conduct
Prejudicial may run consecutively to the penalties for any other rule violations. The
Department/Manager of Safety shall state whether RR-105 is being brought pursuant to
subpart (a), subpart (b), or both.

13

Appendix D

Many different types and severity of misconduct can fall within the definition of “Conduct
Prejudicial.” Therefore, the Conduct Category (A - F) into which a particular violation
will fall will depend upon the specific facts of the case. In bringing an action for a
violation of RR-105, the Department/Manager of Safety must consider the facts
underlying the conduct and determine the Conduct Category into which the violation of
RR-105 falls by applying the analysis described in Section 15.0, above. The resulting
conduct category shall then be used in conjunction with the consideration of relevant
disciplinary history to determine the presumptive penalty. Thereafter, the normal
analysis of considering mitigating and aggravating factors as well as special
circumstances must be accomplished in order to determine the appropriate penalty.
Reviewers are cautioned that sustaining a violation for RR-105 pursuant to subpart (b)
may result in a “stacking of charges” as outlined in Sections 28.7 through 28.9 of these
Conduct Principles and Disciplinary Guidelines. Sound reasonable judgment and
caution must be exercised in such cases in order to avoid an injustice and to ensure
that the administrative action is being taken for legitimate and appropriate purposes.
Additional Definitions
Definitions of Bodily Injury and Serious Bodily Injury
In determining extent of injury, when relevant to discipline, the definitions in Colorado
Revised Statutes shall apply:
C.R.S. 18-1-901(3)(c) “Bodily injury” means physical pain, illness, or any impairment of
physical or mental condition.
C.R.S. 18-1-901(3)(p) “Serious Bodily Injury” means bodily injury which, either at the
time of the actual injury or at a later time, involves a substantial risk of death, a
substantial risk of serious permanent disfigurement, a substantial risk of protracted loss
or impairment of the function of any part or organ of the body, or breaks, fractures, or
burns of the second or third degree.

14

Appendix D

Appendix E – Non-Disciplinary Programs
Disciplinary Advisory Group ~ Programs Committee
Intervention Menu
Denver Police Academy**
Nicoletti-Flater-Associates^^
Law Violations
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Alcohol/DUI Classes**
Anger Management^^
Behavior Modification^^
Domestic Violence Classes**
Ethics Classes**
Family/Relationship Counseling^^
Mentoring
Psychological Counseling^^

Rough/Careless Handling of City & Department Property
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Accident Investigation Training**
Anger Management^^
Mentoring
Multi-tasking (Psychological Training) ^^
Multi-tasking (Skills Training) **
Performance and Pursuit Driving**
Process vs. Outcome Thinking Training^^
Remedial Driving**
Stress Management^^

Attendance in Court
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Anger Management^^
Behavior Modification^^
Major Case Investigation**
Mentoring
Public Speaking**
Stress/Anxiety Management**/^^
Testifying in Court Training**
Time Management Training**
Writing Skills**

Discourtesy
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Anger Management^^
Behavior Modification^^
Biased Policing**
Communication/De-escalation Training**/^^
Cultural Competency and Communication Skills**
Dealing with Angry Citizens**
Dealing with Difficult People^^
Interpersonal Communication**/^^
Interpersonal Skill Training**
Mentoring
Physical/Duty Skills Training**
Preventing Burnout Training**
Process vs. Outcome Thinking Training^^
Psychological/Emotional Counseling^^
Research Report
Stress Management^^
Verbal Judo**

Training Classes ~ Denver Police Academy
Continuing Education Programs (CEP)
•

Career Development
a.
b.
c.
d.

•

Business writing for professionals
Mistake-free grammar and proofreading
Time management
Write On! – Effective business writing skills

Supervisory / Command
a. Active supervision: Making a positive difference
b. Coaching for today’s leaders
c. Ethics in good leadership

•

Traffic
a. Remedial driving (given once a month)
b. Accident investigation for the street officer

•

Wellness
a. Stress management

2

Appendix E

•

Officer Safety
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.

•

ACT refresher course
Krav Maga defensive tactics for law enforcement
Performance and pursuit driving
Pursuit intervention technique (PIT)
Tactical environment
Range 3000
Cultural competency and communications skills
Decisional shooting

Patrol
a. Building search tactics
b. Tactical communications (Verbal judo)

Recruit Training
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Use of force
Stress management & PTSD
Officer survival
Ethics
Off-duty incidents
Dealing with upset citizens
Stop and frisk (maybe) / Detention vs. arrest
Biased policing (racial profiling)
Victim’s state rights – domestic violence
Laws of interrogation
Domestic violence procedures
Cultural awareness
Handling in-progress calls
Metro chase policy
Vehicle stops / high risk stops
Crime scene search and note taking
DUI enforcement

Training Classes ~ Nicoletti-Flater Associates
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Anger Management
Behavior Modification
Communication/De-escalation
Conflict Resolution
Dealing with Mental Health Populations
Domestic Violence
Family/Relationship Stress
Fear/Anxiety Related Problems

3

Appendix E

Training Classes ~ Nicoletti-Flater Associates (Cont.)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Grief and Loss
Interpersonal Communication
Managing Difficult People
Managing Suicide
Organization and Time Management
Performance/Test Anxiety
Process vs. Outcome Thinking
Psychological and/or Emotional Difficulties
Return to Duty Consultations
Sleep Disorders
Stress Management
Trauma Intervention

University of Colorado at Denver
•

Denver Leadership Training

4

Appendix E

Appendix F - Penalty Table and Discipline Matrix

Penalty Table

Discipline
Level

Mitigated
Penalty

1

Presumptive
Penalty

Aggravated
Penalty

Oral Reprimand

Written
Reprimand

2

Oral
Reprimand

Written
Reprimand

1-3 Fined Days

3

Written
Reprimand
To 1 Fined
Day

2 Fined Days

4-6 Fined Days

4

2-4 Fined
Days

3 Days
Suspension

5-7 Days
Suspension

5

4-6 Days
Suspension

10 Days
Suspension

14-16 Days
Suspension

6

18-22 Days
Suspension

30 Days
Suspension

38-42 Days
Suspension

7

43-47 Days
Suspension

60 Days
Suspension

Termination

8

90 Days
Suspension

Termination

DENVER POLICE DEPARTMENT - DISCIPLINE MATRIX
Categories,
Violations and Level Assignments Table
CATEGORY A
CONDUCT THAT HAS A MINIMAL NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE OPERATIONS OR
PROFESSIONAL IMAGE OF THE DEPARTMENT

EXAMPLES INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO:
RR-102.1 Duty to Obey Departmental Rules and Mayoral Executive
Orders (A-F)*
RR-102.2 Requirement for Former Officers to Obey Laws, Denver
Police Department Rules and Regulations, and Certain
Orders during the Pendency of Appeals (A-F)*
RR-103
Aid Another to Violate Rule (A-F)*
RR-105
Conduct Prejudicial (A-F)*
RR-108.1 Plainclothes Officers - Identification
RR-115.1 Conduct Prohibited by Law (A-F)*
RR-116
Conspiracy to Commit Conduct Prohibited by Law or
Aggravated Conduct Prohibited by Law (A-F)*
RR-121
Off Duty in Uniform (A-F)*
RR-129
Giving Name and Badge Number
RR-136
Use of Tobacco Products in Police Facilities
RR-205
Giving Testimonials, Seeking Publicity
RR-314
Providing Assistance Outside the City
RR-501
Personal Appearance in Court
RR-612
Answer to Official Communications
RR-614
Publication of Articles
RR-616
Police Bulletin
RR-802
Uniform Restrictions While Off Duty
RR-805
Equipment Carried on Person
RR-1001 Testifying in Civil Cases
RR-1002 Service of Civil Processes
RR-1003 Initiation of Civil Cases
RR-1104 Location When Ill
RR-1105 Reporting During Illness or Injury

1st
Violation

2nd
Violation

3rd**
Violation

in 3 Years

in 3 Years

in 3 Years

-Level-

-Level-

-Level-

1

2

3

• Any prior sustained violation in a category greater than or equal to the current violation shall increase the penalty level by 1. The prior violation
must be within the specified time frame of the current violation.
• Any prior sustained violation within the specified time frame, in a category lower than the current violation, may be considered as an
aggravating factor.
*Violations that appear in multiple categories will require the Department to compare the underlying conduct to the definitions contained in each
category in order to identify the appropriate category for the violation.
th
**The 4 or subsequent sustained violation of the same R&R, within the specified time frame, may result in more severe disciplinary
recommendations.

