S 2019 Annual Report

2019 Annual Report

Director February 21, 2020

Honorable Mayor John Cranley Council Member Jeff Pastor Honorable Vice Mayor Christopher Smitherman Council Member Chris Seelbach President Pro Tem Tamaya Dennard Council Member P. G. Sittenfeld ‘ Council Member Greg Landsman Council Member Wendell Young

Council Member David Mann City Manager Patrick Duhaney Message Council Member Amy Murray Citizen Complaint Authority Board

Pursuant to the Collaborative Agreement codified as Cincinnati Administrative Code Article XXVIII, I present to you and the Cincinnati community the 16th Annual Report of the

Citizen Complaint Authority (CCA). This report covers January 1 through December 31, 2019, outlining statistical complaint and investigation data and summarizing the Department’s activities.

CCA continues to maintain and ensure its Independence, Authority, Access, Rapport, Community Engagement, and Transparency, which are the noted characteristics of effective police oversight as recognized by the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE). The spirit of the ethical and professional standards guides CCA’s civilian oversight practitioners in adapting to individual circumstances, and in promoting public trust, integrity and transparency. As noted by NACOLE, “Civilian oversight practitioners have a unique role as public servants overseeing law enforcement agencies. The community, government, and law enforcement have entrusted them to conduct their work in a fair and impartial professional manner. They earn this trust through a firm commitment to the public good, the mission of their agency, and to the ethical and professional standards described herein.”

In 2019, CCA reviewed and assessed 285 complaints which led to 84 complaints to be investigated by CCA. One complaint was withdrawn. The 200 complaints not investigated by CCA were referred to the Cincinnati Police Department (CPD) for investigation. Of the 84 complaints, the allegations reviewed by CCA included: 25.8% use of force/excessive force; 13.7% stop; 13.0% search/seizure/entry; 12.1% discourtesy; 8.7% procedure; 6.5% discrimination/racial profiling; 5.6% harassment; 5.0% lack of service; 3.1% pointing of a firearm; 2.8% unethical conduct/misconduct; 2.2% detention; 0.9% discharge of firearm; 0.6% sexual misconduct.

Comparison from 2018 to 2019 • The total number of complaints reviewed by CCA increased from 243 to 285 (17.3%). • The total number of complaints assigned to CCA for investigation increased from 77 to 84 (9.1%). • The total number of allegations against CPD officers, reviewed by CCA, increased from 487 to 745 (52.9%). • The total number of allegations against CPD officers, investigated by CCA, increased from 209 to 322 (54.1%).

CCA’s primary purpose is to investigate specific allegations of serious misconduct by CPD, but CCA has several other important duties and responsibilities. CCA continues to review

1 Director Director s Message

and analyze data and patterns, maintain a proactive community engagement presence, follow-up on citizen complaints not investigated by CCA with CPD on behalf of complainants, ensure that CCA’s team is current on best practices, training and trends as well as serve as a responsible stakeholder in Cincinnati through charitable and volunteer efforts.

‘ CCA’s Investigation and Administrative Teams must be applauded. They have done an outstanding job and stepped up to the plate in collaboration and coordination throughout the Department despite any challenges or opposition faced by CCA. Their determination and objectivity are commendable.

CCA acknowledges the current Board Members: Chair Karen Osbourne, Vice Chair George Pye, Desiré Bennett, Mark (Zeek) Childers, Luz Elena Schemmel, Phyllis Slusher, and former Board Member Ronald Dumas, for their continued support. CCA’s Board is a diverse one and remains helpful in the review process.

For a civilian oversight agency like CCA to be successful, there must be a professional working relationship with the police agency it monitors.

Most importantly, CCA sincerely thanks Chief Eliot Isaac, CPD’s command staff and the entire CPD for its continued collaboration and compliance with Cincinnati Administrative Code Article XXVIII. CCA must acknowledge CPD’s Training Academy staff; they continue to support CCA’s training efforts and provide the Investigation Team with a wealth of knowledge and education. Finally, CCA thanks the citizens of the City of Cincinnati. CCA remains committed to maintaining a professional and collaborative working relationship with CPD.

