View Complaints

Citizen Complaints Against Officers

Complaints of misconduct filed against officers are investigated by the Professional Standards Unit. The investigations are for the purpose of internal department review and not for criminal prosecution. The unit tracks all complaints and commendations for all department employees. Reports of complaints and the investigation findings are posted here on a quarterly basis.

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.

2023

1st Qtr
  1. On 1/18/2023, a citizen filed a complaint regarding their displeasure with how a case they had filed was handled. The case was multi-jurisdictional with multiple agencies involved. Sioux Falls PD was not the primary investigating agency for the incident. After a review of the incident and subsequent involvement in the investigation, it was found that the matter was handled appropriately, and the complaint was unfounded.

  2. On 2/10/2023, a citizen filed a complaint that their juvenile son was the subject of a traffic stop where the young man was asked to step out of the car and asked for consent to check for weapons on their person. A review of the officer’s video showed that the juvenile was asked to step out of the car to deal with the traffic stop inside the officer’s squad car. The officer asked for consent to check for weapons and the juvenile, who was old enough to consent, did consent to the quick pat down. The traffic stop proceeded, and the juvenile was released from the stop. The investigation showed that no policy violations occurred, and the complaint was unfounded.

  3. On 2/3/2023, a citizen filed a complaint against officers for not providing adequate service. An investigation into the incident occurred. The result of the investigation showed the complainant had tried to call 911 for an ambulance but that they were disorderly with the call taker and the call taker couldn’t determine the nature of the call. They dispatched officers to the scene. On scene the officers contacted the complainant who was disorderly and said she wanted an ambulance. The officers attempted to assist in this, but the complainant was uncooperative. Eventually they were able to contact the patient who advised they didn’t need medical assistance. The complainant mostly wanted to file a complaint against the hospital from a previous visit. The officers eventually cleared the scene with no ambulance needed. The officers followed policy in their investigation. The complaint was unfounded.

  4. On 2/7/2023, a citizen filed a complaint against an officer for being rude and discourteous. An investigation into the incident was conducted. A review of the audio / video from all officers on scene showed that the officer was neither rude nor discourteous. The complaint was unfounded.

  5. On 2/22/2023, a citizen filed a complaint that an officer was being unprofessional in their conduct. An investigation into this incident was conducted. The investigation showed that the officer responded to a local hospital at the hospital’s request to transport a person. The parameters of the transport were not within department policy and the hospital contracts a third party to conduct these transports. The officer provided this information politely and the hospital staff then requested his name and badge number. He provided these and left. The hospital employee called and stated the officer raised his voice and was threatening in his demeanor. A review of the body camera footage showed this wasn’t true. The officer maintained his professional tone and demeanor. The complaint was unfounded.

  6. On 3/8/2023, a citizen filed a complaint that an officers kidnapped him and entered his apartment without a warrant. An investigation into this incident was conducted. The investigation showed that the officer responded to a call for service of a noise complaint. They investigated the noise complaint from the hallway and eventually arrested the citizen who was the subject of the noise complaint in the hallway outside of his apartment. They did not kidnap him and followed policy and procedure. The complaint was unfounded.

  7. On 3/18/2023, a citizen filed a complaint that officers entered his home against his stated wishes. An investigation into the incident was conducted. Officers were dispatched to a family dispute and upon arrival contacted the parties outside of their residence. An officer asked to speak to one half of the dispute inside and the person said no. The officer entered the residence with that party against their wishes. The investigation revealed that this officer acted against policy and the complaint was sustained.
2nd Qtr

Citizen Complaints against Officers
2023 2nd 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.

During this quarter, there were six citizen’s complaint against officers. The findings for that complaint is as follows:

  1. On 4/14/2023, a citizen filed a complaint against an officer for making a rude gesture toward them as the officer drove by.  An investigation into the complaint was conducted.  On 4/21/2023, a second citizen filed another complaint against the officer for the same incident that occurred on 4/14/2023.  This was added to the ongoing investigation.  The investigation revealed that the officer did make a rude gesture toward a group of citizens on 4/14/2023 and the complaint was sustained.
  2. On 4/28/2023, a citizen filed a complaint against an officer for an excessive use of force.  An investigation into the incident was conducted.  A review of the incident, to include body camera footage and in-car camera footage, revealed that the responding officer used an appropriate level of force in arresting the complainant. The investigation showed that no policy violations occurred, and the officer’s actions were exonerated.
  3. On 5/8/2023, a citizen filed a complaint against officers for an excessive use of force. An investigation into the incident was conducted. A review of the body camera footage and in-car camera footage showed that officers did use legal and justified force against the citizen who filed this complaint, and that they used the appropriate level of force to accomplish the arrest. The officers were exonerated.
  4. On 5/10/2023, a citizen filed a complaint against a K9 officer for allegedly allowing their police service dog to scratch the paint of his car during a K9 search. An investigation into the complaint was conducted. The investigation revealed there wasn’t enough evidence to prove the damage was caused by the K9 search. The complaint was not-sustained.
  5. On 5/15/2023, a citizen filed a complaint that an officer used excessive force. An investigation into the complaint was conducted. A review of the body camera and in-car footage was also conducted. As a result of the investigation, it was found the officer did not use excessive force during this incident as alleged. The complaint was unfounded.
  6. On 6/13/2023, a citizen filed a complaint that officers used excessive force against her. An investigation into the incident was conducted. A review of footage from body cameras as well as surveillance footage from the location of the incident showed that the force alleged by the complainant never occurred. The complaint was unfounded.
3rd Qtr

Citizen Complaints against Officers
2023 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.

