Investigation Process
The investigating body will review your complaint and will contact you if further information about your complaint is required.
The investigating body will determine whether a complaint is appropriate for investigation (e.g. timely, sufficient facts, etc.). An investigation may be warranted in cases where the complaint was filed in a timely manner, the complaint relates to improper conduct and there is enough information provided to move forward.
If an investigation is warranted, an investigator will be identified and you will be informed of the investigator’s identity and the procedures to be followed during the investigation.
The Chief of Police will notify the subject officer(s) about your complaint; however, the identity of the complainant will not be provided to the subject officer(s).
Investigators typically interview all witnesses involved, including the person who filed the complaint, the subject officer(s) and any other witnesses to the incident. The investigator also reviews available evidence related to the incident. This can include video footage, police reports, public and University records and other documentation provided by the parties.
At the conclusion of the investigation, the investigator will prepare an investigation report with factual findings that will be provided to the Police Accountability Board (PAB). The investigator’s conclusions are based upon the “preponderance of the evidence” standard. This standard is satisfied when it is more likely than not that an event occurred as alleged and that it violated policy. Investigations are typically completed within 90 days. If more time is needed, complainants will be informed of an extension.
PAB Review Process
The integrity of this process is important to us. As such, only PAB board members/alternates participate in deliberations and voting. Members and alternates serving in the place of a voting member vote. During the review process, the PAB serves as an impartial reviewer. The PAB will ensure an individual’s complaint was fairly investigated and determine what recommendations would best address the conduct at issue and the concerns of the community. If the PAB believes additional investigative steps are warranted, PAB can request further work by the investigator.
As part of the review process, the PAB reviews the investigative report and attachments, which may include interview summaries, police log summaries and transcripts from video footage. In a closed session, all representatives of the PAB discuss the allegations and findings. Voting members then vote on whether to adopt, amend or reject the investigator’s findings and render PAB’s own findings of whether an allegation is unfounded, exonerated, not sustained or sustained. In addition to its recommendations to the Chief of Police with respect to the investigator’s findings, the PAB may also recommend a wide spectrum of actions, including modifying policies or training.
In addition to deciding on corrective actions, the Chief is also responsible for developing appropriate training, policies and practices for the department. As a way to remain accountable to the community, the Chief of Police will attend PAB meetings at least once a quarter to detail actions taken in response to PAB findings and recommendations. In these meetings, the PAB will have the opportunity to ask the Chief questions and raise any ongoing concerns. Through these conversations, the PAB will be able to maintain a strong advisory role beyond the initial recommendations made to the UC Santa Cruz Police Department, provide timely follow-up on issues important to the public and encourage implementation of better policies and procedures. The Chief’s responses to the PAB’s recommendations will be included in an annual report and database.
When you file a complaint, you will be informed of the outcome of the review process, but not the level of discipline, if any, that was imposed.
Below is a list of the possible outcomes of an investigation.
- Sustained – the investigation disclosed sufficient evidence to prove the truth of allegation in the complaint by preponderance of evidence
- Exonerated – the investigation clearly established that the actions of the personnel that formed the basis of the complaint are not a violation of law or agency policy
- Not sustained – the investigation failed to disclose sufficient evidence to clearly prove or disprove the allegation in the complaint
- Unfounded – the investigation clearly established that the allegation is not true
Definitions defined by AB-1953