1 - cover page2011 3q2011 report · internal affairs (ia) ... (including the involved ofﬁ...

Police and Sheriff Discipline and Critical Incident Report

Richard RosenthalIndependent Monitor

DENVERThe Mile High City

Offi ce of the Independent Monitor

Third Quarter 2011

Table of Contents

PAGE

Chapter 1: Critical Incident Report

Introduction and Overview 1 - 3

DPD Investigation and Review Protocol 1 - 4

DPD Shooting Cases Pending at End of the Quarter 1 - 5

DPD In-Custody Death Cases Pending at End of the Quarter 1 - 5

DPD Shooting & In-Custody Death Cases Closed During the Quarter 1 - 6

DSD Investigation and Review Protocol 1 - 7

DSD In-Custody Death Cases Pending at End of the Quarter 1 - 8

DSD In-Custody Death Cases Closed During the Quarter 1 - 8

Chapter 2: DPD New Complaints, Sustained Findings, and Discipline

New Complaints by Month Received 2 - 3

Internal Affairs (IA) Allegations Received by Case Type 2 - 3

Sustained Allegations on Formal Investigations by Month Closed 2 - 4

Denver Police Department Disciplinary Matrix Defi nitions 2 - 4

Discipline on Sustained Allegations Closed During the Quarter 2 - 5

DPD Commendations Received During the Quarter 2 - 7

Chapter 3: DSD New Complaints, Sustained Findings, and Discipline

New Complaints by Month Received 3 - 3

Internal Affairs (IA) Allegations by Month Received 3 - 3

Sustained Allegations For IA Cases by Month Closed 3 - 4

Discipline on Sustained Sheriff Department Reprimands 3 - 4

Discipline on Sustained Internal Affairs Cases 3 - 5

DSD Commendations Received During the Quarter 3 - 6

Chapter 4: Update on DPD Actions to Ensure Adequate Enforcement of DUI Laws 4 - 1

Chapter 5: No Evidence of Cheating on Sheriff Sergeant Promotional Exam as Alleged in an Anonymous Complaint 5 - 1

1-1

Critical Incident Report

1-3

Critical Incident Response

Introduction and Overview

In order to ensure transparency in the investigation and review of critical incidents (offi cer-involved shootings and in-custody deaths) involving the Denver Police and Sheriff Departments (“Departments”), the Offi ce of the Independent Monitor (“OIM”) submits this report each quarter regarding the status of investigations into these incidents and disciplinary decisions made, if any, by the Departments regarding offi cer conduct.

In all offi cer-involved shootings and in-custody deaths, the Denver Police Department (DPD) is initially charged with conducting a criminal investigation to determine whether any person should be held criminally liable for the death or serious bodily injury of any person killed or injured as the result of a law enforcement action. Thus, DPD’s Homicide Bureau and the District Attorney’s Offi ce immediately respond to the scene of all critical incidents to commence an investigation. In addition, the OIM responds to each critical incident scene for a walkthrough of the scene (consistent with the constraints of Fourth Amendment privacy rights) and a debriefi ng from command staff about the incident. Homicide detectives spend considerable time and effort interviewing all witnesses, every involved offi cer, and obtaining appropriate reports from all involved parties. The OIM monitors all video interviews conducted by the Homicide Unit and is given the opportunity to suggest additional questions to be asked at the conclusion of each interview. After the criminal investigation is complete, the administrative investigation and review process begins.

Timeliness

Timeliness of investigations is essential to ensure the integrity of Internal Affairs processes. Timely investigations are benefi cial to those employees involved in the administrative review process and uninvolved peers, sending a strong message that adherence to departmental rules, policies, and procedures is important and that employees who violate such rules, policies, and procedures will be held accountable for any wrongdoing. It also affords the Police and Sheriff Departments the opportunity to amend in a timely fashion any of the rules, policies, and procedures for the safety of its offi cers and for the community in general. Additionally, timely investigations send a message to the public that the Departments adequately police themselves, ensuring the credibility of the administrative and disciplinary processes.

The OIM has established a goal that the DPD and DSD resolve critical incident investigations within six months of the incident. It must be acknowledged, however, that some cases will take longer to complete, due to their complexity or where policy violations are identifi ed and discipline must be imposed.