During this quarter, there were eight citizen’s complaint against officers. The findings for these complaints are as follows:

  1. On 07/04/2023, a citizen filed a complaint against an officer for rude behavior toward them while making a report over the phone.  An investigation into the complaint was conducted.  The investigation revealed that the officer was rude and acted unprofessionally.  The complaint was sustained.

     

  2. On 07/24/2023, a citizen filed a complaint against an officer for improper handcuffing.  An investigation into the incident was conducted.  A review of the incident, including body camera footage and in-car camera footage, revealed that the responding officer applied the handcuffs in an appropriate manner consistent with department policy. The investigation showed that no policy violations occurred, and the complaint was unfounded.

     

  3. On 07/14/2023, a citizen filed a complaint against an officer for making a false arrest.  An investigation into the incident was conducted.  A review of the body camera footage and in-car camera footage showed that the officer’s actions were legal and within policy and that the complainant had violated the law.  This complaint was unfounded.

     

  4. On 07/15/2023, a citizen filed a complaint against an officer for making a false arrest and discrimination.  An investigation into the complaint was conducted which included a review of body camera footage and in-car camera footage.  The investigation revealed that the officers acted professionally and within policy and the law.  The complaint was unfounded.

     

  5. On 08/12/2023, a citizen filed a complaint of a false arrest and reported that the officer lied during their interaction.  An investigation into the complaint was conducted.  A review of the body camera footage was conducted.  As a result of the investigation, it was found the officer was truthful and the arrest was based on probable cause. The complaint was unfounded.

     

  6. On 08/22/2023, a citizen filed a complaint that officers failed to make an arrest when required to do so.  An investigation into the incident was conducted.  The incident the complainant was referring to occurred more than one year prior to the complaint and, as such, no camera footage was available to be reviewed.    Based on the results of the investigation, this complaint was unfounded.

     

  7. On 08/22/2023, a citizen filed a complaint that officers used excessive force, were rude, and were discriminatory.  An investigation into this complaint was conducted.  A review of body camera footage and in-car footage was completed.  As a result of the investigation this complaint was unfounded.

 

On 09/04/2023, a citizen filed a complaint that an Animal Control Officer was discourteous during their interaction. An investigation into this complaint was conducted. A review of body-camera footage was completed and, as a result, it was determined that this complaint was unfounded.

 

2022

1st Qtr
  1. On 1/10/2022, a citizen filed a complaint that they were improperly detained by officers based on his race.  An investigation into the complaint was conducted.  A review of the incident, and of the video / audio from the incident showed that the officer was responding to a burglary in progress.  The citizen was seen walking away from the victim residence on the sidewalk.  The officer ordered the person to stop and they refused and were non-compliant.  The officer then detained the person based on reasonable suspicion.  Upon discovering the person was not involved, they were released.  The officer acted under the color of South Dakota law and department policy and procedure.  This complaint was unfounded.

  2. On 1/12/2022, a citizen filed a complaint that he had been denied medical care by the police after he had requested it.  An investigation into the complaint was conducted.  The citizen said he had requested medical care because he had been drugged while out drinking.  The review of the call for service and the audio / video from the incident showed that the citizen had ambulance personnel check him twice.  He was uncooperative with them and never made mention of being drugged.  The citizen was eventually arrested and never mentioned being drugged during the transport or booking processes.  The citizen was never denied medical care and the complaint was unfounded.

  3. On 2/7/2022, a citizen filed a complaint that his 5th Amendment rights had been violated by an officer.  An investigation into this complaint was conducted.  A review of the call for service, as well as the audio / video of the incident showed that the officer on the call for service was investigating a reported vandalism that the citizen was a suspect of.  The citizen was detained after attempting to leave the scene.  At no point did the officer violate any of the citizen’s Constitutional rights.  The detention and investigation was based on reasonable suspicion in accordance with state law and department policy and procedure.  The complaint was unfounded.

  4. On 3/7/2022, a citizen filed a complaint of excessive force being used by officers.  An investigation into the complaint was conducted.  The citizen complained they had injuries and showed bruising on their arm that was allegedly caused by arresting officers. A review of the calls for service, audio and video from the incident showed that the citizen was arrested for several crimes.  She was uncooperative and attempted to assault officers.  Officers used the minimum amount of force necessary to control the citizen.  The citizen, when being transported from the squad car to the booking area, collapsed under their own weight and forced officers to carry them by the arms into the booking area.  Their actions necessitated this.  At no time did the officers use any excessive force. They operated under state law and department policy and procedure.  This complaint was unfounded.

  5. On 3/14/2022, a citizen filed a complaint that he was harassed by officers.  An investigation into the complaint was conducted.  A review of the call for service, audio, and video from the incident revealed that officers were dispatched to a possible intoxicated driver call.  Officers located the vehicle and driver, conducted a traffic stop and DWI investigation.  The investigation revealed the driver was not intoxicated and the citizen was released.  The officers were acting under state law and department policy and procedure.  Their actions were appropriate and the complaint of harassment was unfounded.  
2nd Qtr
  1. On 4/12/2022, a citizen filed a complaint that they were required to follow the leash law by an Animal Control officer. An investigation into the complaint was conducted. The investigation showed the AC officer legally enforced the leash law and the citizen was just unhappy about it. This complaint was unfounded.

