Kissimmee advisory board reviews scope of its authority and KPD internal affairs process

The Kissimmee Police Advisory Board met and approved the previous meeting's minutes by voice vote before taking up a series of presentations on the board's authority and the Police Department's internal affairs process.

Assistant City Attorney and police legal adviser Curtis McGhaney told the board that the city ordinance frames the board as an advisory body: "This is straight from the city ordinance," he said, adding that the chief of police retains control of departmental operations and that the board's principal role is to request reviews of department policies and issue findings or recommendations based on those reviews.

McGhaney told the panel that a 2024 state legislative change limits the board's access to closed internal-affairs cases, leaving policy review as the primary avenue for oversight. He said the ordinance permits the board to request full reviews of KPD rules and to make findings ranging from approval to disapproval with stated reasons.

Carlos Espinosa, KPD's internal affairs manager, presented General Order 202 and described how the department handles complaints. "My name is Carlos Espinosa. I'm the internal affairs manager," he said, and explained that every complaint is logged and handled either as an inquiry (a low-level review that may be closed when satisfied) or a formal internal investigation, with either path requiring chief authorization.

Espinosa reviewed typical misconduct categories—including alleged excessive force, false arrest and custodial deaths—and laid out disposition categories used by the department: sustained (supported by a preponderance of evidence), not sustained, and exonerated. He explained that disciplinary authority follows the chain of command and that termination requires authorization by the chief of police or the city manager.

He also described state reporting and certification processes, including Form 78 filings and the Brady-related reporting procedures that, when triggered, can affect an officer's certification. Espinosa said some cases are referred to criminal investigators first; the administrative (internal affairs) timeline typically begins after any criminal process concludes.

Board members pressed for timing clarity: one asked whether the department's 180-day administrative timeline starts at the conclusion of a criminal investigation. Espinosa answered that the administrative clock starts when the criminal phase is resolved or when other delays (such as unavailability of a subject) conclude. He added the department seeks thorough investigations and aims to complete many cases in the 60–180 day window, acknowledging complexity can extend timelines.

Espinosa also summarized the appeals and short-form discipline options: officers can appeal discipline up the chain of command to the city manager, and a short-form process can expedite low-level matters when an officer accepts a quick reprimand.

Members asked to schedule two specific policy reviews for upcoming meetings: KPD's interaction with federal immigration enforcement and the department's use-of-force policy. Staff indicated both topics could be placed on future agendas and reminded the board that KPD's general orders and policies are available online for review.

McGhaney and staff said the department is preparing an annual transparency report (covering use-of-force incidents, complaint counts, investigations and dispositions) to be published midyear and distributed to the board.

The meeting ended after the presentations and Q&A; the board set priorities for future meetings and adjourned.