1-4

DENVER POLICE DEPARTMENT

Officer-Involved Shooting and In-Custody Death Investigation and Review Protocol

In all cases where a Denver police offi cer intentionally discharges his or her fi rearm at a person or where a person dies in police custody, the incident is automatically investigated by the Homicide Unit of the Denver Police Department under the supervision of the Denver District Attorney’s Offi ce. The investigation is actively monitored by the OIM. The District Attorney’s Offi ce and the OIM are both notifi ed as part of the critical incident roll-out protocol. The District Attorney’s Offi ce is primarily concerned with determining whether the involved offi cer(s) committed any violation of the criminal law; the OIM is primarily concerned with potential violations of DPD rules, procedures and policies.

Once the District Attorney has decided whether it will fi le criminal charges against anyone involved in the incident (including the involved offi cer(s)), the Homicide Unit’s reports are submitted to the DPD Internal Affairs Bureau to commence the administrative investigation to determine whether the involved offi cer(s)’ actions are in violation of any DPD rule, policy, or procedure. The OIM confers with Internal Affairs to determine whether further investigation is necessary from an administrative perspective. Once the administrative investigation is completed, the case is then submitted to a DPD Use-of-Force Board (consisting of the Police Department’s four Division Chiefs and two civilian volunteers and chaired by the Commander of Internal Affairs) to determine whether any violations of the DPD’s use-of-force policies have occurred. The OIM is present during all Use-of-Force Board proceedings and deliberations.

If the Use-of-Force Board fi nds that the offi cer’s actions were in compliance with DPD policy (“in-policy”), the case is forwarded to the Chief of Police for his review. If the Chief of Police and the OIM agree there were no policy violations (in non-fatal shootings), the case is closed and no further administrative action is taken. If the incident involves a fatal shooting, the Manager of Safety makes the fi nal determination and issues a public report.

If the Use-of-Force Board fi nds that the offi cer’s actions were in violation of any Department policy (“out-of-policy”), the Use-of-Force Board then makes a recommendation to the Chief of Police as to whether the offi cer should be disciplined. The offi cer is then given the opportunity to respond to the allegations and provide any mitigating statements to the Chief of Police at a “Chief’s Hearing” (also known as a pre-disciplinary meeting). The OIM will also make a disciplinary recommendation to the Chief of Police. Both the Chief’s recommendation and that of the OIM are forwarded to the Manager of Safety for his or her consideration.

If the Monitor disagrees with a recommendation made by the Use-of-Force Board or the Chief of Police, that recommendation will be forwarded to the Manager of Safety, who is the ultimate decision-maker regarding such issues.

On a quarterly basis and in an Annual Report which is released by March 15th of each year, the Independent Monitor reports to the public on all disciplinary orders issued by the Manager of Safety and specifi cally reports if the Monitor believes a decision was unreasonable. Also, within approximately six months of any critical incident, the Manager of Safety issues his or her own public statement on all police shootings resulting in a death or where the shooting has resulted in an injury and has been found to have been “out-of-policy.”

1-5

Table 1.1 DPD Officer-Involved Shooting Cases Pending Administrative

Review as of the end of the 3rd Quarter 2011

Date Summary Status

August 6, 2011

A home invasion robber was shot and killed by two offi cers after committing a serious assault and discharging his fi rearm in the presence of his victim. The suspect was confronted by offi cers after leading police on a high-speed chase. The suspect was shot after pointing his fi rearm at another offi cer.

A District Attorney shooting letter was issued on August 19, 2011, concluding that no criminal charges would be fi led against the involved offi cers. See: www.denverda.org/News_Release/Offi cer-involved_shooting_investigations.htm).

The Homicide Bureau investigation was submitted to Internal Affairs on September 26, 2011. According to Homicide Bureau Command Staff, the fi ve-week delay was attributable to high case loads amongst Homicide Detectives. The case is pending the scheduling of a Use-of-Force Review Board.

Table 1.2 DPD In-Custody Death Cases Pending Administrative Review as of

the end of the 3rd Quarter 2011

Date Summary Status

July 18, 2011

A man died after being restrained by Denver Zoo security and Denver Police Offi cers.

The case is pending completion of an investigation by the Homicide Bureau. The completion of the investigation has been delayed while investigators await autopsy and toxicology reports from the Medical Examiner’s Offi ce.