  2. On 5/6/2022, a citizen filed a complaint that a relative of theirs was taken into custody and the handcuffs were put on too tightly. An investigation into the complaint was conducted. The review of the video showed the person pulling against the handcuffs while in custody, which is why there were red marks. The handcuffs were properly applied. This complaint was unfounded.

  3. On 5/18/2022, a citizen filed a complaint that officers had injured her leg during an arrest. An investigation into this complaint was conducted. A review of the call for service, as well as the audio / video of the incident showed that the officers on the call for used no force during the arrest and the citizen advised she had pre-existing injuries to her leg. The officers did not injure her leg and the complaint was unfounded.

  4. On 6/20/2022, a citizen filed a complaint of excessive force being used by officers. An investigation into the complaint was conducted. The investigation showed the citizen was stopped for a traffic violation. She became extremely disorderly and tried to walk away from the traffic stop. Officers briefly detained her in handcuffs. Once the investigation was complete they released her. There was no force used other than to handcuff her. This complaint was unfounded.

  5. On 6/24/2022, a citizen filed a complaint that officers were rude to her. An investigation into the complaint was conducted. A review of the call for service, audio, and video from the incident revealed that officers were dispatched to a returned runaway call. During the course of that investigation the citizen complainant attempted to physically interfere with the investigation. Officers detained the citizen. The citizen felt disrespected and complained. The officers’ actions were appropriate and the complaint of rudeness was unfounded.
3rd Qtr
  1. On 6/26/2022, a citizen filed a complaint that a relative of theirs was stopped for speeding by an officer under the basis that they were Hispanic.  An investigation into the incident was conducted.  A review of the squad car’s camera and the officers body camera revealed that the stop for speeding was legitimate at 18mph over the speed limit.  A further review of the races of the people from his stops showed no pattern of targeting people for traffic stops based on race.  This incident was unfounded.
     
  2. On 7/5//2022, a citizen filed a complaint of excessive force used by police during their arrest.  A Sergeant responded and investigated the incident.  The complainant claimed they were injured by officers during an arrest by being taken to the ground.  The investigation revealed that the complainant attacked another citizen in front of officers and was taken to the ground and placed into handcuffs.  The force used was reasonable to protect the other citizen.  The complainant’s injuries in this incident existed before the officer’s takedown and were clearly visible in the body camera footage before the takedown.  This complaint is unfounded.
     
  3. On 7/12/2022, a citizen filed a complaint against officers for an inappropriate arrest.  An investigation into the complaint was conducted.  The investigation revealed that officers conducted a DWI investigation against the complainant.  Initially they intended to arrest the complainant for DWI based on their investigation, but after further discussion, they decided to release the complainant without arresting them for DWI.  A review of the video and audio of the incident shows the officers conducted a lawful investigation and ultimately, they made the decision they thought was best and released the citizen.  The complaint was not sustained.
     
  4. On 7/13/2022, a citizen filed a complaint that a Sergeant was rude and discourteous to her over the phone.  An investigation into the complaint was conducted.  A review of the incident could neither prove nor disprove the allegations against the Sergeant.  This incident is not sustained.
     
  5. On 7/21/22, a citizen filed a complaint about a call for service that occurred on 7/14/22.  The complainant stated that an officer was rude to her and injured her when he kicked her door open.  An investigation into the complaint was conducted.  A review of the audio and video footage from the incident showed that the officer was not rude and did not kick open the citizen’s door.  There is nothing in the videos to corroborate her explanation of how she claimed the officer injured her.  This incident is unfounded.
     
  6. On 7/24/22, a citizen filed a complaint that he was assaulted by officers.  An investigation into the incident was conducted.  A review of the video, audio, and interview of witnesses showed that the complainant was not assaulted by officers.  The citizen’s complaint was that he was touched by officers who extended their arm and touched his chest to keep him at arm’s length while he was intoxicated and being disorderly with them.  This does not constitute assault and this complaint was unfounded.
     
  7. On 7/29/2022, a citizen filed a complaint that excessive force was used on him by officers.  An investigation into the incident was conducted.  The investigation showed that the complainant was arrested by officers, and they had to forcibly put him into a squad car as he was resisting their efforts.  He complaint that they pushed him and he hit his head on the car while getting in.  A review of the video and audio from the incident clearly shows he did not strike his head getting into the squad car.  This complaint is unfounded.
     
  8. On 8/1/2022, a citizen filed a complaint against an officer for conduct unbecoming.  An investigation was conducted into the complaint.  An off-duty officer utilized an on-duty officer to check a license plate on a vehicle while looking into criminal activity while off duty.  No violations of policy occurred, and the complaint was unfounded.
     
  9. On 8/5/2022, a citizen filed a complaint against an officer for excessive force / improper handcuffing reference an incident from 7/22/2022.  An investigation into the incident was conducted.  The investigation showed that officers used the appropriate level of force necessary to arrest the complainant and applied the handcuffs properly.  The complaint was unfounded.
     
