New Disciplinary Policy : Policing a Pattern of Complaints

SAN FRANCISCO — Police administrators here were astonished recently to learn that one officer during his first four years on the department had accumulated 35 citizen complaints without ever facing discipline.

The young patrolman had been accused of being rude and of using racial slurs or excessive force. But there were no independent witnesses to substantiate the allegations and the officer denied everything. There were no grounds for discipline.

Then, an analyst in the San Francisco Office of Citizen Complaints turned up decisive new evidence. Using a personal computer, Steve Lutes compiled hundreds of bits of information from the officer’s complaint file, including the age, sex and race of each complainant, the injuries they reported and the precise body language, gestures and words reportedly used by the patrolman.

Five Brutality Complaints

Lutes found that five brutality complaints were lodged by young black females. All five women claimed that the officer grabbed their hair and, in some cases, banged their heads against a pole, a wall or the hood of a patrol car. When they complained or resisted or demanded to see a lawyer, each of the women said that the officer told them, “Shut up, black bitch.”

The evidence was sent to Police Chief Frank Jordan, who quickly reassigned the officer to a desk job in the records division. Police say the officer, whose name was not revealed, is undergoing extensive counseling and retraining.

The incident illustrates the San Francisco Police Department’s controversial, but influential, policy for disciplining or even firing officers who fail to correct a pattern of alleged misconduct, even if no single charge can be sustained. Police here have pioneered this computer-assisted disciplinary procedure and now the California Highway Patrol has adopted a similar policy. In San Diego, the police chief proposed a similar plan, only to have it vetoed by the city manager.

Unions Opposed

Most police departments--and virtually all police unions--oppose disciplining officers based on a pattern of unsubstantiated complaints. Most officials say they are unwilling to recommend formal disciplinary action without conclusive evidence of misconduct.

“I have a strong feeling that the officer in the field has every right that any other individual would have,” said Capt. Tom Hehir, head of internal investigations for the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. “To discipline an officer on that basis would be the same for me as arresting somebody based on the fact I think he is doing something . . . but I don’t have any proof.”

Hehir also noted, however, that a commander faced with a pattern of unsubstantiated misconduct complaints would likely pull an officer aside in private and discuss any concerns without taking any official action.

Similarly, administrators at the Los Angeles Police Department may transfer a patrol officer to a desk job if he appears to be having problems on the beat, said Cmdr. William Booth, but will not take formal disciplinary steps.

“A pattern of complaints against one officer does give us some latitude in the analysis of the officer in discussing a number of complaints and can be part of the rationale for a reassignment,” Booth said. “But to sustain and formally punish, you must have a preponderance of evidence for each individual complaint or allegation.”

In San Diego, Police Chief Bill Kolender proposed keeping a file of unsustained complaints against each officer for the purpose of establishing a pattern of misconduct and, in some cases, meting out formal discipline. The suggestion was among several proposed reforms made in response to public demands for a civilian review board to monitor police internal investigations.

‘It Finally Blows’

“We’ve had situations where we’ve seen this trend (of officer misconduct) and been unable to take any action,” Kolender said. “After what we think is a long period of time, it finally blows and we have something that is much more serious than what you started with.”

But the plan was rejected last month by San Diego City Manager John Lockwood, who said it would “destroy” the morale of rank-and-file officers. He said many officers already believe that they do not get enough support from police administrators and the community.

Lockwood’s decision won plaudits of the local police union, which strongly opposes discipline based on a pattern of unsubstantiated complaints.

“What you’re telling me is if I’m accused of rape three times and it can’t be proven, the fourth time I’m accused . . . I’m guilty,” said Officer Vince Krolikowski, treasurer of the San Diego Police Officers Assn. “That goes against every right every citizen would want to have.”

Disciplinary Action

Supporters of the use of pattern evidence argue that police officers who continue to run up numerous complaints for the same problems deserve some form of disciplinary action.

“If you’ve got half a dozen people who are all unrelated and don’t know each other saying the same thing about the way an officer acts, it seems to me that should be very strong evidence that the officer has a problem and something should be done about it,” said Murray Galinson, a San Diego bank president who served as chairman of a City Council-appointed citizens task force that supported the police proposal to use previous complaints.

