Independent Police Monitor details multiple misconduct findings; panel votes to review four cases

The Boulder Police Oversight Panel on 2025-04-15 received the Independent Police Monitor's (IPM) April report, which summarized completed and pending case reviews and recommended sustained findings and terminations in multiple officer misconduct investigations.

The IPM report covered several serious matters brought to the panel's attention in March and April 2025. Sherry, speaking as the Independent Police Monitor, described three completed panel case reviews where the Boulder Police Department (BPD) had responded and seven case reviews still awaiting BPD investigation completion. Among completed matters discussed, the IPM summarized cases tied to a single officer (identified in the report as "officer 1") where the panel recommended sustained findings for failures in investigative responsibilities, report writing, truthfulness and compliance with litigation hold requirements. The panel recommended termination in multiple instances and the department agreed with several of those recommendations.

"We recommend that this allegation be sustained with termination," Sherry said several times while summarizing individual allegations and the panel's recommendations.

The IPM highlighted a case in which the Boulder County District Attorney alerted BPD that an officer's failure to timely disclose exculpatory evidence led to dismissal of criminal charges; the officer resigned while under investigation and returned a department-issued phone that appeared factory reset. The IPM and panel members recommended BPD review departing members' access to and control of department data on devices, and update policies governing litigation holds, phone profiles and cloud storage.

Chief Redfern's written response, as read during the meeting, confirmed that when the officer resigned on Dec. 22, 2023, BPD initially reported the separation to Colorado POST as "resigned while under investigation" and later updated the POST entry to "resigned in lieu of termination." Chief Redfern also stated the officer is not currently employed as a police officer in Colorado and that BPD is evaluating options to prevent loss of department data from departing members' devices.

The monitor asked for and the panel received confirmation that BPD will review policy on device/cloud ownership and consider supervisor workflow training; the department indicated it will work with the panel on those items.

The IPM further summarized multiple other matters from 2024 and 2025: sustained findings for incomplete investigations, disagreements between the monitor and the department on appropriate discipline for some allegations, concerns about ambiguous policy language (for example, the definition of "active resistor" in Use of Force General Order 225) and training needs such as expanded Fourth Amendment instruction for relatively inexperienced officers and sergeants.

After the IPM report, the panel voted on a set of case-review referrals. Panel votes (recorded by roll call) determined which investigations the panel will accept for full review, which it will decline, and which will be held pending more evidence.

Votes at a glance - SM2025-001 (allegations: three Rule 1 compliance with values, rules and general orders concerning investigative process and records): Motion to review passed 8 yes, 0 no, 1 abstain. Volunteer reviewers: Soledad, Bill, Chico (and others assigned later). - MI2025-006 (allegation: Rule 10, security of police information): Motion to review failed (4 yes, 5 no); the panel declined to review. - MI2025-007 (allegation: Rule 1 compliance with values, rules and general orders): Motion to review failed (1 yes, 8 no); the panel declined to review. - MI2025-008 (two officers involved; Rule 1 allegations for both officers): Motion to review passed (unanimous yes); volunteer reviewers: Milan, Jason, Curtis, Kristen, AB, others. - MI2025-009 (two allegations for officer 1: Rule 5 police authority and public trust; Rule 4 respect for others): Motion to review failed (2 yes, 7 no); the panel declined to review. - MI2025-011 (five allegations against officer 1): Motion to postpone review until more evidence is provided was made and passed unanimously; the panel held this case pending clarification of available evidence.

The panel first took the votes after a brief closed-session review of case summaries. Before moving to the roll-call votes the panel approved a motion to go into a closed session to discuss case summaries; the motion passed with no recorded opposition and the panel returned about 20 minutes later for the formal votes.

Panel members asked that the department provide training materials and process clarifications tied to the cases discussed. Sherry reiterated requests for training on supervisors' duties and workflow (both detective and patrol) and said she will follow up with the department about access to phone/cloud data for departing employees. Chief Redfern's written replies and BPD's stated follow-up were reflected in the IPM summary as provided to the panel.

The panel also made reviewer assignments for cases it accepted: for example, SM2025-001 will be reviewed by Soledad, Bill and Chico; MI2025-008 will be reviewed by Milan, Jason, Curtis, Kristen and AB among others. The panel noted that new members assigned to a first case typically shadow for their first review unless they have prior review experience.

The panel concluded the item by asking for updates at future meetings on policy changes related to device/cloud data retention and on planned Fourth Amendment training for sworn members.

Ending: The IPM report and the panel's votes set follow-up actions for BPD and the panel, including policy reviews, supervisor training and scheduled case-review assignments. The panel asked Sherry to provide updates on the status of Q4 2024 cases and on the 7 cases awaiting department investigation.