  10. On 8/17/2022, a citizen filed a complaint against an officer for lack of service.  The complainant called to file a report reference an incident involving her children.  She said an officer did not respond to investigate the incident or take any actions necessary to conduct a thorough investigation.  An investigation into the incident was conducted.  As a result of the investigation, the complaint against the officer for lack of service was sustained.
     
  11. On 8/30/2022, a citizen filed a complaint against an officer that he was inappropriately touched.  An investigation into the incident was conducted.  The investigation showed that the complainant fled from a traffic stop, was caught and arrested, and searched incident to custodial arrest.  Once at jail, the complainant was moving around as if he might be concealing something.  The arresting officer conducted another search to verify no weapons or contraband were being taken into the jail.  The search was caught on video and was appropriate and within department policy and training.  The complaint was unfounded.
     
  12. On 9/9/2022, a citizen filed a complaint against an officer reference an incident from 9/6/2022.  The citizen claimed he was threatened and harassed by officers.  An investigation into the incident was conducted.  The investigation showed that the complainant committed a jaywalking infraction and was attempting to provoke officers who were busy investigating a traffic collision and DWI investigation.  When the officers attempted to cite the complainant, he retreated into his home and wouldn’t come out or identify himself.  Officers returned to their investigation.  At no time did the officers harass the citizen or threated him. The complaint was unfounded.
     
  13. On 9/9/2022, a citizen filed a complaint against officers for using excessive force against her during an incident occurring on 9/7/2022.  An investigation into the incident was conducted.  The investigation showed that officers attempted to stop a reckless driver who attempted to flee from them but became stuck in a traffic jam.  The officers quickly approached and arrested the reckless driver who is the complainant in this case.  The complainant pulled away from the officer and was uncooperative, even after being arrested.  However, despite her actions, the officers did not use force beyond escorting her.  Based on this, the complaint is unfounded.
4th Qtr
  1. On 10/25/2022, a citizen filed a complaint that their vehicle was towed by police and, after the citizen incurred impound fees, that the police should pay for it.  An investigation into the complaint was conducted.  Review of video and audio showed that the citizen requested the vehicle to be towed and officers did so on their behalf.  The citizen then failed to get the vehicle from the tow lot and incurred the fees.  This incident was unfounded.

  2. On 11/7/2022, a citizen filed a complaint of a lack of service from an Animal Control Officer (ACO).  An investigation was conducted into the incident.  A review of the incident showed that the ACO provided equipment to the citizen and spent 14 minutes helping the citizen try to locate the animal they’d called about.  The ACO was also polite and professional during the call for service.  This complaint is unfounded.

  3. On 11/16/2022, a citizen filed a complaint against an Animal Control Officer (ACO) for being discourteous.  An investigation into the complaint was conducted.  The complaint in this case was not the citizen who the ACO spoke to, but rather their spouse.  A review of the audio / video from the call for service showed the ACO was responding to a barking dog call at the address.  They were professional and provided the standard information and warnings they do for anyone who has a complaint against them for a barking dog.  The complaint of discourteousness was unfounded.

  4. On 12/6/2022, a citizen filed a complaint against an officer for being rude and discourteous.  An investigation into the incident was conducted.  A review of the audio / video from all officers on scene showed that the officer was neither rude nor discourteous and attempted to conduct a thorough investigation into the incident with a citizen who was extremely erratic and uncooperative. The complaint was unfounded.

  5. On 12/7/22, a citizen filed a complaint that an officer was being unprofessional in their conduct.  An investigation into this incident was conducted.  The investigation showed that the officer was being unprofessional in their conduct.  This complaint was sustained.

2021

1st Qtr

  1. On 1/25/21, a citizen filed a complaint of sexual misconduct by an officer.  The citizen claimed the officer offered to not charge her with a crime in return for a sexual favor.  An investigation into this complaint was conducted.  The encounter was recorded and multiple officers were present during the initial investigation where the allegation was alleged to have occurred.  The audio recording from the encounter was clear and at no time did the allegations by the citizen occur.  There was no sexual misconduct and the incident is unfounded.

  2. On 2/1/21, a citizen was arrested.  She complained that she was injured by the handcuffs.  An investigation was conducted.  The investigation showed that she complained about the handcuffs to the officer who checked them and loosened them.  They were properly applied and double-locked.  The citizen admitted that she had carpal tunnel syndrome that she has not attempted to remedy.  The officer was exonerated.

  3. On 2/17/21, a citizen complained that an Animal Control Officer for unsafe driving, specifically speeding and “road rage” like behavior.  An investigation into the complaint was conducted.  There was video from the traffic lights where the allegation occurred and AVL data from the AC vehicle which showed that the AC officer was driving appropriately, did not tailgate or follow the citizen and was not speeding.  In fact, they were travelling under the posted speed limit.  This complaint was unfounded.

