Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accountability Data topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
POST presents data on complaints: staff say bulk are not classified as serious misconduct
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 and a marked increase in public complaints, but staff said most reports do not meet the statutory serious‑misconduct threshold.
Good morning. The Peace Officers Standing Accountability Advisory Board received an overview of statewide complaint and intake data at its January 16 hearing, where staff described the volume and status of reports received since the board began operations.
POST assistant executive director Anne Marie Del Munoz introduced the data briefing and turned it over to Bureau Chief Christine Ford, who told the board the Division had received "over 31,000 agency misconduct reports" affecting "over 18,000 law enforcement officers" and that the state has "over 82,000 officers." Ford said roughly half of the agency reports come from retroactive or "look‑back" cases and described a growing number of public complaints.
Ford told the board that about 22,000 of the agency reports had been assigned for action and that, at the time of the presentation, roughly 12,000 cases were open and about 9,000 had been closed. She said case workloads include a large queue of “unassigned” reports that staff triage by priority and that many of those unassigned items reflect agency investigations that did not meet POST’s statutory threshold for serious misconduct.
Sarah Wallace, bureau chief for Intake and Disposition, spoke about public complaints and intake practices. She said public complaints increased year over year (staff cited nearly a 47% rise in public complaints over the prior reporting period) and explained that the intake bureau links public reports to agency reports when both exist so a single case jacket is maintained for related submissions. Wallace said that many public complaints do not allege the narrow categories that qualify as "serious misconduct" under Penal Code 13510.8 and are therefore closed after intake work or referred back to the agency for handling.
Board members repeatedly pressed staff for clearer visuals and breakdowns the public could easily read. Board member Dr. David Glaser and other members suggested a one‑page infographic showing headline counts alongside the most relevant breakdowns (e.g., serious‑misconduct vs. non‑serious, assigned vs. unassigned, open vs. closed). Ford and Del Munoz said staff were already refining the visuals and would return with sample graphics and additional details, including a clearer public‑complaint disposition breakdown.
The briefing prompted discussion of data quality and training: members noted that some so‑called “issues in error” were caused by duplicate entries or incorrect officer identification numbers when agencies submit reports, and members encouraged continuing outreach and training to agencies to reduce those errors.
Board members also asked for periodic reports on disposition of public complaints that are not linked to agency reports, and staff agreed to provide a more detailed breakdown going forward.
