Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Use Of Force Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Civilian Review Board accepts IG findings, asks chain of command to review use-of-force for minor misdemeanors
Summary
The Columbus Civilian Review Board voted to accept Inspector General determinations in a batch of cases and asked the police chain of command to review policies on use of force in minor-misdemeanor encounters, chase/no‑chase guidance and whether to note open investigations in personnel files when officers leave during investigations.
The Columbus Civilian Review Board voted Wednesday to accept the Department of Inspector General's findings in a series of complaint reviews and directed the police chain of command to analyze use-of-force guidance in encounters arising from minor misdemeanors.
Inspector General staff presented monthly case summaries and the board's subcommittees moved to concur with DIG conclusions across multiple files, including determinations that several allegations were unfounded. During discussion of case 876, which involved a jaywalking stop that ended with a tackle, members and legal advisers focused on whether force used to stop a person fleeing for a minor misdemeanor can be justified under current policy.
Pastor Nathan, presenting the subcommittee findings, summarized the committee's recommendation and suggested a simple directive for certain low-level encounters: "If my recommendation would be that this not be a totality of circumstances... a simple statement that if somebody doesn't comply they're allowed to flee," he said. The board agreed to request a formal review by the chain of command of how use-of-force is applied in cases such as jaywalking or littering.
Legal advisors and a former prosecutor told members that use-of-force determinations are fact-specific and assessed under a totality-of-the-circumstances standard; they said force for a minor misdemeanor is unlikely to be reasonable absent additional risk factors, such as an observed hand-to-hand narcotics exchange, a weapon or a felony warrant.
Board members also raised two related policy questions for staff and counsel to research and present at a future meeting: whether the department's chase/no‑chase guidance needs revision to address low-level offenses, and whether personnel records should include a notation when an officer retires or resigns while an investigation remains open. The board said it will await clarification from the attorney of record about how such notations would comport with current policies and any collective-bargaining constraints.
The board carried the motion to accept the DIG findings and forwarded the policy-review requests without altering the investigative outcomes. The Inspector General's office said it will provide the relevant directives and reports requested by the board for the next meeting.
The board also discussed scheduling the annual report: the Inspector General said staff will begin compiling material in December and expects finalization by late January, with submission to City Council by the end of the first quarter.