  4. On 3/10/21, a citizen filed a complaint against officers for injuring his shoulder during an arrest.  An investigation into the complaint was conducted.  The investigation revealed that the citizen was the suspect of a stolen gun call.  He had fled officers earlier in the day.  He was later called in as trespassing at a business and officers recognized him as the suspect from the earlier gun call.  They moved in to arrest him and realized that he had unusually short arms.  They used two sets of handcuffs daisy chained together to create a “longer” handcuff and placed him under arrest.  The suspect was disorderly and belligerent with officers.  They attempted to help him off a bench to take him to a squad car and he kicked at the officers, forcing them to place him on the ground to regain control.  The officer’s audio showed them to be polite and professional.  The suspect’s actions forced the officers to place him on the ground and they had legal authority to do so.  The officers were exonerated of this complaint.

2nd Qtr

  1. On 3/31/21, a citizen filed a complaint of conduct unbecoming by an officer.  The citizen claimed the officer delayed his receipt of medical care following an accident and that he was rude with the citizen during the course of a DWI investigation.  An investigation into the complaint was conducted.  Upon review of the incident, it was found that this complaint was not sustained and the officer acted professionally.

  2. On 5/5/21, a citizen filed a complaint that too many officers responded to her call for service displaying racial bias.  An investigation was conducted regarding this claim.  Upon review of the audio and video evidence, it was found that the amount of officers who responded to the incident they were investigating was reasonable and that all officers were polite and professional.  The complaint was unfounded.

  3. On 5/18/21, a citizen filed a complaint that he was sexually assaulted by an officer.  An investigation into the complaint was conducted.  There was video and audio from the incident.  A review showed that the officer did not sexually assault the complainant.  This complaint was unfounded.

  4. On 5/19/21, a citizen filed a complaint against an officer for being rude and discourteous.  An investigation into the complaint was conducted.  A review of the incident showed that the officer acted in a manner that was unbecoming of an officer.  The citizen’s complaint was sustained.

  5. On 6/10/21, a citizen filed a complaint about an incident that occurred on 5/5/21.  The complainant said an officer who responded to a call for service was inappropriate and not taking the report seriously.  An investigation into the complaint was conducted.  The investigation showed that the officer conducted themselves within department policy and state law and the complaint was unfounded.

3rd Qtr

  1. On 6/30/21, a citizen filed a complaint of rudeness and discourtesy against an Animal Control Officer. An investigation into the complaint was conducted. A review of the video / audio from the incident showed it was the citizen who was rude and disorderly with officers during the contact and the officers acted in a professional manner. This complaint was unfounded.

  2. On 8/29/21, a citizen filed a complaint that an officer left finger marks on a subject he had to physically restrain. The citizen thought the officer used excessive force. An investigation was conducted regarding this claim. The investigation showed that the officer had to restrain a man for seven minutes while waiting for an ambulance, and did so to prevent the subject from harming themselves. The use of force was reasonable. The complaint was unfounded.

  3. On 9/22/21, a citizen filed a complaint that an Animal Control Officer stalked him and used excessive force. An investigation into the complaint was conducted. A review of the audio / video from the incident showed that the Animal Control Officer was conducting a legitimate investigation into a violation of city ordinance and not “stalking”. It also showed that there was no excessive force used during the encounter. This complaint was unfounded.

4th Qtr

  1. On 10/30/21, a citizen filed a complaint that she was improperly arrested and assaulted by officers.An investigation into the complaint was conducted.A review of the video / audio from the incident showed the citizen was not assaulted and the officers acted appropriately during the arrest.This complaint was unfounded.

2020

1st Qtr

  1. On 1/16/2020, a citizen complained about an excessive use of force by officers in her arrest.  An investigation was conducted and this showed that the officers utilized the proper amount of force to arrest the complainant who was resisting their attempts to arrest.   The investigation into the complaint showed that there was no excessive use of force and the officers did their job as they were trained.  The complaint was unfounded.

  2. On 1/19/2020, a citizen complained about an excessive use of force by officers in her arrest.  She claimed she was thrown to the ground.  An investigation was conducted and this showed that the officers did not throw the complainant to the ground in spite of her active resistance.  The investigation showed that there was no excessive amount of force and the officers did their job as they were trained.  The complaint was unfounded.

  3. On 2/27/2020, a citizen complained that officers had violated his rights by allowing a person into his apartment without permission.  An investigation was conducted and this showed that the party was allowed into the apartment by a relative of the complainant who was inside.  The officers did not violate the complainant’s rights and the complaint was unfounded.

  4. On 3/4/2020, a citizen called to complain about officer response times to a lower priority call for service.  An investigation into the complaint was conducted and it showed an eleven-minute response time from the time of dispatch to officer arrival.  This is not an excessive amount of time for a non-emergency response and the complaint was unfounded.

  5. On 3/8/2020, a citizen was arrested and transported to jail in handcuffs.  Once at the jail the citizen complained the handcuffs were too tightly applied.  An investigation into this complaint was conducted.  The Sergeant conducting the investigation discovered that the citizen complained after being handcuffed and the officers immediately checked the fit and ensured the handcuffs were double-locked.  They could fit a finger between the handcuffs and the wrist of the complainant.  Jail staff also checked the fit and advised they were properly applied when the citizen was brought in.  The citizen had no injury and only slight redness consistent with the wearing of handcuffs.  This complaint was unfounded.

  6. On 3/9/2020, a citizen called to complain about officers being on his property and violating his 4th Amendment rights.  An investigation was conducted into the reason for the officer’s presence and the legality of it.  The officers were responding to investigate a complaint filed about a stolen vehicle.  The investigation showed they did not violate the citizen’s 4th Amendment rights and the complaint was unfounded.