1-6

Table 1.3Officer-Involved Shooting and In-Custody Death Cases Closed in

the 3rd Quarter 2011

Date Summary Status

None

1-7

DENVER SHERIFF DEPARTMENT

In-Custody Death Investigation and Review Protocol

In all cases where a person dies while in the custody of the Denver Sheriff Department (DSD), the incident is automatically investigated by the Homicide Unit of the Denver Police Department. The investigation is actively monitored by the OIM. The Sheriff Internal Affairs Bureau and the OIM are notifi ed as part of the critical incident roll-out protocol. If the in-custody death is believed to have been the result of actions by an employee or other inmate, the District Attorney’s Offi ce is notifi ed in order to respond to the scene and supervise the criminal investigation. The District Attorney is primarily concerned with determining whether the involved offi cer(s) or inmate(s) committed any violation of the criminal law; the OIM is primarily concerned with potential violations of Sheriff Department rules and policies.

Once the District Attorney has made a fi ling decision (in those cases where an offi cer is alleged to have caused a death), the Homicide reports are submitted to the Sheriff Internal Affairs Bureau for its review and handling. The Sheriff Internal Affairs Bureau will usually conduct additional investigation of the incident as necessary. The OIM monitors any subsequent Internal Affairs investigation to ensure that it is thorough and complete. Once the investigation is deemed complete, it is submitted to the appropriate Division Chief for review and fi ndings.

If the Division Chief fi nds that the involved offi cer’s actions were in compliance with Sheriff Department policy (“in-policy”), the case is forwarded to the Director of Corrections (“Director”). If the Director agrees there were no policy violations, the case is closed. The OIM reviews the Division Chief’s fi ndings and makes recommendations to the Director and the Manager of Safety.

If the Division Chief, the Director, or the Manager of Safety fi nds that the involved offi cer’s actions were in violation of any Department policy (“out-of-policy”), the case is referred to the Director for a “Pre-Disciplinary Hearing.” That hearing is attended by the Department’s three Division Chiefs and is chaired by the Director of Corrections. The OIM observes the hearing and the deliberations of the Command Staff. At that hearing, the involved deputy is given the opportunity to present his or her side of the story including any mitigating factors that might exist. After hearing from the involved deputy, the OIM makes disciplinary recommendations to the Director. Both the Director’s recommendation and those of the OIM are forwarded to the Manager of Safety for consideration. The Manager of Safety determines whether the deputy’s actions were “in-policy” or “out-of-policy” and the appropriate level of discipline, if any.

On a quarterly basis and in an Annual Report, which is released by March 15th of each year, the Independent Monitor reports to the public on all disciplinary orders issued by the Manager of Safety.

1-8

Table 1.4DSD In-Custody Death Cases Pending Administrative Review at

the end of the 3rd Quarter 2011

Date Summary Status

May 28, 2011 In-custody medical death at the Denver Detention Center.

The internal affairs investigation was pending as of the end of the quarter.

Date Summary Status

None

Table 1.5DSD In-Custody Deaths Cases

Closed in the 3rd Quarter 2011

2-1

Denver Police

New Complaints, Sustained Findings,

and Discipline

2-3

Denver Police Department (DPD) Complaints and Allegations

Table 2.1 New DPD Complaints by Month Received

Table 2.1 provides the number of new citizen and internal complaints received in the third quarter of 2011. Please note

July 2011

August 2011

Sept. 2011 Total

Citizen 46 47 49 142 Column % 88% 76% 94% 86%Internal 6 15 3 24

Column % 12% 24% 6% 14%

Total 52 62 52 166

TABLE 2.2 DPD Allegations Reported

Table 2.2 shows the types of citizen/internal allegations reported during the quarter.

that citizen and internal complaint numbers do not include scheduled discipline cases, such as when a DPD offi cer violates a traffi c law, gets into a preventable traffi c accident, or misses a court date, shooting qualifi cation, or continuing education class.

