Simsbury commission adopts revised investigations order, standalone eyewitness ID procedure and new bias-profiling order

The Simsbury Police Commission voted Jan. 22 to adopt three policy changes: a revised investigations general order (GO 42-1), a separate operational procedure for eyewitness identification (OP 42-1C), and a new general order prohibiting biased profiling practices (GO 1-2). All were recorded as effective Jan. 22, 2025.

Staff said changes to the investigations order included clarifying the purpose section, adding definitions, updating case‑screening language to reflect contemporary practice, defining investigative call‑out procedures, and codifying topics such as career criminal designations and handling of exculpatory evidence. Commissioners asked whether the investigations order defined the threshold for when a case becomes a “cold case” for homicides; staff responded there is no fixed standard in the order.

The eyewitness identification material, previously embedded in investigations guidance and largely adopted from state peace‑officer (POST) guidance and prior public acts, was separated into a standalone operational policy to keep lengthy procedural material distinct from the investigation general order.

Commissioners also considered a new general order, GO 1-2, that elevates prior operational procedures on biased policing and profiling into a general order and updates content to reflect state requirements. Several commissioners noted that certain data fields required by state reporting—such as the officer’s perception-based coding of race/ethnicity and a binary gender field—are imperfect. One member asked whether Simsbury could opt out of state data collection; staff replied the reporting is mandatory under the state program. A commissioner observed the state may be updating gender-category fields in the future.

Commissioners queried whether officers fully understand legal terms noted in the order—such as Terry stops—and asked that the department ensure training and clarity. The commission also discussed polygraph testing: staff clarified the department contracts out polygraph exams, and an outside vendor determines testing eligibility and administration (for example, refusing to test candidates who appear under the influence).

Each of the three documents was moved and approved during the meeting. The transcript records voice votes and multiple “ayes” recorded; the transcript does not include a roll‑call tally with individual member votes.

The commission directed staff to circulate attachments (for example, sample forms referenced in the eyewitness policy) with the official documents where not included in the meeting packet.