  7. On 3/17/2020, a citizen’s mother filed a complaint about how officers dealt with her son.  She had called police because he was destroying items in her home.  When officers arrived they had to utilize force to respond to the suspect’s resistance.  A supervisor responded to investigate the incident and found that the response to resistance by the officers was appropriate and the least amount necessary to protect themselves and the citizen.  The complaint is unfounded.

  8. On 3/19/2020, a citizen was arrested and transported to jail.  At jail she complained that her handcuffs had been too tight and the officers contacted a Sergeant to investigate the citizen complaint.  The Sergeant’s investigation showed that the handcuffs were not too tight and had been able to slide up the defendant’s arm as she squirmed around.  The complaint was unfounded.

  9. On 3/20/2020, a citizen filed a complaint that officers had lied to him and unlawfully removed him from his home.  An
    investigation was opened into the incident and it was discovered that officers did not lie and that the citizen had voluntarily vacated this residence prior to this call for service.  This complaint was unfounded.

  10. On 3/27/2020, a citizen filed a complaint that officers used excessive force with him and didn’t not provide him with any trespassing paperwork.  An investigation was conducted and it was discovered that force was not used on the citizen and that he had refused to accept the trespassing paperwork from officers.  This complaint was unfounded.

2nd Qtr

  1. On 4/26/2020, a citizen complained about abusive language used by an officer of the Sioux Falls Police Department stemming from an incident that occurred in February of 2020. An investigation was conducted and found that the officer used abusive language in the incident. The complaint was sustained.

  2. On 5/2/2020, a citizen complained that an officer of our department used excessive force against him causing an injury. An investigation into the complaint was conducted. The investigation revealed that the complainant ran from police and upon being caught was uncooperative.He was handcuffed but continued to be uncooperative and struggle against his handcuffs. The officer’s video and audio recordings, along with two independent citizen witnesses, confirmed that there was no excessive force used in this incident. This complaint is unfounded.

  3. On 5/7/2020, a citizen filed a complaint against an Animal Control Officer for a lack of performance in their duties. The complaint detailed incidents going back to April of this year. An investigation into the multiple complaints was conducted and found that the Animal Control Officer was acting under his authority and was responding to calls in the appropriate manner. The complaint was unfounded.

  4. On 5/11/2020, a citizen complained that she was improperly handcuffed by officers causing injury. A Sergeant responded to investigate the complaint. The complainant was observed to have multiple old scabs on her arms and very dry skin. The handcuffs had rubbed some scab off in spots. A review of the video showed the complainant struggling against the handcuffs trying to get them off. The minor injuries were caused by the actions of the complainant and the complaint was unfounded.

  5. On 5/21/20202, a filed a complaint of an excessive use of force. An investigation into the complaint was conducted. The investigation showed that officers took the complainant into custody with legal authority and that when they tried to handcuff the complainant, she began to resist them violently. The officers were able to eventually take the complainant into custody but she continued to be uncooperative. During the struggle, the complainant suffered minor scrapes and abrasions from her resistive actions. The officers acted within the law and used the least amount of force necessary and were exonerated of this complaint.

  6. On 5/22/2020, a citizen filed a complaint against an officer accusing him of calling and threatening her five years ago. The complaint was investigated and due to its age, video evidence of the incident was no longer available. Due to a lack of evidence the complaint was not sustained.

  7. On 5/26/2020, a Sergeant responded to an officer notifying him of an arrestee sustaining an injury from a fall. The Sergeant responded to document the injury and asked what happened. The arrestee told the Sergeant that he had hit him, indicating the Sergeant who wasn’t at the call. A review of the in-car video showed that the arrestee, who was extremely intoxicated, fell down during the arrest procedure causing the abrasion to his face. The officers notified the Sergeant immediately. There was no assault and the complaint was unfounded.

  8. On 6/4/2020 a citizen filed a complaint of excessive use of force against an officer that allegedly occurred in 2017.  This complaint had been investigated in 2017 as a use of force incident in which the complainant had violently resisted officer’s attempts to arrest him.  The investigation revealed that officers had been justified in their uses of force at that time.  This complaint is unfounded.

  9. On 6/5/2020 a citizen filed a complaint against an officer for discriminatory actions against her son. An investigation was opened into this incident. This revealed that the actions of the officer were proper and conducted as parts of multiple investigations into the offender based on their actions and not based on anything else. The complaint against this officer was unfounded.

  10. On 6/8/2020 a citizen filed a complaint of abusive language by police. An investigation was conducted of the complaint to include a video review from the officer’s car. The video showed that the allegations against the officer did not occur. The complaint was unfounded.

  11. On 6/14/2020, a citizen filed a complaint that he was stopped because of racial profiling. An investigation was conducted into the incident and this revealed the complainant was called in for a noise disturbance coming from his vehicle and that officer had a valid reason to stop the vehicle. The stop was not based on racial profiling. This complaint was not sustained.

  12. On 6/15/2020, a citizen called to file a complaint about an officer being rude and discourteous. An investigation was conducted into the incident. The investigation revealed that the officer was not rude nor discourteous to the citizen. This incident is unfounded.