Thank you for your support and guidance, ensuring CCA remains a world class civilian oversight body. I hope you find the 2019 Annual Report both enlightening and informative.

Kim Neal Executive Director

Mission The Citizen Complaint Authority’s (CCA) mission is to investigate serious interventions by police officers including, but not limited to discharging of firearms; deaths in custody; excessive use of force; improper pointing of

firearms; improper stops; improper entries, searches and seizures; and discrimination/racial profiling. We resolve all citizen complaints in a fair and efficient manner. CCA’s ultimate goal is to address citizens’ concerns and improve citizens’ perceptions of quality police service in the city of Cincinnati. It is essential that CCA uniformly be perceived as fair and impartial, and not a vehicle for any individuals or groups to promote their own agendas.

Invite CCA to your • General Overview next meeting or event • History: Life Before and Life Since CCA’s Creation • Collaborative Agreement • Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement • Complaint and Investigation Process • CCA’s Board • Annual Report Briefing • CCA’s Statistical Review • Encounters with Law Enforcement • Other Related Topics

Citizen Complaint Authority… Telephone: 513-352-1600 Promoting the highest attainable Email: [email protected] standards of integrity, professionalism, Website: www.cincinnati-oh.gov/ccia/ and accountability.

Contents

Overview Statistics

6 History 16 City Manager’s Final Disposition 7 Citizen Complaint Authority Board 16 Closed and Active Complaints

7 Board Responsibilities 16 Table 1: Status of CCA Complaints 7 Board Hearings and Procedures 17 Table 2: CCA Findings 8 Executive Director and Staff 17 Table 3: CPD Findings 8 Organization Chart 18 Table 4: Assignment of Complaints 18 Table 5: How Complaints Were Received 19 Table 6: Month Complaints Were Received Complaint Process 20 Table 7: Circumstances of 9 Complaints Received Complaints 21 Table 8: Allegations Assigned 9 Assignment and Investigation to CCA 9 Investigative Guidelines 22 Table 9: Allegations Assigned 10 Administrative Closings to CPD 10 CPD Citizen Complaint 23 Citizen Demographics Resolution Process 23 Table 10: Cincinnati Population 11 CCA’s Complaint Process Estimate 23 Table 11A: Complainant Gender 23 Table 11B: Complainant Ethnicity 23 Table 11C: Complainant Age Director’s Summary 24 Officer Demographics 24 Table 12: All Sworn CPD Officers 12 Budget 24 Table 13A: Officer Gender 12 CCA and CPD Relationship 24 Table 13B: Officer Ethnicity 12 Collaborative Agreement 24 Table 13C: Officer Rank 13 Community Engagement 24 Table 13D: Officer Age 15 Serious Police Intervention Incidents 24 Table 13E: Officer Years on Force

Contents

Statistics (continued) Appendices

25 Location of Complaints Reviewed 32 I: Five-Year Statistics

25 Table 14A: Complaints from All CPD 44 II: Definition of Terms Districts 48 III: Commonly Used Acronyms 25 Table 14B: Central Business Section 50 IV: Staff, Training and Complaints Development 26 Table 14C: District 1 Complaints by 53 V: CCA Board Members Neighborhood 56 VI: Table Cross Reference 26 Table 14D: District 2 Complaints by Neighborhood 27 Table 14E: District 3 Complaints by Neighborhood 27 Table 14F: District 4 Complaints by Neighborhood 28 Table 14G: District 5 Complaints by Neighborhood 28 Table 14H: Complaints from Outside City Limits or Unknown District 29 Serious Incidents Reviewed

