Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Oversight topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident says sheriff’s office rejected misconduct complaint, urges civilian oversight and body‑worn cameras
Summary
During public comment, a Middlesex resident said she was turned away when attempting to submit a police‑misconduct complaint to the sheriff’s office, urged formation of civilian oversight under Virginia Code, and called for funding body‑worn cameras and dash cameras.
At the public‑comment portion of the Middlesex County Board of Supervisors meeting, registered speaker Kimberly Dina of Urbana urged the board to address what she described as obstacles to filing police misconduct complaints and asked the board to form civilian oversight and fund body‑worn and mobile cameras.
Dina told the board she had attempted to submit an internal complaint against sheriff’s office personnel and that both the sheriff and the board had “rejected in writing” her attempt to file. She said she is preparing a second submission in person after being turned away. Dina read language from the Middlesex Sheriff’s Office internal affairs policy emphasizing that complaints may be made in person, by mail, email or phone and that the sheriff’s office “shall competently and impartially investigate all allegations of misfeasance, malfeasance, nonfeasance by personnel.”
Dina asked why the county had not established a civilian oversight board under the Virginia Code, asked whether the county would provide funding for body‑worn cameras and dash cameras and said she had been told of an “unwritten policy” preventing citizens from recording police activity. “When some of the highest members of our government and judicial system aren’t held accountable to their own department policies and oaths… Middlesex residents deserve the answers,” Dina said.
Board response: A member of the board asked whether Dina had filed the proper paperwork; Dina said she had submitted paperwork that was rejected and that she is preparing a second round. Board members did not take action during the meeting but the comment and the questions raised were noted for follow up by staff.
Context: The speaker cited the sheriff’s office internal affairs policy and the board’s own code of ethics in saying citizens and the board should expect accountability and transparent complaint handling. The transcript does not record the sheriff’s office perspective or a formal staff report on the allegation during the meeting; the board did not make any determination or take formal action on Dina’s claims at the session.
