Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Sop topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pendergrass council reviews rewritten police SOP amid allegations of past misconduct
Summary
City councilors reviewed a rewritten police standard operating procedure and raised questions about improper-arrest language, evidence-room access, background checks and alleged past officer misconduct; the council intends to vote on the SOP at a future meeting.
The Pendergrass City Council met in a June 9 work session to review a rewritten police standard operating procedure (SOP), hear questions from council members and take public comment. Speaker 2, who opened the session, said: "The current business is the new SOP. Chief Pool was here to answer any questions about it."
Council members pressed staff on whether the redraft explicitly addresses unlawful or improper arrests and the procedures that should follow. Speaker 4 said the draft did not include specific language on improper arrests and offered to locate the appropriate section, adding the city is updating multiple chapters that had not been revised since the mid-2000s.
The council also sought clarity on evidence-room security. Staff said there would be a primary evidence custodian and a backup; "those two are the only ones to have keys to it," a council member summarized. Councillors noted past practices in which nonemployees had key access and flagged the potential for evidence mishandling.
Speaker 4 raised detailed allegations about prior conduct by a named officer, describing a pattern of incidents that included alleged excessive force and improper sharing of intimate photos: "[the lieutenant] pinned the prisoner down, stepped on his back, kicked him... went into an employee's phone, looked at her nudie picture... shared it with all the officers." The council debated how the SOP would document investigatory steps and discipline. No formal rebuttal or investigative finding was recorded on the record during the work session.
Council members also questioned past hiring and vetting practices. The transcript records discussion about Kurt Davis, hired under former leadership, and whether background and psychological checks had been completed for prior hires; staff said not all past hires had documented checks and that the city will apply the revised personnel policy going forward. A staff speaker said recent hires had received background checks and that the city conducts external audits in addition to internal logs.
Speakers raised oversight and complaint pathways, including references to state certification rules and a state-level regulator (described in the meeting as "POST") that governs officer certification. Council members asked whether misuse of the criminal-information system (referred to in the meeting as GCIC) and other data-access issues are covered in the SOP; staff said there are chapters addressing GCIC and related audits.
The council did not vote on the SOP during the work session. Speaker 2 said the redraft could be brought to the next regular council meeting for formal consideration and that the document may be tweaked further before adoption. The session concluded with staff and council agreeing to additional review and to refer specific complaints and investigatory questions to appropriate outside agencies if warranted.
Next steps: the council plans to place the revised SOP on the agenda for a future meeting for formal consideration and vote once staff incorporates clarifications requested by council members.