  13. On 6/15/2020, a citizen filed a complaint which stemmed from an incident occurring in December of 2019.The citizen alleged that they had been falsely arrested by police. An investigation was conducted into this complaint. In this incident officers responded to a call for service for a person refusing to leave. This person was the complainant who was refusing to leave a store. Officers tried multiple times to convince the person to leave but they demanded they be arrested. Eventually officers did arrest the person for a failure to vacate charge. The complaint was unfounded.

  14. On 6/17/2020, a citizen filed a complaint against an officer for threatening him. An investigation was opened into this complaint. A Sergeant contacted the complainant to hear their complaint and the complainant made numerous statements about police activity. The investigation showed that none of these had occurred and in fact the complainant was being untruthful in some of the information he presented in the complaint. The complaint was unfounded.

  15. On 6/22/2020 a person called to complain that they were not being kept abreast of an investigation they were related to. The incident they were calling about occurred the day before and hadn’t been followed up yet. The detective followed up shortly after the complaint. This complaint of a lack of service is unfounded.

3rd Qtr

  1. On 7/4/2020, a citizen complained about excessive force being used in the arrest of her son which caused injuries to him.  She also complained that police reports stated the son had broken into a property owned by the family.  An investigation into the complaint was conducted.  The investigation revealed video evidence and independent witness testimony that the son caused his own injuries during a prolonged, drug-induced state prior to coming into contact with law enforcement.  It also showed that police reports did not state that he had broken into family owned business.  The complaint was unfounded.

  2. On 7/26/20, a citizen complained that his handcuffs were too tight during his arrest and transport to jail causing injuries.  An investigation into the complaint was conducted.  The investigation revealed that the citizen was arrested and handcuffed properly.  The in-car video shows him struggling against the handcuffs during transport which caused redness to his wrists.  Other injuries on his arms were the result of the car accident he was in prior to his arrest and inconsistent with injuries caused by overly-tightened handcuffs.  This complaint is unfounded.

  3. On 7/27/2020, a citizen complained that he had been falsely arrested on January 24th, 2020.  An investigation into the complaint was conducted.  The investigation revealed that officers responded to a report of an aggravated assault and conducted an investigation.  During the course of this investigation, officers located the citizen.  Witnesses on scene identified the citizen as the suspect of the aggravated assault and he was subsequently arrested.  Officers followed correct procedures for conducting a show-up identification process and had probable cause to arrest the citizen.  The case was later dismissed and subsequently the citizen filed a complaint.  This complaint is not sustained.

  4. On 8/9/2020, a citizen filed a complaint against an officer for injuring his shoulder while being detained.  An investigation into this complaint was conducted.  The investigation revealed that officers were responding to a call for service at a residence that required them to make contact with the people there.  The citizen exited the residence and attempted to walk away.  He was uncooperative and appeared under the influence of a mind altering substance.  As part of their investigation, officers detained the citizen.  They handcuffed the citizen for their safety, utilizing two sets of handcuffs.  The citizen complained of his shoulder hurting from a prior surgery and officers called an ambulance to check out his shoulder.  It was checked and the ambulance left.  The citizen finally calmed down enough for officers to conduct their investigation and release him from the scene.  The complaint was unfounded.

  5. On 8/18/2020, a citizen complained that officers conducting a search warrant at her residence stole money from her.  The initial complaint investigation was conducted by the Sioux Falls Police Department (SFPD).  Upon discovering the nature of the complaint, the SFPD requested the complaint be investigated by the South Dakota Department of Criminal Investigation (DCI).  DCI conducted an investigation during which time the citizen and her boyfriend, who was the owner of the money that was alleged to have been stolen, were uncooperative with the investigation.  The information they did provide was inconsistent.  They claimed to have video footage of the theft but refused to provide it to investigators.  The investigation did not reveal that any theft had occurred and the complaint was not sustained.

  6. On 8/18/2020, a complaint was filed against a department Animal Control Officer.  A citizen had been bitten by a dog and the Animal Control Officer was called by the medical clinic to investigate the dog bite.  The citizen was upset that the officer was called and that they didn’t introduce themselves immediately as an Animal Control Officer. The officer was responding to a call for service and within department policy and procedure as well as state law in her actions.  The complaint was unfounded.

  7. On 8/22/2020, a citizen filed a complaint of their handcuffs being too tight.  An investigation into the complaint was conducted.  The investigation revealed that the citizen was arrested and placed into handcuffs.  The handcuffs were double locked and checked for fit.  During the transport the citizen was very disorderly, yelling, screaming, cursing and spitting all over the car.  At jail, correctional staff had to carry him inside and remove his handcuffs.  The wrists were examined and there was only minor skin irritation consistent with pulling against handcuffs.  The complaint was unfounded.

  8. On 8/26/2020, a citizen filed a complaint against an Animal Control Officer accusing them of speeding.  Specifically, the driver said the officer was travelling 55 mph.  An investigation was conducted into the complaint.  The investigation revealed that the Animal Control Officer was responding to a call in the area and according to their AVL GPS, never reached close to 55 mph.  This call is unfounded.

  9. On 8/26/2020, a citizen filed a complaint that an officer of the department was harassing them.  An investigation into the complaint was conducted.  The investigation revealed that the officer did not harass or stalk the citizen and the complaint was unfounded.

