Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Misconduct Data Reporting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Accountability board hears POST data report showing large backlog of misconduct reports, rise in public complaints
Summary
At its Jan. 16 meeting the Peace Officers Standing Accountability Advisory Board received a statistical briefing from POST staff showing more than 31,000 agency misconduct reports in the system and a marked increase in public complaints; board members asked staff for clearer public-facing breakdowns and follow-up reporting.
The Peace Officers Standing Accountability Advisory Board on Jan. 16 heard a data briefing from the Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) intake and disposition bureaus that traced the flow and current status of misconduct reports, complaints and allegations in the state system.
POST intake bureau chief Christine Ford told the board the agency has received “over 31,000 agency misconduct reports” that relate to more than 18,000 officers and noted the statewide credentialed officer population is “over 82,000.” Ford said the division’s top categories for alleged serious misconduct remain physical abuse, excessive use of force, demonstrated bias and abuse of power.
The board was told a sizable portion of the volume consists of retroactive, or “look-back,” matters and of reports that are presently “unassigned” pending triage or agency investigation. Ford described several administrative buckets — unassigned reports, open investigations and closed files — and said roughly half of the closures are categorized as “no further action” because they did not meet POST’s definition of serious misconduct or could not be proven to clear-and-convincing standard.
POST assistant executive director Anne Marie Del Munoz and bureau chief Sarah Wallace walked the board through public-complaint handling. Wallace explained the intake unit links duplicative public and agency reports so investigators review them together. “When we receive public complaints, our intake and disposition bureau does a review,” she said, and if an agency already submitted an agency misconduct report the intake team will link the reports so they are reviewed as a single case.
Board members pressed POST staff for clearer public reporting. Dr. Robin Glaser asked for a simple, repeatable breakdown that shows the disposition and status for complaints that originate from members of the public. “It would be useful to know that,” Glaser said, adding that a checklist-style summary of reasons a complaint did not rise to serious misconduct — for example, untimely/retro dates, insufficient evidence, or not falling within the statutory categories — would help the public understand decisions.
Del Munoz and staff agreed to revise visuals and provide additional breakdowns. “We will take that feedback and look at what we can provide in future reports,” Wallace said, committing to bring more digestible graphics and a separate public-complaint disposition table to the board.
Board members also raised operational concerns. Several members noted a large number of “issue in error” or duplicate entries in POST’s intake and asked about continued outreach to local agencies and training to reduce data-entry errors. Ford said agencies are being trained on the MARC 43 system and POST plans continued outreach to reduce the problem.
Why it matters: POST’s data shapes the board’s and the commission’s understanding of the pipeline of complaints and the workload that determines how quickly a case can move to a hearing. Board members said clearer public summaries will help restore trust and prevent misreading of headline totals.
Next steps: POST staff said they will return with revised visuals and a separate breakdown of the disposition and status of complaints that originated from the public, and will continue monthly or quarterly improvements to make headline figures more digestible for non-expert audiences.