29 Table 15A: Summary 29 Table 15B: Districts 29 Table 15C: Demographics 30 Serious Incidents Closed 30 Table 16A: Summary 30 Table 16B: Districts 30 Table 16C: Findings 30 Table 16D: Demographics

31 Highlights Imagine Peace and Unity Archway by Suzanne Fisher Located at 1300 block of Vine Street  Photo by Michelle Bonner

History Overview

As a result of repeated lawsuits and the public’s demand for a Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation, former Mayor of Cincinnati (Charlie Luken) requested that the DOJ review the Cincinnati Police Department’s (CPD) Use of Force policy. The Mayor’s request was a major step in promoting police integrity and the City’s commitment to minimizing the use of excessive force in CPD. In response to that request, the DOJ conducted an investigation pursuant to its authority under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14.141.

To affirm its commitment, the City entered into the Collaborative Agreement (CA) and Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the DOJ. The parties to the CA included the Black United Front (subsequently asked and received permission to be released from the agreement), the American Civil Liberties Union and the Fraternal Order of Police. Both agreements required the City to create a police civilian oversight agency. The intent of the CA and MOA was to foster a better relationship between the community and CPD.

In April 2002, the Citizen Complaint Authority (CCA) was created as an independent civilian oversight agency by City Ordinance No. 0108-2002. Article XXVIII of the Cincinnati Administrative Code is a codification of CCA’s creation and the CA. CCA is structured with the following 3 operating components:

1) An independent Board of up to 7 citizens appointed by the Mayor and approved by City Council,

2) A full-time Executive Director and support staff, and

3) A team of professional investigators.

CCA was created with investigative and administrative authority to review allegations of serious police misconduct such as discharging of firearms; deaths in custody; excessive use of force; improper pointing of firearms; improper stops; improper entries, searches and seizures; and discrimination. Upon recommendation by the CCA Director, the Board may request and receive approval from City Council to issue subpoenas to compel witness testimony as well as for documents, photographs and other tangible items.

In August 2008, Federal court supervision of the two agreements officially ended. Though the work will never end, the two agreements laid a solid foundation for the City to move forward on its own. CCA remains committed to the intent of the two agreements. As a result, the City, CPD and the CA Partners created a CA Plan dedicated to their engagement in an ongoing effort to improve police-community relations. The CA Plan was executed in August 2008. The commitment was further proven by the continued efforts and initiatives of all to comply with the CA, including the City’s commitment to a Collaborative Agreement Refresh in 2017.

Citizen Complaint Authority Board Overview

As of December 2019, there were 6 members who represented a cross-section of the Cincinnati community.

Each Board member should have the requisite education and experience to impartially review evidence and render judgments on alleged officer misconduct.

The Board members serve a maximum of 2, 2-year terms.

The Mayor accepts nominations from the city’s community councils, businesses, civic, social service and other agencies and organizations. The Mayor also accepts applications from individual city residents. Applicants for the Board must execute a signed release authorizing a thorough background check, including a criminal background check. No person may serve on the Board who has been convicted of:

1) A felony;

2) An assault on a police officer; or

3) Any crime of dishonesty.

Before assuming office and prior to beginning their duties, each member must complete basic training including courses at the Cincinnati Police Academy, instruction in constitutional and criminal protections, and complete CPD ride alongs.

All members must adhere to CCA’s Standards of Professional Conduct and are asked to agree and execute the Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest Policy. The Mayor may remove a Board member for cause.

Board Responsibilities

The Executive Director recommends each completed investigation report for summary disposition or a review hearing. If the Board conducts review hearings, they are for the following purposes:

1) Confirm completeness of CCA investigation; and

2) Approve or disapprove the investigative reports. If the Board disapproves, it shall state its reasons and may direct further investigation or submit its own finding and recommendation along with the Director’s original report.