“In private industry you would not retain a person who has this series of problems. You would let them go. Why should a person who is a police officer be protected more than a person in private industry? I don’t understand. I’m not saying make a criminal case, but certainly they should be suspended or disciplined,” he said.

Full-Time Analyst

San Francisco became the first major city two years ago to hire a full-time analyst to store the nitty-gritty details of each citizen complaint on computer for the purpose of taking action against officers who establish a pattern of alleged misconduct.

Steve Lutes, 41, said he applies standard analytical approaches in the field of scientific research to everyday police work.

As an anthropologist, Lutes had extensively studied the pattern of heart disease in Filipino immigrants and the amount of alcohol use by Yaqui Indians in Mexico. Now, he spends most of his time locked in a computer room poring over confidential citizen complaints in search of patterns and correlations. He said his work habits have earned him a reputation among some police officers as a “glorified garbage sifter.”

When Lutes uncovers an apparent pattern of misconduct in an officer’s file, he first explores other ways to explain the similarities. Recently, for example, he determined that a change in state law that requires police to arrest abusive spouses triggered a series of complaints that an officer mistreated husbands who were accused of beating their wives.

Evaluate Police Performance

By analyzing dates, times and circumstances surrounding complaints, Lutes said, he can tell when drug dealers, pimps or prostitutes manufacture allegations in an attempt to get a productive officer transferred to a different part of town. Lutes also uses computers to evaluate police performance by comparing an officer’s complaint history and activity logs to other officers working the same beat and same watch.

His first major case involved the officer who compiled 35 complaints in a four-year span. Lutes said he spent two days searching through previous complaints against the officer before discovering a pattern of reported physical and verbal abuse.

“In this case I had to dig pretty deep to start finding exact wording. In some cases, the further I go back in time, the access to the kind of data I need gets more questionable. . . . We’re training our investigators to go after specific wording. We want to know what body sites were affected, the mode, how it happened, what was said, any kinds of body movements or gestures or expressions.”

Police initially questioned the veracity of the same allegations of physical and verbal abuse contained in five of the 35 complaints filed against the officer, Lutes said. But upon further review, police officials agreed that the evidence was too strong to ignore.

“These (women who complained) had no knowledge of each other,” Lutes said. “The pattern would have gone undetected because 2,000-some people on the police force up here get 1,500 complaints a year more or less. . . . I don’t think commanding officers are likely to sit down and put two and two together a lot. Are they really going to sit down with each and every officer and keep a tally of what’s going on?”

Pattern of Complaints

In another case, Lutes found a pattern of complaints against an officer who was assigned to the Chinatown section of San Francisco. Several Asians who were arrested told investigators that the officer muttered under his breath, “Why don’t you chinks go back to China?”

In two other cases, Lutes has used computers to show a pattern of police abuse that has resulted in pending disciplinary action.

After some initial skepticism, the San Francisco Police Department now endorses Lutes’ work as an effective management tool to monitor officer performance. Chief Jordan said in an interview that he would not hesitate to discipline officers who continue to pile up a string of unsubstantiated complaints.

The San Francisco Police Officers Assn. has threatened to appeal any formal discipline issued by the police chief based on previous unsustained complaints.

“They can certainly counsel the officer and, if they think there is some retraining needed in the way he is dealing with certain situations, they can offer that,” association President Bob Barry said. “But unless they can sustain cases with a lot of facts, they are going to run into a lot of problems.”

‘Big Hitter’s List’

In San Francisco, any police officer who receives three complaints in a six-month period is automatically placed on the “big hitter’s list” compiled by the Office of Citizen Complaints. Jordan said his commanders will issue initial warnings to officers about a developing pattern and, after further complaints, will recommend counseling, extensive training and then formal discipline.

“I like the idea that we’re more than just a complaint factory,” Jordan said. “We look at trends. Every officer knows it. Even if we cannot determine if the officer is wrong, if three or four come up, we know something has to be addressed. I like that.”

