We Get Letters: Police Oversight Commissioner Paul Vernon Writes

After reading your article, I thought I might provide some context to the Independent Auditor’s report on PPD’s complaint process. It did, indeed, fall short in the ways you mentioned, and those are important. 

But PPD excelled in one metric that is among the most important, after objectivity and thoroughness, and that is meeting the statute of limitations deadline on every complaint. The average person might not realize how important this is, so let me explain. 

Under state law, police complaints must be completed within one year of being reported to the department to impose discipline on the involved officers. Failing to meet the statute could mean, worst case scenario, an officer who should have been fired for serious misconduct is not and cannot be fired. That’s a real mess when it happens because the department looks bad and is stuck with an officer who has, in all probability, lost his credibility to be a police officer. He’ll have to be assigned to a closet counting paper clips, still collecting a check because he cannot be fielded to work and, in most cases, should not have public contact. 

The statute of limitations (Government Code 3300- 3312) is there in fairness to officers, so their careers are not unreasonably held up by a never-ending investigation, and in recognition that imposed discipline is most effective proximate to the offense.

Allowing a complaint to pass statute can also have a cynical, corrupt angle. A department or a police manager could allow a complaint to pass statute to protect an officer from being disciplined. From the public’s viewpoint, this scenario should be the greatest concern, especially for those who are skeptical of police policing themselves.

Good thing for the people of Pasadena, its police department, led by the chief and the deputy chief who oversees complaints, ensured no complaints, regardless of finding, missed statute. In my experience, this is a high order accomplishment and often missed by other departments.

On the matter of complaint letters, I have a theory why the letters are not as personal as they could be. Most public complaints deal with complainants feeling maltreated at a personal level: an offensive look, a misconstrued comment, or a hand rested on a holstered gun perceived as a threat. These complaints often occur after an investigative detention that exonerates the detainee, but the officer fails to do a good job “dusting off” the detainee. It’s an important aspect of procedural justice: did one feel treated fairly for the situation? Cops can almost always do better by explaining themselves, even saying, “Sorry.” 

The reply letters to this type of complaint are the bulk of public complaints, but rarely reflect any serious misconduct. So, the writers make short work of the letters, without much context for what really upset the complainant. This is a mistake, so why does it happen?

In many ways, police departments are most concerned with rooting out and avoiding serious misconduct like corruption, personal gain under color of authority, excessive force, etc., so the personal-offense complaints tend to get closed out more quickly without the introspection that a truly serious complaint would have.

The personal-offense complaints often reflect a person just wanting to be heard and having his sense of dignity recognized. As the independent auditor noted, taking the time to address this in the reply letter is the perfect opportunity to improve the department’s image and explain why its officer acted as he did, or even to say, “Sorry.”

Here’s a redacted reply letter I wrote years ago. The complainant was arrested due to a detective’s due diligence error. That the complainant did not sue the city, I credit partly to the reply letter.

Dear Ms. XXXXXXX:

An investigation into your complaint has been completed. The investigation has gone through several levels of review.  

Your allegation that you were wrongly arrested based on inaccurate information on an arrest warrant was SUSTAINED.  As a result of the investigation, the detective involved will be disciplined.

On behalf of the River City PD and that detective, I want to apologize for this error that resulted in your arrest.  I was gratified to learn that when my detectives were made aware of the error, they acted quickly to have your record expunged, charges dismissed, and your bail quickly refunded.

Please know that we have taken to heart the lessons in your case, and we have used those lessons to train our detectives to avoid this error in the future.

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.  It is the goal of the River City PD to provide the highest level of quality service to every member of the community.  Any questions regarding this matter may be referred to me at (XXX) XXX-XXXX. 

Unfortunately, police departments are not Nordstrom, but they can all benefit by emulating that customer service model. The nature of policing often results in aggravated and uncomfortable situations for the public and officers alike. Recognizing both are human, both imperfect, and both full of pride and dignity, police departments should make the Nordstrom effort to explain, support, service, and repair. The independent auditor provided some examples of reply letters where PPD did provide the personal touch, so the will and ability are there. Speaking as one commissioner, I’m confident Chief Harris will make the needed adjustments to make this routine. I look forward to a future audit that shows PPD at the top of its game.

Paul Vernon

Pasadena