Board Hearings and Procedures

Public Board hearings are generally held on the first Monday of each month at 5:00 PM in the Council Chambers at City Hall. Prior to the Board hearing, the Director forwards a copy of each report with recommended findings to each Board member for review. Additionally, copies of the investigative reports are sent to the complainants and officers notifying the parties of the board hearing. The

Overview complainant and the respondent officer(s) are notified that they may challenge and/or appeal the Director’s findings and recommendations to the Director and the Board.

After the Board hearing, the investigative reports, with all recommended findings and recommendations, are forwarded to the City Manager. The City Manager shall agree or disagree with any findings and recommendations either by the Director or Board and shall inform the Director and Board in writing any reason for disagreeing or agreeing in part. The Director will inform the complainants and officers of the City Manager’s decision. The final decision is then sent to the Chief of Police. The City Manager’s decision is final , and there is no appeal.

Executive Director and Staff

The City Manager appoints the Director. The City Manager may consult with the CCA Board and seek the Board’s recommendation when appointing the Director. However, the final decision is made by the City Manager. The City Manager respects the need of the Director to act independently. The Director must be fair and impartial and is responsible for the day-to-day direction of the Department.

CCA staff is a group of professionals dedicated to CCA’s mission. CCA staff continues to increase its knowledge in civilian oversight, law enforcement policies and procedures, and investigative protocols. CCA reviews periodic CPD policy and procedure updates; reviews CPD statistical data; conducts patterns reviews, attends continuing education training; recommends policy, procedural and training actions; manages and reviews CCA data; and oversees all CCA’s administrative operations.

Organization Chart

City Manager

Director of CCA Board CCA

Senior Chief Administrative Investigator Specialist

Administrative Investigator Investigator Specialist

Complaints Received Process Complaint

Citizen complaints are received by CCA regardless of where they are initially filed. The Director determines whether complaints should be investigated by CCA. Complaints that are beyond CCA’s investigative scope, in addition to the complaints investigated by CCA, are referred to CPD.

In order to ensure that citizens are assisted in a timely, efficient and professional manner, CCA follows certain guidelines for accepting and investigating complaints. Any citizen can file a complaint concerning a CPD Officer. CCA also accepts third party and anonymous complaints concerning CPD Officers. Complaints should be submitted within one year of the date of an incident.

Complaints may be filed with CCA or CPD by telephone, facsimile, online, mail, in person, or CCA’s email address: [email protected] . Complaint forms may be obtained on CCA’s website at: www.cincinnati-oh.gov/ccia/citizen- complaint-authority-complaint-form .

Assignment and Investigation

Upon receipt of a complaint, the Director reviews the complaint and assigns it to an Investigator within 48 hours. The investigation should be completed within 90 days unless there are extenuating circumstances. CCA provides CPD with detailed information regarding the complaint, including the time and location of the underlying events and the name(s) of the officer(s) involved.

Investigative Guidelines

1) Complaints are evaluated based upon the preponderance of the evidence standard. 2) CCA investigates serious interventions by police officers including, but not limited to, discharging of firearms; deaths in custody; excessive use of force; improper pointing of firearms; improper stops; improper entries, searches and seizures; and discrimination/racial profiling. 3) CCA considers all relevant evidence including circumstantial, direct and physical. 4) CCA handles all investigations impartially, fairly and objectively. 5) No statements provided receive preference over another. 6) Witnesses’ statements are not disregarded because the witness has some connection to the complainant. The same is true for involved officers and officer witnesses. 7) Every effort is made to resolve material inconsistencies between witnesses’ statements.

8) During the investigation, investigators refrain from asking officers or witnesses Process Complaint any leading questions that improperly suggest what the response should be or provide legal justification. 9) All relevant police activity, including each use of force and not just the type of force, is investigated. 10) CCA may also initiate complaints even if complainants are unavailable or a complaint has been withdrawn. 11) A pending or resolved adjudication may be considered when assessing whether an officer violated CPD policy, procedure or training. 12) Investigative reports may offer policy, procedure and training recommendations as well as comments or observations.