2

Appendix F

DENVER POLICE DEPARTMENT - DISCIPLINE MATRIX
Categories,
Violations and Level Assignments Table
CATEGORY B
CONDUCT THAT HAS MORE THAN A MINIMAL NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE OPERATIONS OR
PROFESSIONAL IMAGE OF THE DEPARTMENT; OR THAT NEGATIVELY IMPACTS
RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER OFFICERS, AGENCIES OR THE PUBLIC.

EXAMPLES INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO:
RR-102.1 Duty to Obey Departmental Rules and Mayoral Executive
Orders (A-F)*
RR-102.2 Requirement for Former Officers to Obey Laws, Denver
Police Department Rules and Regulations, and Certain
Orders during the Pendency of Appeals (A-F)*
RR-103
Aid Another to Violate Rule (A-F)*
RR-105
Conduct Prejudicial (A-F)*
RR-108.2 Protecting Identity of Undercover Officers
RR-115.1 Conduct Prohibited by Law (A-F)*
RR-116
Conspiracy to Commit Conduct Prohibited by Law or
Aggravated Conduct Prohibited by Law (A-F)*
RR-121
Off Duty in Uniform (A-F)*
RR-122.1 Respect for Fellow Officer
RR-126
Amusement Places Restrictions
RR-127
Responsibilities to Serve Public
RR-128.1 Impartial Attitude
RR-132
Purchase of Forfeited Property
RR-140
Discourtesy
RR-206
Soliciting Business
RR-303
Trivial Offenses
RR-304
Traffic Enforcement When Not in Uniform
RR-309.1 Suggesting Bondsmen or Attorneys
RR-605
Removal of Reports and Records
RR-607
Failure to Make, File or Complete Official Reports
RR-613
Unauthorized Use of Department Letterheads
RR-703
Soliciting Money for Political Purposes
Soliciting for Promotion, Appointment
RR-704
RR-806.1 Alteration or Exchange of Badge Prohibited
RR-807
Loss or Damage to Badge
RR-808
Equipment and Property Restrictions on Use
RR-809
Rough or Careless Handling of City or
Departmental Property
RR-902
Department Vehicle Operation
RR-1101 Reporting Absence Prior to Roll Call
RR-1102 Reporting for Duty

1st
Violation

2nd
Violation

3rd**
Violation

in 4 Years

in 4 Years

in 4 Years

-Level-

-Level-

-Level-

2

3

4

• Any prior sustained violation in a category greater than or equal to the current violation shall increase the penalty level by 1. The prior violation
must be within the specified time frame of the current violation.
• Any prior sustained violation within the specified time frame, in a category lower than the current violation, may be considered as an
aggravating factor.
*Violations that appear in multiple categories will require the Department to compare the underlying conduct to the definitions contained in each
category in order to identify the appropriate category for the violation.
th
**The 4 or subsequent sustained violation of the same R&R, within the specified time frame, may result in more severe disciplinary
recommendations.

3

Appendix F

DENVER POLICE DEPARTMENT - DISCIPLINE MATRIX
Categories,
Violations and Level Assignments Table
CATEGORY C
CONDUCT THAT HAS A PRONOUNCED NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE OPERATIONS
OR PROFESSIONAL IMAGE OF THE DEPARTMENT, OR ON RELATIONSHIPS
WITH OTHER OFFICERS, AGENCIES OR THE PUBLIC.
EXAMPLES INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO:
RR-102.1 Duty to Obey Departmental Rules and Mayoral Executive
Orders (A-F)*
RR-102.2 Requirement for Former Officers to Obey Laws, Denver
Police Department Rules and Regulations, and Certain
Orders during the Pendency of Appeals (A-F)*
RR-103
Aid Another to Violate Rule (A-F)*
RR-104
Contacting of Supervisor
RR-105
Conduct Prejudicial (A-F)*
RR-107
Always on Duty
RR-109.1 Drinking to Excess
RR-115.1 Conduct Prohibited by Law (A-F)*
RR-116
Conspiracy to Commit Conduct Prohibited by Law or
Aggravated Conduct Prohibited by Law (A-F)*
RR-117
Disobedience of an Order (C-F)*
RR-119
Sleeping on Duty
RR-121
Off Duty in Uniform (A-F)*
RR-122.2 Abuse of Fellow Officers
RR-138
Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation (C-F)*
RR-141.2 Reporting of Prohibited Associations
RR-204
Soliciting, Accepting Gifts, Gratuities
RR-307
Posting Bail
RR-310
Mistreatment of Prisoners/Suspects
RR-401
Display of Firearms
RR 402
Careless Handling of Firearms (C-F)*
RR-403
Restrictions on Auxiliary Weapons
RR-702
Using Police Position to Gain Political Office
RR-1004 Testifying for Defendant

1st
Violation

2nd
Violation

3rd**
Violation

in 5 Years

in 5 Years

in 5 Years

-Level-

-Level-

-Level-

3

4

5

• Any prior sustained violation in a category greater than or equal to the current violation shall increase the penalty level by 1. The prior violation
must be within the specified time frame of the current violation.
• Any prior sustained violation within the specified time frame, in a category lower than the current violation, may be considered as an aggravating
factor.
*Violations that appear in multiple categories will require the Department to compare the underlying conduct to the definitions contained in each
category in order to identify the appropriate category for the violation.
th
**The 4 or subsequent sustained violation of the same R&R, within the specified time frame, may result in more severe disciplinary
recommendations.

