Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Complaints topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawrence CPRB reviews three complaints; police report body-camera evidence supported officers
Summary
At a regular meeting of the Lawrence Civilian Police Review Board, police staff summarized three citizen complaints received in January and February; internal reviews found the incidents exonerated and staff discussed reporting details and public access to investigative records.
At a meeting of the Lawrence Civilian Police Review Board, Lawrence Police Department officials summarized three complaints filed in January and February and reported each had been classified as exonerated. Chief Lockhart told the board that for the January 23 complaint — an alleged improper use of force after a person refused to leave private property — “the body camera did not support the complainant’s allegations.”
The February complaints included an incident on Feb. 5 in which a complainant alleged excessive force after officers pursued a person suspected of involvement in a stolen vehicle. Lockhart said the officer pursued the subject, pulled the person from a stopped vehicle that contained a small child and held the subject on the ground until handcuffs were applied; body camera review did not support the allegation that a firearm was drawn. A second February complaint involved a traffic stop where a K-9 alerted to narcotics scent; officers searched the interior, found two firearms but no drugs, and issued a warning for the traffic violation.
Board members pressed for operational details to better understand each case. The board asked how many officers typically respond to a disturbance and were told two officers are normally dispatched. Members asked about equipment and tactics; Chief Lockhart and Sergeant Meghan Shipley explained that the department issues ASP brand handcuffs and described a wrist‑lock as a standard control technique used to gain compliance when placing handcuffs. Lockhart also said findings letters include information about how to appeal a disposition.
Board members and staff discussed the limits of the complaint report as a public document. Lockhart cautioned that investigative files contain personnel information that is not public, and that the monthly complaint report is intended to summarize dispositions rather than reproduce full investigative files. The board accepted the update and had no formal action on the complaints beyond the informational review.
