Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Case 25 0641 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Civilian Police Review Board sends case 25-0641 back to Inspector General for further follow-up
Summary
The board voted to return case 25-0641 to the Department of the Inspector General for additional investigation, including interviewing the officer involved and checking whether the adult connected to the underlying criminal matter was charged; members also asked for a review of investigator training.
The Civilian Police Review Board voted to return case number 25-0641 to the Department of the Inspector General (DIG) for additional follow-up, including an interview of the officer involved and a check on whether the adult connected to the underlying criminal matter was charged.
The motion, moved by a board member (Speaker 5) and seconded by another board member (Speaker 7), instructed the DIG to collect additional information while about 40 days remained on the 90-day investigative timeline. "I move that the DIG's office reopen the investigation 20 20 five-zero 6 4 1 to specifically interview the officer to ask him or her about, that incident and what specifically happened to provide more context," the mover said during the meeting.
Why it matters: the complaint alleges that a detective's remarks implied a 12-year-old girl bore responsibility for receiving obscene material; the DIG initially closed the matter administratively because investigators found no body-worn camera footage and the complainant could not provide specific verbatim details. Several board members said the nature of the alleged remark merited further inquiry and that interviewing the officer could clarify whether the officer made the comment or whether the complaint reflected the complainant's interpretation.
Board debate and context: the DIG's office explained detectives on the unit in question do not routinely wear body-worn cameras, that telephone recordings were not available, and that the complainant was unable to offer additional specifics after five outreach attempts. Inspector Jerome (Inspector General) described the office's process and noted quarterly follow-ups with CPD when findings differ. Board members pressed whether the DIG had interviewed the detective and whether the office had provided precinct-level trends to CPD; some members asked for greater outreach to complainants and an expanded feedback mechanism so residents and officers can report on their experience with investigations.
Training and next steps: the board also requested a review of the learning objectives for upcoming trauma-informed, victim-engagement training the DIG plans to deliver; the DIG said a session with Julia Long from the city attorney's office was scheduled and that the topic would be covered in training on January 20. The reopening motion also asked the DIG to verify whether the adult involved in the underlying criminal matter had been charged, which board members said could provide prosecutorial context relevant to the review.
Outcome: the board approved the motion by voice vote. The chair instructed staff to record the motion and its instructions in the minutes; the DIG will report back to the board with the requested follow-up.
