Citizen Complaints Against Officers
2008 3rd Quarter
All citizen complaints against officers are documented and investigated by the department’s supervisors. Once the investigation is complete it is reviewed by the Section Commander, Division Commander and then forwarded to the Office of the Chief where the decision is made as to the finding of the complaint. Complaints questioning the basis for a citation or arrest are not documented and those complainants are advised to go through the court system.
There are four different categories of complaint findings:
- Sustained - The investigation produced a preponderance of evidence to prove the allegation did in fact occur and the action of the officer was improper.
- Not Sustained - The investigation failed to produce a preponderance of evidence to either prove or disprove the allegation.
- Exonerated - The allegation in fact did occur but the actions of the officer were legal, justified, proper, and in accordance with the law and the department’s policies and procedures.
- Unfounded - The allegation in fact did not occur, based on the evidence.
Throughout the 3rd quarter of 2008, the Sioux Falls Police Department responded to 34.013 calls for service. 6,068 traffic stops were made. 11,257 citations were issued 1,692 adult arrests and 559 juvenile arrests were made.
During this period, there were two citizen’s complaints against officers. The findings for these complaints are as follows:
- Sustained - 0
- Not Sustained - 0
- Exonerated - 0
- Unfounded - 2
The following is a summary of each of those complaints:
- On 7-16-08, officers responded to a 911 hang-up. Officers arrived and contacted the resident. He was not going to allow officers into the house even after it was explained to him that officers had to check the well being of everyone in the house because of the situation. The subject complained that officers “Kidnapped” him by keeping him outside and checking his residence without permission. The complainant said the officers did not curse at him or act unprofessionally, just that they would not leave when he asked them to. It was explained that officers are required to check into these types of calls to make sure no one is in danger. This complaint was unfounded as the officers acted appropriately within department guidelines.
- On 8-30-08 an individual who had been arrested complained that his arm was broken during an arrest. At the time of his booking, he was attended to by medical staff at the jail. At that time it was determined that there wasn’t any injury caused during the arrest, but a pre existing muscle pain. A review of the officer’s video indicated that there was no altercation between the complainant and the arresting officers. The complainant could be clearly seen using his arm in a manner not consistent with his claims. This case was unfounded.
Update of a 2nd quarter complaint:
On 06-23-08, an individual called police seeking assistance to retrieve some property. When the incorrect property was retrieved this individual became agitated and disorderly. After attempts to calm him down failed, he was arrested for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. During the arrest, the officer involved had to physically restrain the individual until backup arrived. During this process, the individual received injuries consistent with his actions that were resisting the arrest. This matter is still an open investigation. After a review of the officer’s actions and video, it was found that there was no merit to the complainant’s claims. Attempts to re-contact the complainant have failed. This matter is closed.