Allegation1Citizen

AllegationsInternal

Allegations Total PercentDiscourtesy 70 1 71 26.7%Responsibilities To Serve Public 47 0 47 17.7%Improper Procedure - Other 35 10 45 16.9%Inappropriate/Unnecessary Force 32 1 33 12.4%Biased Policing 11 0 11 4.1%Failure to Make or File Reports 11 0 11 4.1%Search & Seizure 9 0 9 3.4%Discrim., Harassment, and Retaliation 6 0 6 2.3%Impartial Attitude 6 0 6 2.3%Conduct Prohibited by Law 3 2 5 1.9%Improper Procedure - Pursuit 0 4 4 1.5%Conduct Prejudicial 3 1 4 1.5%Intimidation of Persons 3 0 3 1.1%Failure to Give Name/Badge Number 3 0 3 1.1%Careless Handling of Dept. Property 0 2 2 0.8%Personal Family Disputes 1 1 2 0.8%Law Violation - DUI 0 2 2 0.8%Respect for Fellow Offi cer 0 1 1 0.4%Mistreatment of Prisoners 1 0 1 0.4%

Total 241 25 266 100%1 Note: Two allegations that have been previously categorized under “Improper Procedure-Other” are broken out as separate categories in this report--”Search & Seizure” and “Biased Policing.”

2-4

TABLE 2.3 Sustained Allegations for Citizen and Internal

Complaints by Month Closed

Table 2.3 compares the number of “sustained” to “not sustained” allegations resulting from formal investigations of citizen and internal complaints for the third quarter of 2011.

* Note: “Not sustained” includes those allegations subjected to a formal investigation that resulted in a fi nding of “unfounded,” “exonerated,” or “not sustained.”

July 2011

August 2011

Sept. 2011

Sustained 3 9 7

Column % 60% 82% 44%

Not Sustained 2 2 9

Column % 40% 18% 56%

Total 5 11 16

Table 2.4Denver Police Department Matrix Definitions

Category AConduct that has a minimal negative impact on the operations or professional image of the

Department.Category B

Conduct that has more than a minimal negative impact on the operations or professional image of the Department; or that negatively impacts relationships with other offi cers,

agencies or the public.

Category C Conduct that has a pronounced negative impact on the operations or professional image of

the Department, or on relationships with other offi cers, agencies or the public.

Category DConduct substantially contrary to the values of the Department or that substantially interferes with its mission, operations or professional image, or that involves a demonstrable serious

risk to offi cer or public safety.

Category EConduct that involves the serious abuse or misuse of authority, unethical behavior, or an act that results in an actual serious and adverse impact on offi cer or public safety or to the

professionalism of the Department.

Category FAny violation of law, rule or policy which: foreseeably results in death or serious bodily injury; or constitutes a willful and wanton disregard of Department values; or involves any act which demonstrates a serious lack of the integrity, ethics or character related to an offi cer’s fi tness to hold the position of police offi cer; or involves egregious misconduct substantially contrary to the standards of conduct reasonably expected of one whose sworn duty is to uphold the law; or involves any conduct which constitutes the failure to adhere to any contractual

condition of employment or requirement of certifi cation mandated by law.

2-5

TABLE 2.5 DPD Discipline on Sustained Citizen and Internal

Complaint Allegations Closed Third Quarter 2011

(table continued on the next page)

Case Type

Rank Incident Summary

Complaint Finding Matrix Category Discipline

Case 1: Internal Offi cer

Improper Procedure - Other

Offi cer's AR15 rifl e was stolen from his personal vehicle after the offi cer left it unsecured in the vehicle in violation of policy.

SustainedPresumptive Category C w/prior violation

3 Days Suspended Time


Law Violation-Other

Offi cer was arrested for suspicion of D.U.I. outside of Denver.

Sustained Aggravated Category D


Case 3: Citizen Detective

Misleading or Inaccurate Statements

The subject offi cer failed to fi le an arrest warrant properly and completed inaccurate documentation during the course of a criminal investigation. The subject offi cer had inappropriate contacts with the subject of the investigation.

Sustained Presumptive Category D


Conduct Prejudicial Sustained Presumptive

Category D



SustainedMitigated Category E w/prior violation


Case 4: Citizen Offi cer


Subject offi cer unloaded a fi rearm at DIA in a public location.

Sustained Mitigated Category C

1 Day Fined Time

Case 5: Citizen Offi cer Discourtesy

Subject offi cer used unnecessary profanity while issuing a parking citation.

Sustained Aggravated Category B

1 Day Fined Time

Case 6: Citizen Offi cer Discourtesy

Subject offi cer used profanity over the PA system in an attempt to get a bus to pull over.

