Boulder Police Oversight Panel reviews independent monitor report, votes to take select cases to panel review

The City of Boulder Police Oversight Panel heard its February independent monitor report and voted in closed session to accept at least one case for full panel review and to assign reviewers to several pending matters.

The independent monitor, Selena (identified in the meeting as the monitor), told the panel that in January 2025 the office completed five full case reviews and had eight cases awaiting panel review. She summarized several completed files, identifying multiple allegation types and the monitor’s recommendations and the department’s dispositions. Among the matters discussed were alleged failures to activate body-worn cameras in a timely manner (cited to General Order 240), alleged biased policing and customer-service complaints (cited to General Order 101 and General Order 120), and use-of-force and integrity-related allegations (cited to General Order 225 and related discipline matrix). Selena said the panel’s recommendations and the department’s dispositions sometimes diverged; for example, the panel recommended sustained findings for a failure to activate a body-worn camera with verbal counseling and the department reached the same disposition for one officer but did not sustain a similar allegation for another officer.

Selena also relayed a panel recommendation that Boulder Police Department (BPD) provide fuller training to officers on balancing officer safety and investigative integrity with community members’ First Amendment rights after multiple “first amendment auditor” encounters. In presenting that recommendation she read Chief Redburn’s response as recorded to the monitor: “I do agree with the police oversight panel that we need to make sure officers have proper training and a working understanding what first amendment rights our community members have.”

The monitor presented statistics: in January the monitor classified nine cases (four misconduct investigations, zero serious-misconduct cases, two community inquiries, two community feedbacks and one unspecified incident). As of a February snapshot the monitor reported an open docket of 34 cases (18 classified, four pending monitor classification, and 12 in preliminary investigation with the Public Safety Chief/PSC). Selena said some older 2024 cases were being prepared for panel review and that interviews were complete for certain matters being readied for the panel.

After the public portion, the panel moved into closed session to discuss confidential case reviews. The motion to go to closed session was made and approved by show of hands. In closed session members voted on whether to accept several matters for full panel review. The panel approved taking SN2024-005 to panel review and volunteers were identified to perform that case review. Panel members later confirmed assignment of reviewers for SM2024-003 and discussed scheduling for cases the monitor said would be ready in two to four weeks. Several other case votes were held and resulted in a mix of yes, no and abstain votes; where members declined to advance a file the matter remained with the monitor or the department for further work.

Panel members and staff emphasized process and scheduling constraints. The monitor noted that certain categories of incomplete complaints will be reclassified under a new “unspecified incident” classification beginning in 2025. The panel was reminded of upcoming training and recruitment items—a student recruitment effort produced 33 expressions of interest with 13 intending to apply, and a March 1 mandatory training was on members’ calendars.

The meeting closed with administrative announcements and assignment confirmations; one case approved for panel review had three volunteers named to carry out the review and others were in the queue pending availability and case readiness.