Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Complaint Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Community Police Review Board: bodycam review finds use-of-force complaint exonerated; board seeks intake clarification
Summary
At the July meeting, staff reported a May–June use-of-force complaint was investigated and listed as exonerated after body-worn camera review; board members asked whether intake staff clarified the complainant’s stated constitutional concerns.
The Community Police Review Board in Lawrence reviewed a use-of-force complaint at its July meeting and heard from department staff that body-worn camera footage did not support allegations of excessive force or a First Amendment violation.
Adam (Speaker 5), presenting the monthly complaint report for May and June 2025, said the incident began as a dispatched report of a battery in progress at Heartland Healthcare. According to Adam, "the body camera evidence did not support the allegation of excessive force or a first amendment violation." He also told the board that the complaint’s disposition was listed as "exonerated" and that a findings letter was pending to be sent to the people involved.
Board members pressed staff on the intake process. Doug (Speaker 4) asked, "How was this complaint submitted? Was it written or did he come in and was he interviewed?" and whether investigators had clarified what rights the complainant believed were violated. Another board member noted the complaint referenced several constitutional amendments (First, Third and Seventh) and asked whether the complainant may have misstated which right was at issue.
Adam said the allegation was recorded by the Office of Professional Accountability and that he would follow up to confirm whether intake staff had asked the complainant to clarify the rights being alleged. "I don't have the answer off the top of my head, but I will find out," Adam said.
The board’s questions focused on making the publicly accessible complaint record clearer for readers and on ensuring investigators capture what complainants mean when they reference constitutional protections. The board did not take formal action to reopen or alter the disposition; the reported finding remained "exonerated." A findings letter to the involved parties was described as pending.
The board also requested that staff report back with any clarifications about how the complaint intake was recorded and whether intake staff sought to confirm which amendment or right the complainant intended to allege.