13) Each allegation in an investigation is resolved with one of the following dispositions: • Unfounded: Where the investigation determined no facts to support the incident complained of actually occurred. • Sustained: Where the allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to determine that the incident occurred, and the actions of the officer were improper. • Not Sustained: Where there are insufficient facts to decide whether the alleged misconduct occurred.

• Exonerated: Where the alleged conduct occurred but did not violate CPD policies, procedures or training.

Administrative Closings

There are a few complaints that cannot be investigated by CCA and are closed by administrative directive. For instance, a complaint is withdrawn when the citizen does not wish to proceed with any further investigation. Complaints against an unidentified officer may be closed if CCA could not determine if the officer was employed by CPD at the time of the complaint. Some complaints are not within the jurisdiction of CCA to investigate because of the location of the incident, type of allegation, or if the length of time between when the incident occurred and when the complaint was filed is greater than one year.

CPD Citizen Complaint Resolution Process

Citizen complaints that do not fall under CCA’s established criteria are referred to CPD for investigation internally or through their Citizen Complaint Resolution Process (CCRP). While CCA does not conduct the CCRP investigations, CCA can monitor CPD’s citizen complaints’ closures, excluding matters involving criminal investigations. CPD Procedure § 15.100, Citizen Complaints and Reports of Favorable Police Conduct , provides further guidance regarding the CCRP.

CCA Complaint Process Process Complaint How a complaint is filed

CPD ETS/EVT CCA Website CCA Facsimile CCA Phone CCA US Mail CCA Walk -in CCA Email

CCA investigates: All complaints received by CCA Deaths in Custody are referred to CPD Internal Discharging of Firearms/Tasers Investigations Section (IIS) for Discrimination/Racial Profiling investigation or review through Excessive Force/Use of Force CPD’s Citizen Complaint Improper Searches/Seizures/Entries Resolution Process (CCRP). Improper Pointing of Firearms

Improper Stops/Detention

Process followed for all CCA investigations

Within 48 hours of receipt, the com- Investigator contacts Complainant Investigator sends records request plaint is submitted to an Investi- and sends a Notice to Appear (NTA) for all material evidence. gator and assigned a case number. to Officer for interviews.

Based upon all available evidence, Investigator determines whether Investigator reviews applicable laws, regulations, policies, procedures, Investigator interviews Complainant, the allegation occurred and if the training materials and guidance Officers and Witnesses. conduct fell within applicable law, documents. policy or procedure.

Investigator drafts investigative report. Investigative report includes summary; interviews; evidence; Complainant and CPD are notified of applicable law, policy and Draft investigative report is given to investigative findings as well as the procedure; analysis; conclusion and the Director for review and approval. date and time for CCA Board meeting findings. The report may include where report will be discussed. recommendations or observations. Unless extenuating circumstances, report is completed within 90 days.

Complainant and involved Officer CCA’s final investigation reports, with Complaint is presented at the appeal rights end at the Board any Board findings, are sent to the monthly Board meeting. The Board meeting. Parties should contact CCA City Manager for final disposition. may receive testimony or comment. immediately or appear at Board Board agrees or disagrees with The City Manager’s decision is meeting if they have questions, Director’s findings. FINAL . concerns or want to appeal.

CCA notifies complainant and CPD Chief of Police should review The City Manager’s final disposition findings and take any necessary of the City Manager’s final is sent to the Chief of Police. corrective actions regarding disposition and the case is closed. officers’ conduct.

The mission of the CCA is to investigate allegations of misconduct by police Director officers, including but not limited to, discharging of firearms; deaths in custody; excessive use of force; improper pointing of firearms; improper stops; improper entries, searches and seizures; and discrimination/racial profiling. The ultimate goal is to address citizen complaints and improve citizen perceptions of quality

‘ s police service in the City of Cincinnati.