4

Appendix F

DENVER POLICE DEPARTMENT - DISCIPLINE MATRIX
Categories,
Violations and Level Assignments Table
CATEGORY D
CONDUCT SUBSTANTIALLY CONTRARY TO THE VALUES OF THE DEPARTMENT OR THAT
SUBSTANTIALLY INTERFERES WITH ITS MISSION, OPERATIONS OR PROFESSIONAL IMAGE, OR
THAT INVOLVES A DEMONSTRABLE SERIOUS RISK TO OFFICER OR PUBLIC SAFETY.
EXAMPLES INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO:
RR-102.1 Duty to Obey Departmental Rules and Mayoral Executive
Orders (A-F)*
RR-102.2 Requirement for Former Officers to Obey Laws, Denver
Police Department Rules and Regulations, and Certain
Orders during the Pendency of Appeals (A-F)*
RR-103
Aid Another to Violate Rule (A-F)*
RR-105
Conduct Prejudicial (A-F)*
RR-106.1 Immoral Conduct
RR-109.2 Unfit for Duty
RR-112.1 Misleading or Inaccurate Statement
RR-115.1 Conduct Prohibited by Law (A-F)*
RR-116
Conspiracy to Commit Conduct Prohibited by Law or
Aggravated Conduct Prohibited by Law (A-F)*
RR-117
Disobedience of an Order (C-F)*
RR-121
Off Duty in Uniform (A-F)*
RR 122.3 Insubordination
RR-128.2 Impartial Attitude - Bias
RR-130.1 Aiding and Protecting Fellow Officers – Unreasonable
RR-138
Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation (C-F)*
RR-141.1 Prohibited Associations (D-F)*
RR-306
Inappropriate Force (D-F)*
RR-311.1 Compromising Criminal Cases
RR-312.1 Interfering with Case Assigned to Other Officers
RR-402
Careless Handling of Firearms (C-F)*
RR-601.1 Communication of Confidential Information, Generally
RR-603
Destruction of Evidence
RR-806.2 Use of Badge by Person other than Officer
RR-1106 Feigning Illness or Injury

1st
Violation

2nd
Violation

3rd**
Violation

in 7 Years

in 7 Years

in 7 Years

-Level-

-Level-

-Level-

5

6

7

• Any prior sustained violation in a category greater than or equal to the current violation shall increase the penalty level by 1. The prior violation
must be within the specified time frame of the current violation.
• Any prior sustained violation within the specified time frame, in a category lower than the current violation, may be considered as an
aggravating factor.
*Violations that appear in multiple categories will require the Department to compare the underlying conduct to the definitions contained in each
category in order to identify the appropriate category for the violation.
th
**The 4 or subsequent sustained violation of the same R&R, within the specified time frame, may result in more severe disciplinary
recommendations.

5

Appendix F

DENVER POLICE DEPARTMENT - DISCIPLINE MATRIX
Categories,
Violations and Level Assignments Table
CATEGORY E
CONDUCT THAT INVOLVES THE SERIOUS ABUSE OR MISUSE OF AUTHORITY, UNETHICAL
BEHAVIOR, OR AN ACT THAT RESULTS IN AN ACTUAL SERIOUS AND ADVERSE IMPACT ON
OFFICER OR PUBLIC SAFETY OR TO THE PROFESSIONALISM OF THE DEPARTMENT.

EXAMPLES INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO:
RR-102.1 Duty to Obey Departmental Rules and Mayoral Executive
Orders (A-F)*
RR-102.2 Requirement for Former Officers to Obey Laws, Denver
Police Department Rules and Regulations, and Certain
Orders during the Pendency of Appeals (A-F)*
RR-103
Aid Another to Violate Rule (A-F)*
RR-105
Conduct Prejudicial (A-F)*
RR-109.3 Drinking on Duty
RR-114
Intimidation of Persons
RR-115.1 Conduct Prohibited by Law (A-F)*
RR-116
Conspiracy to Commit Conduct Prohibited by Law or
Aggravated Conduct Prohibited by Law (A-F)*
RR-117
Disobedience of an Order (C-F)*
RR-120
Appropriating Property
RR-121
Off Duty in Uniform (A-F)*
RR-123
Assault of Fellow Officer
RR-138
Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation (C-F)*
RR-141.1 Prohibited Associations (D-F)*
RR-203
Accepting Gifts from Persons of Bad Character
RR-302
Personal Family Disputes
RR-305
Duty to Protect Prisoner
RR-306
Inappropriate Force (D-F)*
RR-309.2 Suggesting Bondsmen or Attorneys for Profit
RR-402
Careless Handling of Firearms (C-F)*
RR-601.2 Communication of Confidential Information that
Jeopardizes a Police Action
RR-606
Destruction of Reports or Records
RR-609
Altering Information on Official Documents
RR-1107 Physical or Mental Examination
RR-1108 Release of Medical Information

1st
Violation

2nd
Violation

3rd**
Violation

No Time
Limit

No Time
Limit

No Time
Limit

-Level-

-Level-

-Level-

6

7

8

• Any prior sustained violation in a category greater than or equal to the current violation shall increase the penalty level by 1. The prior violation
must be within the specified time frame of the current violation.
• Any prior sustained violation within the specified time frame, in a category lower than the current violation, may be considered as an
aggravating factor.
*Violations that appear in multiple categories will require the Department to compare the underlying conduct to the definitions contained in each
category in order to identify the appropriate category for the violation.
th
**The 4 or subsequent sustained violation of the same R&R, within the specified time frame, may result in more severe disciplinary
recommendations.

6

Appendix F

DENVER POLICE DEPARTMENT - DISCIPLINE MATRIX
Categories,
Violations and Level Assignments Table
CATEGORY F
ANY VIOLATION OF LAW, RULE OR POLICY WHICH: FORESEEABLY RESULTS IN DEATH
OR SERIOUS BODILY INJURY; OR CONSTITUTES A WILLFUL AND WANTON DISREGARD OF
DEPARTMENT VALUES; OR INVOLVES ANY ACT WHICH DEMONSTRATES A SERIOUS LACK OF
THE INTEGRITY, ETHICS OR CHARACTER RELATED TO AN OFFICER’S FITNESS TO HOLD THE
POSITION OF POLICE OFFICER; OR INVOLVES EGREGIOUS MISCONDUCT SUBSTANTIALLY
CONTRARY TO THE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT REASONABLY EXPECTED OF ONE WHOSE
SWORN DUTY IS TO UPHOLD THE LAW; OR INVOLVES ANY CONDUCT WHICH CONSTITUTES
THE FAILURE TO ADHERE TO ANY CONTRACTUAL CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT OR
REQUIREMENT OF CERTIFICATION MANDATED BY LAW.

EXAMPLES INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO:
RR-102.1 Duty to Obey Departmental Rules and Mayoral Executive
Orders (A-F)*
RR-102.2 Requirement for Former Officers to Obey Laws, Denver
Police Department Rules and Regulations, and Certain
Orders during the Pendency of Appeals (A-F)*
RR-103
Aid Another to Violate Rule (A-F)*
RR-105
Conduct Prejudicial (A-F)*
RR-106.2 Sexual Misconduct
RR-109.4 Under the Influence
RR-111
Controlled Substances
RR-112.2 Commission of a Deceptive Act
RR-115.1 Conduct Prohibited by Law (A-F)*
RR-115.2 Aggravated Conduct Prohibited by Law
RR-116
Conspiracy to Commit Conduct Prohibited by Law or
Aggravated Conduct Prohibited by Law (A-F)*
RR-117
Disobedience of an Order (C-F)*
RR-121
Off Duty in Uniform (A-F)*
RR-130.2 Aiding and Protecting Fellow Officers – Intentional
RR-137
Collective Bargaining Fair Share Fee
RR-138
Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation (C-F)*
RR-141.1 Prohibited Associations (D-F)*
RR-202
Soliciting or Accepting a Bribe
RR-306
Inappropriate Force (D-F)*
RR-308
Aiding an Escapee
RR-311.2 Interference with Prosecution
RR-312.2 Interfering with Internal Investigation/Questioning
RR-312.3 Failure to Provide a Statement
RR-402
Careless Handling of a Firearm (C-F)*
RR-803
Uniform Restrictions for Officers Under Suspension
RR-804
Exercise of Authority While Under Suspension
RR-1103 Constructive Resignation
RR-1201 POST Certification

1st
Violation
-Level-

8

*Violations that appear in multiple categories will require the Department to compare the underlying conduct to the definitions contained in
each category in order to identify the appropriate category for the violation.