Sustained Presumptive Category B

Written Reprimand

Case 7: Internal Detective

Rough/Careless Handling of Departmental Property

The subject offi cer lost a department issued portable radio.


Written Reprimand

Case 8: Citizen Offi cer

Failure to Make or File Reports

The subject offi cer failed to take a report on an allegation of domestic violence.


Written Reprimand

Resp. To Serve Public Sustained Presumptive

Category B Written Reprimand

2-6

Case Type

Rank Incident Summary

Complaint Finding Matrix Category Discipline

Case 9: Internal Lieutenant


The subject offi cer inappropriately allowed a relative to access a secure area at DIA.


Written Reprimand



Subject offi cer was disqualifi ed from the classifi ed service after suffering a misdemeanor domestic violence related conviction.

Sustained Presumptive Category F Dismissed

Case 11: Citizen

Offi cer 1Improper Procedure - Other Subject offi cers failed to

notify a supervisor after force was used to subdue a suspect for tresspassing.


Written Reprimand

Offi cer 2Improper Procedure - Other


Written Reprimand

Case 12: Internal Sergeant

Failure to Make or File Reports

Subject supervisor failed to submit a use-of-force investigation for command review after a use-of-force by subordinate offi cers.


Written Reprimand

TABLE 2.5 (continued)

2-7

TABLE 2.6 DPD Commendations Received in the

Third Quarter of 20111

CommendationThird Quarter

2011 Third Quarter

Percent

Offi cial Commendation 87 60.8%

STAR Award 22 15.4%

Merit Award 15 10.5%

Life Saving Award 5 3.5%

Leadership Award 4 2.8%

Department Service Award 3 2.1%

Citizens Appreciate Police Award 2 1.4%

Commendatory Letter 2 1.4%

Community Service Award 2 1.4%

Purple Heart 1 0.7%

Distinguished Service Cross 0 0.0%

Medal of Honor 0 0.0%

Medal of Valor 0 0.0%

Citizen Letter of Appreciation n/a2 n/a

Total 143 100%1 Commendation counts were provided by the Denver Police Professional Standards Unit. 2 The DPD updated its process for recording citizen letters of appreciation during the third quarter of 2011. As a result, counts relating to these types of commendations will not be available until the 4th quarter of 2011.

3-1

Denver Sheriff

New Complaints, Sustained Findings,

and Discipline

3-3

Denver Sheriff Department (DSD) Complaints and Allegations

Table 3.1 New DSD Internal Affairs Complaints

by Month Received

Table 3.1 reports the num-ber of internal affairs com-plaints fi led in the third quarter of 2011. Please note that these fi gures do not include complaints against civilian employees or divi-sion-level personnel com-plaints fi led by a deputy’s direct supervisor.

Table 3.2DSD Internal Affairs Complaint Allegations

by Month Received

Table 3.2 provides a break-down of the DSD internal affairs complaint allega-tions fi led in the third quar-ter of 2011.

Month Frequency Percentage

July 2011 23 30%

August 2011 33 43%

September 2011 21 27% Total 77 100%

AllegationsJuly 2011

August 2011

Sept. 2011 Total

Excessive Force 0 2 1 3 Column % 0% 5% 4% 4%Improper Conduct 0 5 1 6 Column % 0% 14% 4% 7%Improper Procedure 13 12 6 31 Column % 54% 32% 25% 36%Law Violation 0 2 3 5 Column % 0% 5% 13% 6%Lost Property 5 6 2 13 Column % 21% 16% 8% 15%Service Complaint 6 9 10 25 Column % 25% 24% 42% 29%Other 0 1 1 2 Column % 0% 3% 4% 2%

Total 24 37 24 85

3-4

TABLE 3.3 Sustained Allegations for Internal Affairs Cases

by Month Closed

TABLE 3.4Disciplinary Outcomes on Sustained Sheriff

Department ReprimandsClosed in the Third Quarter 2011

Outcomes on Sustained Internal Affairs and Reprimand Complaints

The next two tables provide descriptive information on sustained reprimand and internal affairs cases closed during the quarter. For reprimand cases, which are complaints issued by a deputy’s direct supervisor (and which are not investigated by Internal Affairs), we report the allegation type and the disciplinary outcome (Table 3.4). For complaints investigated by Internal Affairs, we report the case type, number of offi cers involved, rank, complaint type, incident summary, fi nding, and discipline imposed for cases closed during the quarter (Table 3.5).