Summary CCA looks forward to working with the Mayor, City Manager, City Council, CPD, and the citizens of Cincinnati to ensure the Department has the resources it needs to perform its tasks proactively. CCA will continue to operate as a Department that provides Cincinnati citizens and stakeholders with an independent and impartial forum for the investigation and timely resolution of serious police

misconduct complaints. CCA’s staff is dedicated to working effectively and diligently. The Department’s success can be attributed to the steps it has taken to utilize its resources and develop creative ways to enhance the Department in order to fulfill its mission.

Budget

The total approved operating budgets are $670,510 for FY2019 and $691,630 for FY 2020. The breakdown is as follows:

Category FY2019 FY2020 Personnel Services $483,810 $504,970 Employee Benefits 159,880 158,410 Other Expenses 26,820 28,250 Operating Total $670,510 $691,630

CCA and CPD Relationship

In order for CCA to be effective, it is important that a relationship of mutual respect be maintained with CPD. CCA and CPD established a protocol for the timely exchange of information and coordination of investigations. The relationship of mutual respect and professionalism between Departments continues.

Collaborative Agreement

Seventeen (17) years ago (2002), the City of Cincinnati took part in the historical CA to find solutions for ongoing issues related to community-police relations. The Agreement was submitted to the Federal Court and became a national model for cities across the nation. A cross-section of the entire community created the CA based on 5 shared goals:

1) CPD and Community Members Shall Become Pro-active Partners in Director Community Problem Solving 2) Build Relationships of Respect, Cooperation and Trust Within and Between CPD and Communities

‘ s 3) Improve Education, Oversight, Monitoring, Hiring Practices and Account-

ability of CPD Summary 4) Ensure Fair, Equitable, and Courteous Treatment for All 5) Create Methods to Establish the Public’s Understanding of the CPD Policies and Procedures as well as Recognition of Exceptional Service in an Effort to Foster Support for CPD

CCA was created out of the CA and shares the CA’s same values. While ensuring CPD’s accountability to our citizens, CCA must also assist in improving community- police relations through partnerships, problem solving and community engage- ments. In 2015, CCA established a proactive engagement program that involved community groups, citizens, other stakeholders and CPD to increase awareness about civilian oversight and the CA. This program has evolved since then and has been effective in educating stakeholders.

Community Engagement

Community engagement is critical to the success of CCA. In 2019, CCA provided approximately 19 presentations and trainings reaching 450 individuals. In addition, CCA meets with the City Manager’s Advisory Group (MAG) periodically, attends the weekly Chief of Police Statistic and Tactical Analytic Review for Solutions (STARS) meeting, attends the quarterly CPD Employee Tracking System Review meetings, communicates with other municipalities regarding CCA’s creation, mission and collaborates with other communities that want to start up new oversight agencies or improve already existing ones. Some of the key trainings CCA provides annually include CPD New Supervisors’, CPD New Recruits and CPD’s Citizen Police Academy.

CCA is an active member in the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE), National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE), Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), and International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP).

Director

‘

• CPD Coffee with a Cop • CPD 109 th Recruit Class

• New CCA Board Member Training • U.S. Department of State’s Summary • New CPD Supervisor Training International Visitor Leadership • Harambe Celebration Program, World Affairs Council • City Manager’s Advisory Group

• CPD Citizen Police Academy Training • “Cincinnati is My Home” • Neighborhood Summit government project at Clark Montessori High School

• CPD Coffee with a Cop • “Real Talk with CCA” • “Law and Your Community” at presentation to American Dohn High School Government classes at Taft IT High School Council

• “Real Talk with CCA” • “Law & Your Community” presentation at Clark engagement for youth at Montessori High School Price Hill Recreational Center • City Manager’s Advisory Group • City Council’s Finance Committee

• “Law and Your Community” workshop at Withrow High School • Executive Leadership and Organiza- tional Change (ELOC) Program at Northern Kentucky University

Piggy Goes to Market © by Bev Kirk Located at 1014 Vine Street  Photo by Michelle Bonner

Serious Police Intervention Incidents Intervention Police Serious During the 2019 annual reporting period, CCA’s staff reviewed and opened 3 new, serious intervention incidents for investigation that involved allegations of Discharge of Firearm.