7

Appendix F

Scheduled Discipline
The following violations are subject to Scheduled Discipline as set forth in the Denver
Police Department Operations Manual, rather than the Disciplinary Matrix set forth
above.
1)

OMS 116.11(1)(a)(2) - Required Minimum Annual Continuing Education
1st Offense – 8 Fined Hours
2nd Offense (in subsequent calendar years) – 24 Fined Hours
3rd Offense – “Subsequent violations may be dealt with more severely”

2)

OMS 116.11(1)(b)(2) - CEP Cancellation / CEP Failure to Attend
1st Offense – Written Reprimand
2nd Offense (within 1 year) – 8 Fined Hours
3rd Offense –“May be dealt with more severely”

3)

OMS 105.07(5)(a) - Failure to Shoot for Efficiency
1st Offense – 1 Fined Day
2nd Offense – (within 12 months) - 3 Fined Days
3rd Offense – (within 5 consecutive years) – Chronic Offender

4)

OMS 103.01 - Failure to Appear in Court (filed under RR-502)
1st Offense – Oral Reprimand
2nd Offense – Written Reprimand
3rd Offense – (within 12 months) – 8 Fined Hours
4th Offense – (within 12 months) – 40 Fined Hours

5)

OMS 203.09(2)(a)(5)(d) - Preventable Accidents (filed under RR-809)
1-4 Points – Oral Reprimand
5-9 Points – Written Reprimand
10-15 Points –A fine of one to five days
16-20 Points – Suspension from three to ten days without pay
21+ points – Minimum 5 day suspension without pay or more stringent
action as appropriate.

6)

OMS 112.09 - Photo Radar
1st Offense – Oral Reprimand
2nd Offense – (within 12 months) – Written Reprimand
3rd Offense – (within 12 months) – 8 Fined Hours
• Subsequent, or flagrant violations may result in more severe
disciplinary recommendations

8

Appendix F

7)

OMS 502.01(3) - Punctuality (filed under RR-125)
1st Offense – Oral Admonition
2nd Offense - Oral Reprimand
3rd Offense – Written Reprimand
4th Offense – 8 Fined Hours
• “Subsequent violations may be dealt with more severely.”
• 6 offenses within 12 months or 9 offenses within 3 years = Chronic
Offender.

8)

OMS 112.12 - Safety Restraining Devices
1st Offense – Oral Reprimand
2nd Offense (within 12 months) – Written Reprimand
3rd Offense (within 12 months) – 1 day suspension
• “Subsequent violations will be dealt with more severely.”

9

Appendix F

Revised 10-08

RULES AND REGULATIONS

DISCIPLINE HANDBOOK EDITION*

POLICE DEPARTMENT
OF THE CITY AND COUNTY
DENVER, COLORADO

Effective 1st Day of May 1972

Approved by the
City Attorney
Manager of Safety
Chief of Police

* This slightly abbreviated version of the Department Rules and Regulations is intended for inclusion in the
Discipline Handbook: Conduct Principles and Disciplinary Guidelines. It does not include the Oath of
Office, Code of Ethics and Terminology sections which are found in the Denver Police Department
Operations Manual.

DISCIPLINE HANDBOOK EDITION

1

Appendix G

Revised 10-08

RULES AND REGULATIONS
PREAMBLE
RR- 100
101
102
102.1
102.2
103
104
105
106
106.1
106.2
107
108
108.1
108.2
109
109.1
109.2
109.3
109.4
110
111
112
112.1
112.2
113
114
115
115.1
115.2
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
122.1
122.2
122.3
123
124
125
126
127

Conduct
Deleted [10/2008]
Deleted [10/2008]
Duty to Obey Departmental Rules and Mayoral Executive Orders
Requirement for Former Officers to Obey Laws, Denver Police Department Rules
and Regulations, and Certain Orders during the Pendency of Appeals
Aid Another to Violate Rule
Contacting of Supervisor
Conduct Prejudicial
Deleted [10/2008]
Immoral Conduct
Sexual Misconduct
Always on Duty
Deleted [10/2008]
Plainclothes Officers - Identification
Protecting Identity of Undercover Officers
Deleted [10/2008]
Drinking to Excess
Unfit for Duty
Drinking on Duty
Under the Influence
Deleted [10/2008]
Controlled Substances
Deleted [10/2008]
Misleading or Inaccurate Statement
Commission of a Deceptive Act
Deleted [10/2008]
Intimidation of Persons
Deleted [10/2008]
Conduct Prohibited by Law
Aggravated Conduct Prohibited by Law
Conspiracy to Commit Conduct Prohibited by Law or Aggravated Conduct
Prohibited by Law
Disobedience of an Order
Deleted [10/2008]
Sleeping on Duty
Appropriating Property
Off Duty in Uniform
Deleted [10/2008]
Respect for Fellow Officer
Abuse of Fellow Officer
Insubordination
Assault of Fellow Officer
Deleted [10/2008]
Punctuality (Scheduled Discipline)
Amusement Places Restrictions
Responsibilities to Serve Public

DISCIPLINE HANDBOOK EDITION

2

Appendix G

Revised 10-08

128
128.1
128.2
129
130
130.1
130.2
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141.1
141.2

Deleted [10/2008]
Impartial Attitude
Impartial Attitude - Bias
Giving Name and Badge Number
Deleted [10/2008]
Aiding and Protecting Fellow Officers - Unreasonable
Aiding and Protecting Fellow Officers - Intentional
Deleted [10/2008]
Purchase of Forfeited Property
Deleted [10/2008]
Deleted 8/2004
Deleted 4/2004
Use of Tobacco Products in Police Facilities
Collective Bargaining Fair Share Fee
Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation
Deleted [10/2008]
Discourtesy
Prohibited Associations
Reporting of Prohibited Associations

RR- 200
201
202
203
204
205
206

Rewards and Gratuities
Deleted [10/2008]
Soliciting or Accepting a Bribe
Accepting Gifts from Persons of Bad Character
Soliciting, Accepting Gifts, Gratuities
Giving Testimonials, Seeking Publicity
Soliciting Business

RR- 300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
309.1
309.2
310
311
311.1
311.2
312
312.1
312.2
312.3
313
314

Use of Force and Arrests
Deleted [10/2008]
Personal Family Disputes
Trivial Offenses
Traffic Enforcement When Not in Uniform
Duty to Protect Prisoner
Inappropriate Force
Posting Bail
Aiding an Escapee
Deleted [10/2008]
Suggesting Bondsmen or Attorneys
Suggesting Bondsmen or Attorneys for Profit
Mistreatment of Prisoners/Suspects
Deleted [10/2008]
Compromising Criminal Cases
Interference with Prosecution
Deleted [10/2008]
Interfering with Case Assigned to Other Officers
Interfering with Internal Investigation Questioning
Failure to Provide a Statement
Deleted [10/2008]
Providing Assistance Outside the City

DISCIPLINE HANDBOOK EDITION

3

Appendix G

Revised 10-08

RR- 400
401
402
403

Firearms
Display of Firearms
Careless Handling of Firearms
Restrictions on Auxiliary Weapons

RR- 500
501
502

Court
Personal Appearance in Court
Attendance in Court (Scheduled Discipline)

RR- 600
601
601.1
601.2
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616

Reports and Communications
Deleted [10/2008]
Communication of Confidential Information, Generally
Communication of Confidential Information that Jeopardizes a Police Action
Deleted [10/2008]
Destruction of Evidence
Deleted [10/2008]
Removal of Reports and Records
Destruction of Reports or Records
Failure to Make, File, or Complete Official Required Reports
Deleted [10/2008]
Altering Information on Official Documents
Deleted [10/2008]
Deleted [10/2008]
Answer to Official Communications
Unauthorized Use of Department Letterheads
Publication of Articles
Deleted [10/2008]
Police Bulletin