* Note: “Not sustained” includes allegations subjected to a formal investigation that resulted in a fi nding of “unfounded,” “exonerated,” or “not sustained.”

July 2011

August 2011

Sept. 2011

Sustained 10 14 6 Column % 67% 42% 67%Not Sustained* 5 19 3 Column % 33% 58% 33%

Total 15 33 9

Complaint Description Written VerbalCautionary

Letter

Failure to Participate in Firearms Program 1 6 0

Careless Performance of Duties 1 0 0

Total 2 6 0

3-5

TABLE 3.5 Discipline on Sustained Internal Affairs Cases

Closed in the Third Quarter

Case Rank Complaint Incident Summary Finding Discipline

Case 1 Deputy Sheriff

Improper Procedure

Unauthorized leave with prior discipline. Sustained 2 Days

Suspended


Improper Procedure

Subject Deputy used Department letterhead to create a promissory note for a personal loan.

Sustained Written Reprimand

Case 3 Sergeant Improper Procedure

Subject Deputy allowed an unauthorized visit by another Deputy to a Deputy in custody on serious felony charges.

Sustained Written Reprimand


Improper Procedure Preventable Collision Sustained Written

Reprimand


Improper Procedure Unauthorized leave. Sustained Verbal

Reprimand


Improper Procedure

Unauthorized leave with prior discipline. Sustained 3 days

Suspended


Improper Procedure


Suspended


Improper Procedure


Suspended


Improper Procedure


Suspended


Improper Procedure Preventable Collision Sustained Verbal

Reprimand



Reprimand



Reprimand



Reprimand

3-6

TABLE 3.6 DSD Commendations Received in the

Third Quarter of 20111

Commendations3rd Quarter

20113rd Quarter

PercentLetters of Appreciation (from Supervisors/Director) 42 65%Commendations (from Supervisors/Director) 15 23%Employee of the Month (Downtown) 3 5%Employee of the Month (COJL) 3 5%Employee of the Quarter (DSD) 2 3%Community Service Award 0 0%Distinguished Service Award 0 0%#1 Academic Award 0 0%#1 Defensive Tactic Award 0 0%#1 Physical Fitness Award 0 0%Most Improved Physical Fitness 0 0%Top Gun 0 0%Valedictorian 0 0%Academy Medal 0 0%Merit Award 0 0%Life Saving Award 0 0%Purple Heart 0 0%Medal of Valor 0 0%

Total 65 100%1 Commendation counts were provided by the Denver Sheriff Department.

Chapter 4Update on DPD

Actions to Ensure Adequate Enforcement

of DUI Laws

In the Monitor’s second quarterly report, the Monitor identifi ed an area of concern relating to an absence of arrests of off-duty DPD offi cers for driving under the infl uence of alcohol within the City & County of Denver, except where they had been involved in a DUI-related traffi c collision.

At the time of the issuance of the last quarterly report, the Denver Police Department agreed to take the following actions:

1. The Patrol Division will prepare a Departmental Directive that will require any patrol offi cer who stops an off-duty police offi cer who exhibits any sign of potential alcohol intoxication to immediately call a supervisor to the scene. The supervisor will be required to notify the District Commander, in writing, of the results of that call-out, whether or not an arrest is made, and, if no arrest is made, the justifi cation for that decision. All documentation of the call-out will be for-warded to the Internal Affairs Bureau for documentation and monitoring by the Monitor’s Offi ce.

2. The Patrol Division will include specifi c training for all Patrol Sergeants in its curriculum for ongoing, in-service training for supervisors, which will highlight the issues raised in this report as well as other ethical issues relating to the preferential treatment of persons based on their pro-fessional affi liation.

As of the end of the quarter, however, the Department did not disseminate a Departmental Directive as indicated above. Instead, the Chief forwarded a draft Directive, for issuance by the Manager of Safety, applying to any public offi cial or criminal justice employee. That Directive is currently under review by the Manager of Safety and the City Attorney’s Offi ce.

In addition, the Monitor has been informed that the Professional Standards Unit has included in ongo-ing in-service training for Department Sergeants references to current Department policies requiring that supervisors report any allegations of misconduct, including conduct prohibited by law, to Internal Affairs.