19151 (July) The investigation of 1 officer involving Discharge of a Firearm is pending.

19163 (July) The investigation of 1 officer involving Discharge of a Firearm is pending.

19206 (September) The investigation of 1 officer involving Discharge of a Firearm is pending.

Faces of Homelessness © ArtWorks 2017  Designed by ICY + SOT Located at 1225 Vine Street  Photo by Michelle Bonner

15 Statistics

Cincinnati Administrative Code Article XXVIII mandates the review of allegations of serious interventions. For annual reporting purposes, the following CCA statistics represent January 1 through December 31, 2019.

City Manager’s Final Disposition

The CA states the City Manager shall agree or disagree with any findings and recommendations of either the Director or the Board and shall inform the Director and the Board in writing of any reasons for disagreeing with the recommended findings. It shall be the Director’s responsibility to inform the officers and the complainants when a decision has been reached by the City Manager. Once reached, the City Manager’s decision is final, and the complaint is closed without appeal. In 2019, the City Manager agreed with 100% of CCA’s findings and recommendations.

CCA Closed and Active Complaints

Table 1: Status of CCA Complaints During 2019, CCA closed 76 complaints with findings for 381 allegations.

At year-end, CCA had 96 active complaints under investigation that were filed during 2017 through 2019. There were 353 1 allegations associated with these active complaints.

400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Closed Active Complaints 76 96 Allegations 381 353

0 1 Subject to change based on pending investigations. 16 16 Statistics

Table 2: CCA Findings The following chart provides the findings for 381 CCA allegations associated with 76 complaints closed in 2019.

160

140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Exonerated Not Sustained Sustained Unfounded Number 159 76 75 71 Percentage 41.7% 19.9% 19.7% 18.7%

Table 3: CPD Findings The chart below provides the findings for 245 2 allegations referred to and investigated by CPD.

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Not Exonerated Sustained Unfounded Withdrawn Info File Sustained Number 98 42 23 79 1 2 Percentage 40.0% 17.1% 9.4% 32.3% 0.4% 0.8%

0 2 As reported to CCA by IIS. 17

Table 4: Assignment of Complaints

CCA reviewed a total of 285 complaints in 2019. Of those, 84 complaints were Statistics assigned to CCA for investigation and 1 was withdrawn. The 200 complaints, including 8 non-jurisdiction complaints, that did not meet CCA criteria were referred to CPD for internal review. CPD determines if these complaints are investigated by IIS or a specific police district or section.

200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Assigned to CCA Referred to CPD Non-Jurisdiction Withdrawn Number 84 192 8 1 Percentage 29.5% 67.4% 2.8% 0.3%

Table 5: How Complaints Were Received

CCA receives complaints in a variety of ways to ensure every citizen has an opportunity to file a complaint.

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 CPD Email ETS EVT Phone US Mail Walk-in Number 39 48 70 28 60 1 39 Percentage 13.7% 16.8% 24.5% 9.8% 21.1% 0.4% 13.7%

Table 6: Month Complaints Were Received

An average of 23.75 complaints were reviewed each month. The 2 most active Statistics months were June and July.

January 20, 7.0%

February 22, 7.7%

March 25, 8.8%

April 20, 7.0%

May 25, 8.8%

June 32, 11.2%

July 29, 10.2%

August 25, 8.8%

September 24, 8.4%

October 23, 8.1%

November 18, 6.3%

December 22, 7.7%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Table 7 : Circumstances of Complaints

The circumstance refers to the underlying reason for the citizen/officer encounter. Statistics