RR- 700
701
702
703
704
705
706

Political Activities
Deleted [10/2008]
Using Police Position to Gain Political Office
Soliciting Money for Political Purposes
Soliciting for Promotion, Appointment
Deleted [10/2008]
Deleted [10/2008]

RR- 800
801
802
803
804
805
806
806.1
806.2
807
808
809

Uniforms and Equipment
Deleted [10/2008]
Uniform Restrictions While Off Duty
Uniform Restrictions for Officers Under Suspension
Exercise of Authority While Under Suspension
Equipment Carried on Person
Deleted [10/2008]
Alteration of Badge Prohibited
Use of Badge by Person Other Than an Officer
Loss or Damage to Badge
Equipment and Property-Restrictions on Use
Rough or Careless Handling of City and Department Property
(Scheduled Discipline as it relates to Preventable Accidents)

DISCIPLINE HANDBOOK EDITION

4

Appendix G

Revised 10-08

RR- 900
901
902

Vehicle Operation
Deleted [10/2008]
Department Vehicle Operation

RR-1000
1001
1002
1003
1004

Civil Cases
Testifying in Civil Cases
Service of Civil Process
Initiation of Civil Cases
Testifying for Defendant

RR-1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109

Leave, Sickness and Injury
Reporting Absence Prior to Roll Call
Reporting for Duty
Constructive Resignation
Location When Ill
Reporting During Illness or Injury
Feigning Illness or Injury
Physical or Mental Examination
Release of Medical Information
Deleted [10/2008]

RR-1200
1201

P.O.S.T. Certification of Officers
P.O.S.T. Certification Required

DISCIPLINE HANDBOOK EDITION

5

Appendix G

Revised 10-08

RULES AND REGULATIONS
PREAMBLE
Officers shall obey all Departmental rules, duties, procedures, instructions, and orders; the
provisions of the Operations Manual; and Mayoral Executive Orders. Failure to comply with any
of the Rules and Regulations of the Denver Police Department shall be construed a violation.
Members in violation shall be subject to disciplinary action. The following provisions of conduct
shall be construed as a rule violation of the Operations Manual and Directives and Orders of the
Denver Police Department, but not by way of limitation.
RR-100

Conduct

RR-101

Deleted [10/2008]

RR-102

Deleted [10/2008]

RR-102.1
Duty to Obey Departmental Rules and Mayoral Executive Orders
Officers shall obey all Departmental rules, duties, procedures, instructions, and orders; the
provisions of the Operations Manual; and Mayoral Executive Orders.
RR-102.2

Requirement for Former Officers to Obey Laws, Denver Police Department
Rules and Regulations, and Certain Orders during the Pendency of Appeals
Any former DPD officer:
(a)

who has been separated from employment with DPD due to a disciplinary action or
disqualification; and

(b)

who has a pending appeal of that disciplinary action or disqualification, or whose time
to file such appeal has not yet expired

shall, during the time the appeal is pending or the time for appeal has not expired, obey all state
and federal statutes, municipal ordinances, the Charter of the City and County of Denver, DPD
rules and regulations, and orders issued to the officer by the Department that were in effect at
the time of the officer’s separation from DPD. If any former officer who violates this rule
subsequently regains employment with the Department, by any means including an order of
reinstatement, the Department may take disciplinary action against the former officer upon such
return to service.
RR-103
Aid Another to Violate Rule
Officers shall not aid, abet or incite another in the violation of the rules, duties, orders, or
procedures of the Department.
RR-104
Contacting of Supervisor
Whenever members of the Denver Police Department are arrested for, charged with, or
convicted of a criminal offense, the involved officer will immediately notify a Denver Police
supervisor or command officer. In addition to the reporting requirements set forth in OMS
Section 503.01(3)(a)(2), members of the Denver Police Department will immediately notify a
Denver Police supervisor or command officer when their driving privileges have been suspended
or revoked or when served with a restraining order issued as the result of allegations of domestic
violence or criminal activity. Section 503.01(3)(a)(2) requires that any sworn personnel who
becomes aware that he or she is under investigation for, or charged with, any crime other than
traffic infractions shall self report such investigation or charge immediately to a supervisor,
command officer, or Internal Affairs. IAB shall relay the information to the Monitor and the
Manager of Safety within three (3) business days.

DISCIPLINE HANDBOOK EDITION

6

Appendix G

Revised 10-08

RR-105
Conduct Prejudicial
Officers shall not engage in conduct prejudicial to the good order and police discipline of the
Department or conduct unbecoming an officer which:
(a)

May or may not specifically be set forth in Department rules and regulations or the
Operations Manual; or

(b)

Causes harm greater than would reasonably be expected to result, regardless of
whether the misconduct is specifically set forth in Department rules and regulations or
the Operations Manual.

RR-106

Deleted [10/2008]

RR-106.1
Immoral Conduct
Officers shall not participate in any immoral, indecent, or lewd conduct.
RR-106.2
Sexual Misconduct
While on duty, an officer shall not engage in any conduct or solicit another to engage in any
conduct for the purpose of sexual gratification, sexual humiliation or sexual abuse. The same
conduct is also prohibited while off duty, either in uniform in a public place or in any vehicle or
facility to which an officer has access by virtue of the officer’s police authority. The consent of
another to engage in such sexual conduct or sexual acts is immaterial.
RR-107
Always on Duty
Officers are held to be always on duty, although periodically relieved from the routine
performance of it. They are always subject to orders from a supervisory officer and subject to
calls from private persons. The fact that they may be technically off duty shall not relieve them
from the responsibility of taking proper police action in any matter coming to their attention.
When there is no urgent or immediate need for police action, they may request the dispatcher to
turn the matter over to officers on duty in the district; but they shall take such police action as
may be required prior to the arrival of the dispatched officers.
RR-108

Deleted [10/2008]

RR-108.1
Plainclothes Officers – Identification
Members in plain clothes on or off duty shall promptly identify themselves when the necessity
arises. At the scene of an emergency where it is desirable to display the badge continuously, it
shall be attached to the outer-most garment.
RR-108.2
Protecting Identity of Undercover Officers
Uniformed officers shall not acknowledge a member in civilian clothes unless first addressed.
RR-109

Deleted [10/2008]

RR-109.1
Drinking to Excess
Officers shall not consume alcoholic beverages while off duty to an extent that results in the
commission of an obnoxious or offensive act that might tend to bring discredit upon the
Department.
RR-109.2
Unfit for Duty
Officers shall not consume any substance while off duty to an extent that renders them unfit to
report for his or her regular duty or on call shift.