Update on DPD Actions to Ensure Adequate Enforcement of DUI Laws

Chapter 5No Evidence of

Cheating on Sheriff Sergeant

Promotional Exam as Alleged in an

Anonymous Complaint

Introduction

In a letter dated May 14, 2011, an unknown person sent an anonymous letter to the members of the media and the Director of Corrections/Undersheriff which claimed that s/he was a person who took the Denver Sheriff Sergeant promotional examination on April 13, 2011 and that s/he was provided with a copy of the test in advance by a Sheriff Major. The anonymous person claimed to be “sorry, regretful and embarrassed” and reported that s/he provided copies of the test to three other appli-cants. The writer further alleged that “about fi ve, possibly six” deputies received the answers to the test and, thereby, cheated on the exam.

This letter called into question the credibility of the Sheriff Sergeant promotional process. Upon receiving the letter, the Director of Corrections/Undersheriff promptly initiated a full investigation into the cheating allegation, during which the below described steps were taken.

Test Results Were Examined Quantitatively for Indicators of Cheating

The Sheriff’s Department had the test results evaluated by an international expert in cheating detec-tion methods. In addition, the Monitor’s Research Analyst1 compared quantitatively the 2011 test results to similar promotional tests administered in 2007 and 2008.

Neither evaluations of the test identifi ed any patterns that would be consistent with cheating or col-lusion. The outside expert found “…no evidence of cheating by collusion.” He also found that the distribution was “…what one would expect if there were no cheating.” The Monitor’s Analyst reported that “…the distributional characteristics of the 2011 exam results were very similar to earlier promo-tional exams. Nothing in the distribution of the 2011 scores indicates cheating or collusion among a group of deputies.” The Monitor’s Analyst also found that the 2011 results had “…a smooth, approxi-mately normal distribution that is almost identical in shape to the two previous exams.” Moreover, there was “…no noticeable outlier group of deputies clustered at the top of the distribution in 2011” as would have been expected if the anonymous letter writer’s allegations were true.2

The Denver Police Internal Affairs Bureau Assisted with the Internal Investigation

In addition to having the test results analyzed, the Director of Corrections requested that the Police Department’s Internal Affairs Bureau interview members of the Sheriff committee that created the

No Evidence of Cheating on Sheriff Sergeant Promotional Exam

as Alleged in an Anonymous Complaint

1 The Monitor’s Analyst is a former university professor with a Ph.D. in sociology and a background in statistical analysis.

2 No applicant scored higher than 89% on the 2011 promotional test. If, in fact, multiple applicants had been provided with the answers to the test, it seems unlikely that they all would have purposely scored lower than an 89%, especially since none of the applicants knew in advance what the cut-off would be for a passing score.

Sergeant promotional examination. Based on the information obtained from these interviews, there is no reason to believe that any Sheriff Major had access to the test such that s/he could have pro-vided a copy of the test to anyone.

The Police Department’s Crime Lab examined the anonymous letter that was received by the Depart-ment and found no physical evidence that could be used to identify the anonymous writer.

Completion of the Internal Investigation

Finally, the Sheriff Department’s Internal Affairs Bureau contacted all deputies who took the examina-tion to ensure that no deputy had any information which would either prove or disprove the cheating allegation. No deputy identifi ed him or herself as having any further information to provide regarding the cheating allegation.

Conclusion

Overall, it is the Monitor’s judgment that there is no credible evidence of cheating on this promotional exam. The Director of Corrections/Undersheriff took these allegations seriously, acted quickly, and obtained the assistance of an International Cheating Detection Expert, the Denver Police Depart-ment, and the Monitor’s Offi ce in order to conduct a thorough and complete investigation into the anonymous complaint. A Sheriff Department internal investigation was also conducted. None of these efforts produced any evidence to support the information in the anonymous letter. The Monitor concurs with the Department’s decision to take no further action on this complaint.

Office of the Independent MonitorWellington E. Webb Municipal Office Building

201 W. Colfax, Dept. 1201denver, Co 80202

Phone (720) 913-3306Fax: (720) 913-3305

http://www.denvergov.org/oim

1 - cover page2011 3q2011 report · internal affairs (ia) ... (including the involved ofﬁ...

Documents