Chief Gillespie defends MPD response to OIR annual report; board and public press for transparency and policy review

Chief Brandon Gillespie presented the Modesto Police Department's written response to the OIR annual report for January–December 2024 at the Community Police Review Board meeting on June 18 and summarized the department's position on 12 recommendations.

Gillespie said MPD agrees with many of OIR's findings and intends to implement changes in documentation, supervisory review and training, including steps to improve body‑worn camera compliance, de‑escalation documentation and canine deployment reporting. "These recommendations provide an opportunity for the department to reflect and analyze our operations," he said.

The chief disagreed with a small subset of recommendations. He cited guidance from the International Association of Chiefs of Police in opposing OIR Recommendation 1, which suggested interviewing officers involved in shootings before the end of the officer's shift. Gillespie said MPD follows IACP guidance that supports a 24–72 hour recovery period before conducting interviews. He also expressed resistance to Recommendation 5, which urged reassessment of pretext stops, and to formalizing profanity carve‑outs for officers (Recommendation 7).

Michael Genaco, appearing for OIR, defended the recommendations and explained that the suggestion on pretext stops was informed by statewide debates and data including the Racial Identity Profiling Act board's analysis. He said the recommendation did not call for an outright ban on pretext stops but urged the department to evaluate costs and benefits and consider limiting stops for minor equipment violations, citing Los Angeles as an example of a policing policy that restricts certain pretext stops.

Board members and members of the public raised several concerns. Member Damrell and others said delay in interviewing officers after deadly‑force incidents risks eroding public trust and argued for more immediate documentation of events; public commenters and some board members asked for dates, timelines and public reporting benchmarks to be attached to the department's commitments.

Members of the public who spoke during the OIR agenda item reiterated concerns raised during the earlier public comment period: several asked for the department to release body‑worn camera footage, provide data on stops and use of force, and make bias‑review processes more transparent. One attendee cited an academic study that suggested immediate interviews preserve more accurate recall and urged the department to consider conducting an initial interview followed by a delayed, longer debrief.

The board did not adopt any new formal policy changes at the meeting. Members said their forthcoming report to the city council will include the CPRB's comments on OIR's report and Chief Gillespie's response. Board members also sought clarifying information: they asked for a public accounting of how many people were detained at the protest that weekend and asked staff to confirm whether complaint forms can be provided in hard copy at future meetings.

The exchange underscored the central tensions in the report: OIR's push for procedural changes meant to increase transparency and reduce bias, and MPD's concerns about officer welfare, training culture and policing practices. The CPRB scheduled continuing discussion on the protest, the municipal code cited by speakers, and OIR recommendations for its July 16 meeting.

No policy revocations or ordinance changes were enacted at the June 18 meeting; the board limited its action mainly to requesting follow‑up materials and adding the topic to the next agenda.