DISCIPLINE HANDBOOK EDITION

7

Appendix G

Revised 10-08

RR-109.3
Drinking on Duty
Officers shall not consume alcoholic beverages while on duty either in or out of uniform, or off
duty while in uniform, except when necessary and authorized in the performance of duty.
RR-109.4
Under the Influence
Officers shall not consume any substance, while on duty either in or out of uniform, such that
they are legally impaired except when necessary and authorized in the performance of duty.
RR-110

Deleted [10/2008]

RR-111
Controlled Substances
Officers shall not use or possess any controlled substance as such substances are defined
under Colorado Revised Statutes, except according to prescription and under the supervision of
a licensed medical professional.
RR-112

Deleted [10/2008]

RR-112.1
Misleading or Inaccurate Statements
Officers shall not knowingly make a misleading or inaccurate statement relating to their official
duties.
RR-112.2
Commission of a Deceptive Act
In connection with any investigation or any judicial or administrative proceeding, officers shall not
willfully, intentionally, or knowingly commit a materially deceptive act, including but not limited to
departing from the truth verbally, making a false report, or intentionally omitting information.
RR-113

Deleted [10/2008]

RR-114
Intimidation of Persons
Officers shall not intimidate any person for personal reasons under the color of authority.
RR-115

Deleted [10/2008]

RR-115.1
Conduct Prohibited by Law
Officers shall obey the Charter of the City and County of Denver, all City ordinances, and all
state and federal statutes.
RR-115.2
Aggravated Conduct Prohibited by Law
Officers shall obey all state and federal statutes, specifically as they involve:
1. Any felonious conduct;
2. Any conduct prohibited as a Class One Misdemeanor; or,
3. Any criminal conduct committed on duty or under color of authority.
RR-116

Conspiracy to Commit Conduct Prohibited by Law or Aggravated Conduct
Prohibited by Law
Officers shall not conspire with another person or persons to commit any act in violation of a City
ordinance, state or federal statute.
RR-117
Disobedience of an Order
Officers shall obey any order lawfully issued by a supervisory or command officer.

DISCIPLINE HANDBOOK EDITION

8

Appendix G

Revised 10-08

RR-118

Deleted [10/2008]

RR-119
Sleeping on Duty
Officers shall not sleep on duty.
RR-120
Appropriating Property
Officers shall not appropriate any lost, found, seized, or forfeited evidential or Departmental
property to their own use.
RR-121
Off Duty in Uniform
Officers, while off duty and in uniform, shall conduct themselves as if they were on duty.
RR-122

Deleted [10/2008]

RR-122.1
Respect for Fellow Officer
Officers shall treat other members of the Department with the respect due to them as fellow
officers.
RR-122.2
Abuse of Fellow Officers
Officers shall not be abusive toward a fellow officer, regardless of rank.
RR-122.3
Insubordination
Officers shall recognize and accept the authority of superior officers and shall refrain from
uttering any disrespectful, mutinous, insolent, or abusive language toward a supervisor or
command officer.
RR-123
Assault of Fellow Officer
Officers shall not threaten, strike, or assault any other officer of the Department.
RR-124

Deleted [10/2008]

RR-125
Punctuality (Scheduled Discipline)
Members of the Department must be punctual in reporting for duty, attendance to all calls,
requirements of duty, court appearances, and other circumstances where time is specified.
RR-126
Amusement Places Restrictions
Officers on duty shall not enter any place of amusement or liquor establishment except when
necessary in the performance of duty or periodic inspection. (Officers are not prohibited from
eating in restaurants which are licensed to serve liquor.)
RR-127
Responsibilities to Serve Public
Members shall serve the public by direction, counsel, and in other ways that do not interfere with
the discharge of their police responsibilities. They shall respect the rights of individuals and
perform their services with honesty, zeal, courage, discretion, fidelity, and sound judgment.
RR-128

Deleted [10/2008]

RR-128.1
Impartial Attitude
Members, while being vigorous and unrelenting in the enforcement of the law, must maintain a
strictly impartial attitude toward complainants and violators.

DISCIPLINE HANDBOOK EDITION

9

Appendix G

Revised 10-08

RR-128.2
Impartial Attitude – Bias
Members shall at all times consider it their duty to be of service to anyone who may be in danger
or distress, regardless of race, color, creed, national origin, gender, age, sexual orientation,
ancestry, physical or mental disability, marital status, military status, political affiliation, or
religion.
RR-129
Giving Name and Badge Number
When a reasonable request is made for an officer’s name, badge number or assignment, the
officer shall provide a business card or the information in writing to any violator or person,
unless such action is likely to jeopardize the successful completion of a police assignment.
Business cards are required to be provided, without being asked, to any person that an officer
has detained in a traffic stop if that person is not cited or arrested. Refer to OMS 116.32(5) for
more information.
RR-130

Deleted [10/2008]

RR-130.1
Aiding and Protecting Fellow Officers – Unreasonable
Members of the Department shall not unreasonably fail to assist and protect each other in
restoring peace and order, apprehending offenders, or enforcing the law.
RR-130.2
Aiding and Protecting Fellow Officers – Intentional or Reckless
Members of the Department shall not intentionally or recklessly fail to assist and protect each
other in restoring peace and order, apprehending offenders, or enforcing the law.
RR-131

Deleted [10/2008]

RR-132
Purchase of Forfeited Property
Officers shall not purchase or attempt to purchase any item or property which they know has
been seized by a criminal justice agency and legally forfeited. This shall include the purchase of
a previously forfeited item or property which is offered for resale by a private retail vendor.
RR-133

Deleted [10/2008]

RR-134

Deleted 8/2004

RR-135

Deleted 4/2004

RR-136
Use of Tobacco Products in Police Facilities
No member of the Classified Service, Career Service employee, contract employee of the City
and County of Denver, or any other person shall use tobacco products in any police facility.
"Tobacco products," as used herein, include but are not limited to: burning cigarettes, cigars,
cigarillos, and pipe tobacco.
The use of tobacco products means consumption by inhalation of any burning tobacco product
or any other burning material manufactured, grown, or intended for use in a manner similar to
that of cigarettes, cigars, cigarillos, or pipe tobacco.
"Police facility", as used herein, means any interior part of the Police Administration Building,
District Station, or any satellite office used by any unit, section, bureau, or division of the Police
Department. All supervisory and command officers shall strictly enforce this regulation and shall
themselves be subject to discipline for their failure to do so.

DISCIPLINE HANDBOOK EDITION

10

Appendix G

Revised 10-08

RR-137
Collective Bargaining Fair Share Fee
Article IX, part 8 of the City and County of Denver Charter establishes collective bargaining for all
members of the Classified Service of the Police Department and authorizes the negotiation of a
fair share fee to be paid to the bargaining representative. As long as the Collective Bargaining
Agreement is in force, all members of the Classified Service who are not dues paying members
of the Denver Police Protective Association (DPPA), are required, as a condition of employment,
to pay the designated fair share fee to the DPPA in accordance with the policy of the DPPA and
Articles 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Failure to pay the designated
fair share fee to the Association will be grounds for disciplinary action, including termination.
RR-138
Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation
Members of the Department are expressly prohibited from engaging in any form of
discrimination, harassment, or retaliation, based on any class or personal characteristic
protected by federal, state, or local law, or otherwise violating the Discrimination, Harassment
and Retaliation Policy found in section 117.03, the Disclosure of Information Protected Policy
found in section 117.05, the Racial/Ethnic Intimidation Policy found in Section 117.06 of the
Denver Police Operations Manual or the Equal Employment Opportunity for Individuals with
Disabilities Policy found in section 503.13 of the Denver Police Operations Manual.
RR-139

Deleted [10/2008]

RR-140
Discourtesy
Officers shall at all times be courteous and civil to the public. They shall be orderly, attentive,
respectful, and exercise patience and discretion in the performance of their duties.
RR-141.1
Prohibited Associations
Officers shall not knowingly fraternize, associate, or continue to associate with any person whom
the officer reasonably believes to be engaging in or planning to commit criminal activities where
further contact with such individual(s) is reasonably likely to damage public trust; adversely affect
the officer’s credibility or integrity; or create the appearance of impropriety, a conflict of interest,
or corruptive behavior. The only exceptions to this rule will be interactions in accordance with
authorized DPD duties and relationships, including immediate family members, where the
relationship has been approved by the Chief of Police or the Chief’s designee as per RR-141.2.
RR-141.2
Reporting of Prohibited Associations
All potentially prohibited associations identified in RR-141.1 except those involving authorized
DPD duties shall be promptly reported in writing to the Chief of Police or the Chief’s designee.
Failure to promptly report such an association shall subject an officer to possible disciplinary
action. The Chief, upon receipt of the written report, shall make a determination whether further
contact is reasonably likely to damage the public trust; adversely affect the officer’s credibility or
integrity; or create the appearance of impropriety, a conflict of interest, or corruptive behavior. If
such a determination is made, the Chief or the Chief’s designee may then reasonably prohibit or
limit such future contacts. Otherwise, the Chief or designee may expressly authorize the
continued association.
RR-200

REWARDS AND GRATUITIES

RR-201

Deleted [10/2008]

RR-202
Soliciting or Accepting a Bribe
Officers shall not solicit or accept a bribe.