  10. On 9/1/2020 a citizen filed a complaint of excessive use of force by a detective.  An investigation into the complaint was conducted.  The investigation revealed that a citizen was having a warrant served upon their person for evidence.  The citizen attempted to walk away from the warrant service and was redirected back to complete the warrant by grabbing the person’s arms and walking them back to where the service was being conducted.  This resulted in a small scratch on their arm from a fingernail.  This amount of force was necessary to complete the warrant and was the least amount necessary to gain compliance from the citizen.  This complaint is unfounded.

  11. On 9/18/2020 a citizen filed a complaint against an officers for calling him a derogatory insult and illegally detaining him.  An investigation into the complaint was conducted.  The investigation revealed that officers came into contact with the citizen as a result of a dispatched call for service described as a burglary in progress.  When they came into contact with him, he refused to provide any information, was uncooperative and, and called the officers multiple derogatory and profane things.  He claimed the officers had no right to detain him and that they called him a profane, derogatory insult.  A review of the video and audio from the officer’s car camera showed that these complaints against the officers for calling him names did not happen. The investigation also showed the officers were within department policy and procedure, state and federal law in detaining the citizen as part of the investigation. These complaints are unfounded. 

4th Qtr

  1. On 10/5/20, a citizen complained about being asked to leave a Parks Department sponsored event at a dog park. The citizen’s dogs had bitten two other animals in a short period of time and they were asked to leave. They complained they were treated like a criminal. The investigation into the incident showed that the Animal Control Officer present was polite and professional. The complaint was unfounded.

  2. On 10/5/20, a citizen complained that her husband had been racially profiled and excessive force had been used by officers during his arrest.  An investigation into the incident was conducted. In regards to the racial profiling, the officers were dispatched to a report of an assault involving the citizen and her husband. Their response was based on a this report and not on race. This complaint is unfounded. In regards to excessive use of force, officers used the lowest level of force available to arrest the suspect in this incident. This complaint is also unfounded.

  3. On 10/10/2020, a citizen complained that officers had beaten her, held her at gunpoint, and sexually assaulted her after conducting a traffic stop on her vehicle. An investigation was conducted into this complaint. The incident in question was on video and the multiple accusations made by the complainant were all unfounded.

  4. On 10/14/2020, a citizen filed a complaint against an Animal Control Officer for not helping him with his issue. An investigation into the complaint was opened. A review of the incident showed that the Animal Control Officer took the complaint seriously and conducted a thorough investigation within the scope of her powers. The complaint was unfounded.

  5. On 9/15/2020, a citizen complained that an Animal Control Officer had intentionally lied to him about matters related to his dog. An investigation into the complaint was conducted.  The complaint of intentionally being lied to was unfounded.

  6. On 10/20/2020, a complaint was filed against an officer for an unlawful and improper arrest. The citizen reported that she had a medical issue which caused her to act how she did and that she shouldn’t have been arrested. An investigation into the incident was conducted.  As a result of the investigation, several independent witness statements, and video of the incident, the complaint was unfounded.

  7. On 10/21/2020, a citizen filed a complaint of excessive use of force against two officers. An investigation into the incident was conducted.  The investigation, which included independent witness statements, showed that the officers acted reasonably and used the least amount of force necessary to arrest a resistive and uncooperative subject. The complaint was unfounded.

  8. On 10/21/2020, a citizen filed a complaint against officers for excessive use of force. An investigation into the complaint was opened.  The investigation revealed that officers legally contacted the complainant as a result of a citizen calling police to have him removed.  He was uncooperative and resistive with officers when they attempted to arrest him. The officers used the minimum amount of force necessary to arrest him and he incurred no injuries as a result of the arrest. The complaint was unfounded.

  9. On 10/28/2020, a citizen filed a complaint that an officer had unlawfully grabbed and detained her. An investigation into the complaint was conducted. The investigation revealed that the officer had legal authority to grab ahold and detain the complainant as it was during the course of an investigation and the complainant was attempting to get away from the officer.  The complaint was unfounded.

  10. On 11/2/2020 a citizen filed a complaint of an officer being racist towards him.  An investigation into the incident was conducted. The investigation showed that the officer was called to a parking violation and the complainant had his vehicle parked in a Handicap designated parking spot but was not authorized to do so. The officer wrote the complainant a citation for this. He was not racist in the encounter and the complaint of this being race-based was unfounded.

  11. On 11/12/2020 a citizen filed a complaint against an officer for excessive force.  An investigation into the incident was conducted.  The investigation showed that officers responded to a residence as a result of a 3rd party complaint that there were possibly children in danger.  Officers arrived and the residents of the apartment would not let officers inside to check the children. The officers entered and used the least amount of force necessary to detain the person who later complained.  The officers were acting within their legal authority and their duty. This complaint is unfounded.

  12. On 12/27/2020 a citizen filed a complaint against an officer for sexually assaulting him. An investigation into the incident was conducted. The investigation revealed that the officer had legally stopped the complainant for a traffic violation that resulted in an arrest for multiple charges. During the search incident to arrest the complainant said the officer groped him.  A review of the video shows that the officer conducted a thorough search which resulted in the discovery of illegal controlled substances hidden on the complainant. The search was within policy and law. The complaint is unfounded.