Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Oversight Ig Report topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Civilian police oversight board accepts most inspector general findings and asks CPD to open use-of-force investigation in one case
Summary
The Columbus Civilian Police Review Board approved dozens of inspector general dispositions and asked the police department to revisit a use-of-force determination in case 25-0628 after body-worn camera footage and the inspector general's finding of dishonesty raised questions about whether punches occurred.
The Columbus Civilian Police Review Board accepted the inspector general's October report and approved multiple case dispositions, and it asked the Columbus Division of Police to conduct a further review and a formal use-of-force investigation in one case where body-worn camera footage raised concerns.
Inspector General (DIG) presented the October monthly report, saying, "for the month of October, we had a total of a 104 complaints that came in," and that "70% of those mainly come in through the hotline." The office reported opening 20 investigations in October, closing 42 investigations during the month, and closing 121 matters at intake; the DIG reported a total of 161 allegations reviewed in the month, with 18 exonerated, 17 sustained and 114 unfounded. The inspector general also provided precinct-level breakdowns and said closed reports move to CPD for further review.
Board committees moved to accept the inspector general's findings on a long list of cases across three committees; those motions were seconded and carried by voice vote. Committee 1 debated the recurring use of the term "loitering" in complaints and noted constitutional concerns about vagueness; committee members pressed staff for clarification of police training and local policy on pretextual stops.
A lengthier exchange occurred in Committee 2 over case 25-0628. Committee members and DIG reviewers said BWC footage appears to show repeated contact to a person's face that could be characterized as punching, which would be a level 4 use of force, while the formal use-of-force report documented only level 1. The DIG's report also concluded the officer in question was dishonest in two interview responses. Committee members described viewing the video frame-by-frame and asked for a deeper review. As one committee presenter put it, "we would believe, that it would be fruitful for CPD to take a second look at the BWC and, take a look at that level of force used by this particular officer." The board voted to accept the DIG's findings and to request that the police chief and the safety director direct CPD to conduct a use-of-force investigation into the incident.
The board made a separate request that CPD reexamine the officer's report and the supervisory review of the event, after several board members said the written evaluations by a sergeant and lieutenant did not reconcile with what they saw on the body-worn camera.
The meeting concluded with standard administrative items and distribution instructions for case assignments.
The board took no disciplinary action itself; it accepted the inspector general's findings and formally requested CPD to undertake the additional investigation. The IG noted that if CPD conducts further review, its findings and any resulting discipline would follow CPD procedures and timelines.