DISCIPLINE HANDBOOK EDITION

11

Appendix G

Revised 10-08

RR-203
Accepting Gifts from Persons of Bad Character
Officers shall not knowingly receive anything of value whatsoever or services, whether as a gift
or as the result of purchase or trade, from suspects, prisoners, arrestees, prostitutes, or other
persons whose vocations may profit from information obtained from the police, or from relatives,
employees, or associates of any of these persons.
RR-204
Soliciting, Accepting Gifts, Gratuities
Individual members shall not solicit or accept any money, gift, gratuity, loan, present, or fee in
connection with their duties as a Denver police officer or in representing the Denver Police
Department, except as permitted by the Denver Ethics Code. With written approval of the Chief
of Police, some recognized and sanctioned forms of soliciting funds or goods for a benevolent or
charitable cause by members will be permitted.
RR-205
Giving Testimonials, Seeking Publicity
Members shall not give testimonials or permit their names or photographs to be used for
advertising purposes without the approval of the Chief of Police. Members shall not seek
personal publicity either directly or indirectly in the course of their employment.
RR-206
Soliciting Business
Members shall not solicit subscriptions; sell books, papers, tickets, merchandise, or other things;
or collect or receive money or other things of value from the public for any purpose whatsoever,
while on duty or in uniform or representing oneself as a member of the Department, except as
authorized by the Chief of Police.
RR-300

USE OF FORCE AND ARRESTS

RR-301

Deleted [10/2008]

RR-302
Personal Family Disputes
Officers shall not take police action or make arrests in their own quarrels or in those involving
their families or their neighbors, except under such circumstances as would justify them in using
self defense or to prevent injury to another or when a serious offense has been committed.
RR-303
Trivial Offenses
Officers shall not make arrests for offenses when a warning or citation would suffice.
RR-304
Traffic Enforcement When Not in Uniform
Unless in uniform and operating a police vehicle, or performing police secondary employment in
uniform, off-duty officers shall not arrest or issue citations, verbal warnings, or written warning
citations for minor traffic offenses. Off-duty officers who witness a serious or flagrant violation
will, when practical, summon on-duty personnel to execute a stop of the violator, and must confer
with an on-duty supervisor to obtain approval prior to issuing a citation or arresting the violator.
RR-305
Duty to Protect Prisoner
Officers shall not physically abuse a prisoner and shall not allow a prisoner in their custody to be
physically abused by any person.
RR-306
Inappropriate Force
Officers shall not use inappropriate force in making an arrest or in dealing with a prisoner or any
other person.

DISCIPLINE HANDBOOK EDITION

12

Appendix G

Revised 10-08

RR-307
Posting Bail
Officers shall not post bail for any person arrested, except members of their own immediate
families.
RR-308
Aiding an Escape
Officers shall not aid or abet any prisoner to escape.
RR-309

Deleted [10/2008]

RR-309.1
Suggesting Bondsmen or Attorneys
Officers shall not suggest or recommend specific attorneys, bondsmen, or bail brokers to any
person arrested, except to members of their own immediate families.
RR-309.2
Suggesting Bondsmen or Attorneys for Profit
Officers shall not, for personal gain or benefit, suggest or recommend specific attorneys,
bondsmen, or bail brokers to any person arrested.
RR-310
Mistreatment of Prisoners/Suspects
Prisoners and suspects shall be treated in a fair and humane manner.
RR-311

Deleted [10/2008]

RR-311.1
Compromising Criminal Cases
Officers shall not become involved in making any promises or arrangements between a suspect
and his/her victim intended to permit the offender to escape the full penalty provided by the law.
Nothing herein shall limit or restrain an officer from the reasonable exercise of discretion in the
resolution of minor complaints.
RR-311.2
Interference with Prosecution
Officers shall not interfere with the courts or, for personal gain or benefit, use their official
positions to make any arrangements for any suspect to escape prosecution.
RR-312

Deleted [10/2008]

RR-312.1
Interfering with Case Assigned to Other Officers
Officers shall not interfere with any case assigned to another officer. Nor shall any officer
interfere with the operation of any other division, bureau, section, or unit of the Department; other
government agency; or any lawful private business.
RR-312.2
Interfering with Internal Investigation/Questioning
An officer shall not engage in conduct or have direct or indirect contact with any witness,
complainant, or investigator which is intended to obstruct, compromise, or interfere with an
internal investigation. Internal Investigations shall include those initiated by the Internal Affairs
Bureau, the Professional Standards Unit, the Office of the Independent Monitor, the Manager of
Safety's EEO Coordinator, or any other division, bureau, section, or unit.
RR-312.3
Failure to Provide a Statement
Once ordered to do so, officers are required to provide a complete and truthful statement to any
authorized Internal Affairs officer, supervisor, commander, representative of the Internal Affairs
Bureau, the Manager of Safety's EEO Coordinator, or anyone else to whom the Manager of
Safety has delegated the authority to compel statements.

DISCIPLINE HANDBOOK EDITION

13

Appendix G

Revised 10-08

RR-313

Deleted [10/2008]

RR-314
Providing Assistance Outside the City
Officers shall not go outside the jurisdiction of the City and County of Denver during their regular
duty shift except:
(a) in cases of fresh pursuit;
(b) when sent by proper authority;
(c) when there appears to be an emergency or need for assistance; or
(d) when authorized to do so by a supervisory officer.
RR-400

FIREARMS

RR-401
Display of Firearms
Officers shall not unnecessarily draw or display any firearm.
RR-402
Careless Handling of Firearms
Officers shall not carelessly handle a firearm at any time.
RR-403
Restrictions on Auxiliary Weapons
Officers shall not carry auxiliary weapons, either on their person or in vehicles, without the
approval of a commanding officer.
RR-500

COURT

RR-501
Personal Appearance in Court
Officers appearing in court as witnesses or for any other reason, shall appear in the regulation
uniform or acceptable business attire with dress shirt and tie.
RR-502
Attendance In Court (Scheduled Discipline)
All officers who receive subpoenas shall make proper return on each and will be held strictly
accountable for appearance on a punctual basis. Officers unable to attend court, or those who
expect to be late, must notify the Court Liaison Office.
RR-600

REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS

RR-601

Deleted [10/2008]

RR-601.1
Communication of Confidential Information, Generally
Members shall not impart official information of a confidential nature to anyone, except to those
for whom it is intended, as directed by their commanding officer, or under due process of law.
They shall not reveal to any private person the identity of an informant or any individual who has
provided information upon the condition of anonymity.
RR-601.2
Communication of Confidential Information that Jeopardizes a Police Action
Officers shall not communicate, except to authorized persons, information which may jeopardize
an arrest, police action, or investigation or which may aid a person to escape or attempt to
escape.
RR-602