California Highway Patrol officials said they, too, are no longer wedded to traditional police thinking that an officer should not receive formal discipline unless there are numerous witnesses or irrefutable evidence to support a citizen’s claim of misconduct.

“It’s a subjective process,” said Capt. Dave Webb, head of the CHP internal affairs division in Sacramento. “We’re telling the supervisors, ‘It’s your opinion. If you think the officer did it, sustain the complaint and we’ll go from there.’

“We feel in the long run you’re better off. You correct (officer misconduct) hopefully. If not, you keep moving toward bigger action until ultimately (the officer) wouldn’t be with us anymore.”

‘Lot of Resistance’

Since the early 1980s, the CHP has programmed computers at its Sacramento headquarters to notify the internal affairs unit whenever an officer receives three complaints in an 18-month period. The CHP usually will permit officers to collect two similar complaints without taking action, Webb said. But on the third occasion, the agency will sustain a complaint and impose discipline even though the officer’s word contradicts the complainant’s.

“We have a lot of resistance to that from the troops,” Webb said. “They get really upset. So do the supervisors. . . . If you’re a sergeant, it’s much easier to say, ‘Hey, I don’t really know who did this.’

“It’s kind of like a tie. A tie always goes to the officers. That’s the way the officers look at it.”

Webb said the CHP is revising its internal procedures to require supervisors to keep a written record of every time a citizen complains by phone, in person or through the mail. The policy change comes at a time when CHP commanders in San Diego failed to respond to complaints about Officer Craig Alan Peyer, who is accused of strangling Cara Evelyn Knott, a San Diego State University student.

Peyer was fired by the CHP in May after an internal investigation concluded that the officer “did, without justification, kill Ms. Cara Knott” on Dec. 27 while on duty. Also cited as charges that led to Peyer’s dismissal were numerous improper traffic stops of women drivers who Peyer forced to park on the same isolated off-ramp near where Miss Knott was killed.

Concern About Conduct Told

At least one motorist had expressed concerns about Peyer’s conduct before Miss Knott was killed. In the days after the discovery of Miss Knott’s body, several young women reported to the CHP that they had been stopped by an officer late at night while driving alone on Interstate 15.

All of the calls were fielded by CHP supervisors, who determined that they were not serious enough to warrant any action. Peyer, a 13-year veteran with a clean record, was arrested by San Diego police on Jan. 15.

Webb acknowledged that CHP supervisors in San Diego might have detected a pattern of improper conduct by Peyer if they had logged every phone call from the public.

“It seemed to me that (CHP supervisors) would have found something,” Webb said. “From what we’ve seen from the Peyer case, why someone or something didn’t come up before, I don’t know.”

Most major police agencies in California will not transfer or demote officers who compile a string of similar complaints, even if supervisors believe that the officer is guilty of misconduct.

‘A Problem Child’

“We’re very careful about shooting from the hip,” said Capt. Phil Coleman, head of the Oakland Police Department internal affairs unit. “It’s possible that an officer, who has been the subject of a rash of complaints . . . is a problem child. But when you look at the individual cases, it’s also possible that each one has mitigating circumstances and the officer is blameless. We caution our supervisors and commanders to not just act on the numbers. We have to make the case.”

Oakland is among a growing number of police departments that have purchased sophisticated computer systems to evaluate officer performance. Three years ago, Oakland police officials hired a computer analyst to monitor citizen complaints.

“We just had this uneasy feeling that some people were falling between the cracks,” Coleman said.

Computers were purchased recently for the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, which is in the early stages of exploring various uses. In place of using computers, the Los Angeles Police Department sends all citizen complaints to police sergeants, who are held responsible for periodically evaluating officer performance.

Law enforcement agencies that resist computer technology take the risk of overlooking patterns of officer misconduct, according to Coleman. In many police departments, he said, newer officers escape scrutiny because they often work different shifts and report to different supervisors.

“A new officer could be piling up numbers with individual supervisors that in isolation aren’t that high. But because he’s bouncing around, you don’t pick them all up,” Coleman said. “You have to have a central clearinghouse.”