Deleted [10/2008]

DISCIPLINE HANDBOOK EDITION

14

Appendix G

Revised 10-08

RR-603
Destruction of Evidence
Officers shall not recklessly or negligently destroy or remove evidence, nor shall officers
intentionally destroy or remove evidence, except as legally permissible.
RR-604

Deleted [10/2008]

RR-605
Removal of Reports and Records
Officers shall not, without proper authority, remove Department reports or records from the
division or bureau where they are maintained.
RR-606
Destruction of Reports or Records
Officers shall not except on the order of the Chief of Police, destroy or permanently remove from
its file any Departmental report or record.
RR-607
Failure to Make, File, or Complete Official Reports
Officers shall not fail to make, file, or complete required reports and records. Members shall
make reports promptly, accurately, and completely in conformity with specifications of the
Department. Members shall make all necessary reports before going off duty unless a
supervisor/commander authorizes the delay.
RR-608

Deleted [10/2008]

RR-609
Altering Information on Official Documents
Officers shall not unnecessarily change, alter, or otherwise distort the information on any official
document.
RR-610

Deleted [10/2008]

RR-611

Deleted [10/2008]

RR-612
Answer to Official Communications
All official communications, telegrams, circulars, and other correspondence sent out from this
Department shall conform to the format prescribed by the Chief of Police.
RR-613
Unauthorized Use of Department Letterheads
Officers shall not use Police Department letterheads except for authorized Departmental
correspondence.
RR-614
Publication of Articles
All members of the Department shall obtain permission from the Chief of Police to publish
articles as official representatives of the Police Department.
RR-615

Deleted [10/2008]

RR-616
Police Bulletin
Members of the Classified Service shall familiarize themselves with the information printed in the
Police Bulletin.
RR-700

POLITICAL ACTIVITIES

RR-701

Deleted [10/2008]

DISCIPLINE HANDBOOK EDITION

15

Appendix G

Revised 10-08

RR-702
Using Police Position to Gain Political Office
Officers, while seeking or holding political office, shall not appear in that capacity in the Denver
Police uniform or use their positions as police officers to gain political office or carry out the
duties thereof.
RR-703
Soliciting Money for Political Purposes
Officers shall not solicit money or other things for political purposes while in uniform or on duty or
in any room or building occupied for the discharge of official police duties.
RR-704
Soliciting for Promotion, Appointment
Officers shall not solicit petitions for promotions, appointments, or change of duty, or promote
any political influence to effect such an end for themselves or any other member of the
Department.
RR-705

Deleted [10/2008]

RR-706

Deleted [10/2008]

RR-800

UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT

RR-801

Deleted [10/2008]

RR-802
Uniform Restrictions While Off Duty
Off duty officers are restricted in the use of their uniforms as follows:
(a)

They may wear their full uniform in going to and from work.

(b)

When wearing civilian headgear or when bareheaded and wearing partial uniform,
officers shall wear a civilian coat as their outermost garment.

(c)

No civilian attire shall be worn with the uniform cap or helmet.

RR-803
Uniform Restrictions for Officers Under Suspension
The uniform shall not be worn while an officer is under suspension.
RR-804
Exercise of Authority While Under Suspension
Officers shall not exercise police authority while under suspension.
RR-805
Equipment Carried on Person
Officers shall carry their badge and I.D. Card and be armed at all times, except as provided by
the Operations Manual.
RR-806.1
Alteration of Badge Prohibited
The badge shall not be altered, exchanged, or transferred except by order of the Chief of Police.
Members shall not use another member's badge or official police credentials without permission
of the Chief of Police.
RR-806.2
Use of Badge by Person other than an Officer
Officers shall not permit any person not appointed a member of the Police Department to use an
official badge or credential at any time.

DISCIPLINE HANDBOOK EDITION

16

Appendix G

Revised 10-08

RR-807
Loss or Damage to Badge
When a member's badge is lost or damaged, that member shall report the loss or damage
through channels in writing to the Chief of Police. The cost of replacement or repair will be
charged to the member unless he/she can show that such loss or damage was not incurred
through personal negligence. (See 504.03)
RR-808
Equipment and Property Restrictions on Use
Officers are prohibited from using Police Department property or vehicles in the conduct of their
own personal or private affairs without approval of a Division Chief or the Chief of Police.
RR-809

Rough or Careless Handling of City or Departmental Property
(Scheduled Discipline as it relates to Preventable Accidents)
Members shall use care in handling Department equipment and property and shall report
immediately any that is lost, damaged, or in bad order.
RR-900

VEHICLE OPERATION

RR-901

Deleted [10/2008]

RR-902
Department Vehicle Operation
Officers shall not allow any non-member of the Classified Service to operate any vehicle of this
Department without permission of their commanding officer.
RR-1000

CIVIL CASES

RR-1001
Testifying in Civil Cases
Officers shall not testify in civil cases unless legally summoned.
RR-1002
Service of Civil Process
Officers shall not serve civil process except those initiated by the City or as required by the
Colorado Revised Statutes and specifically authorized by Departmental procedure.
RR-1003
Initiation of Civil Cases
Officers shall not initiate civil action arising out of their official duties without first notifying the
Chief of Police.
RR-1004
Testifying for Defendant
Any member subpoenaed to testify for the defense in any trial or against the City of Denver or
interest of the Department in any hearing or trial shall forthwith notify his/her commanding officer
and district or city attorney and Civil Liability, as necessary.
RR-1100

LEAVE, SICKNESS AND INJURY

RR-1101
Reporting Absence Prior to Roll Call
Officers shall report for duty at the time and place specified and in the attire and with the
equipment specified by Departmental orders or a supervisory officer, unless absence is
authorized by their supervisory officer.
RR-1102
Reporting for Duty
Unless otherwise excused, officers shall report for duty when scheduled or, when off duty,
immediately upon receipt of order to do so.
DISCIPLINE HANDBOOK EDITION

17

Appendix G

Revised 10-08

RR-1103
Constructive Resignation
Failure to report for duty within five (5) days following the expiration of a leave of absence without
just cause or being absent without leave for a period of five (5) days without just cause shall be
construed as a constructive resignation as provided in the Civil Service Rules.
RR-1104
Location When Ill
Officers who are absent from duty and using sick leave time shall be required to keep their
commanders informed of their locations and be available by phone or in person at those
locations.
RR-1105
Reporting During Illness or Injury
Officers shall not fail, while off duty due to illness or injury except while hospitalized, to contact
their unit commander at three-day intervals to report condition and progress of recovery, unless
the reporting is excused by their commanding officer.
RR-1106
Feigning Illness or Injury
Officers shall not feign illness or injury in an effort to avoid duty.
RR-1107
Physical or Mental Examination
Officers who have been ordered to submit to physical or mental examination shall do so in
accordance with the directions of the Chief of Police.
RR-1108
Release of Medical Information
All officers shall authorize their attending physician to release to their unit commander and the
Chief of Police information regarding their condition and ability to perform certain duties.
RR-1109

Deleted [10/2008]

RR-1200

P.O.S.T. Certification of Officers

RR-1201
P.O.S.T. Certification Required
All officers of the Denver Police Department shall hold current certification by the Colorado
Peace Officers Standards and Training Board. See C.R.S. §24-31-303 &
§24-31-305. No
officer shall commit an act that is defined by the P.O.S.T. Board as an offense that would
disqualify the officer from maintaining his/her P.O.S.T. certification.

DISCIPLINE HANDBOOK EDITION

18

Appendix G