Accident 32, 11.2%

Arrest 22, 7.7%

Bicycle Violation 1, 0.3%

Call for Service 5, 1.8%

Citation Issued 3, 1.0%

Communication 23, 8.1%

Criminal Investigation 21, 7.4%

Criminal Offense 11, 4.0%

Death 2, 0.7%

Disorderly 1, 0.3%

Domestic 11, 4.0%

Drug Investigation 4, 1.4%

Gang Investigation 1, 0.3%

General Investigation 17, 6.0%

Harassment 6, 2.1%

Impoundment 3, 1.0%

Internal within CPD 3, 1.0%

Misconduct Unethical 4, 1.4%

Pedestrian Stop 10, 3.5%

Request for Service 72, 25.3%

School Matter 1, 0.3%

Traffic Stop 25, 8.8%

Traffic 4, 1.4%

Warrant Service 3, 1.0%

0 20 40 60 80

Table 8: Allegations Assigned to CCA

CCA reviewed a total of 745 allegations 3 associated with the 285 complaints filed in

2019. Of those allegations, 322 were assigned to a CCA Investigator as well as Statistics provided to CPD for review and investigation.

Detention 7, 2.2%

Discharge of Firearm 3, 0.9%

Discourtesy 39, 12.1%

Discrimination/Racial Profiling 21, 6.5%

Harassment 18, 5.6%

Lack of Service 16, 5.0%

Pointing of a Firearm 10, 3.1%

Procedure 28, 8.7%

Search/Seizure/Entry 42, 13.0%

Sexual Misconduct 2, 0.6%

Stop 44, 13.7%

Unethical Conduct/Misconduct 9, 2.8%

Use of Force/Excessive Force 83, 25.8%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

0 3 There can be more than one allegation associated with a complaint. 21

Table 9: Allegations Assigned to CPD

4 After reviewing the 745 allegations associated with the 285 complaints filed in Statistics 2019, CCA referred 423 allegations associated with 200 complaints to CPD for review and investigation because they did not fall within CCA purview.

Criminal 5, 1.2%

Discourtesy 121, 28.5%

Discrimination 3, 0.7%

Harassment 13, 3.1%

Improper Procedure 17, 4.0%

Improper Stop 1, 0.2%

Lack of Service 204, 48.2%

Misconduct 21, 5.0%

Off-Duty Conduct 2, 0.5%

Other 5, 1.2%

Procedure Violation 29, 6.9%

Verbal or Physical Threat 2, 0.5%

0 50 100 150 200 250

4 There can be more than one allegation associated with a complaint. 22

Citizen Demographics

Table 10 provides demographic data for the estimated 302,605 Cincinnati residents. Statistics Tables 11A through 11C provide demographic data of the 271 complainants associated with the 285 complaints reviewed by CCA.

Table 10: Cincinnati Population Estimate 5

160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 African Female Male Caucasian All Other American Number 156,749 145,856 129,212 152,210 21,183 Percentage 51.8% 48.2% 42.7% 50.3% 7.0%

Table 11A: Complainant Gender Table 11C: Complainant Age

Number Percentage Number Percentage Female 116 42.8% Under 18 5 1.8% Male 152 56.1% 18-24 17 6.3% Unk nown 3 1.1% 25-34 62 22.9% Total 271 100.0% 35-44 59 21.8% 45-54 44 16.2% 55-64 31 11.4% Table 11B: Complainant Ethnicity 65+ 7 2.6%

Unknown 46 17.0% Number Percentage Total 271 100.0% African American 173 63.8% Caucasian 61 22. 6% Other 6 2.2% Un known 31 11.4% Total 271 100.0%

5 Source: United States Census Bureau 2018 population estimate at census.gov/quickfacts 2233

Officer Demographics

Table 12 provides demographic data for all sworn CPD police officers. Tables 13A Statistics through 13E provide demographic data of the 307 officers associated with the 285

complaints reviewed by CCA. Table 12: All Sworn CPD Officers 6

800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 African Female Male Caucasian Other American Number 231 790 298 695 28 Percentage 22.6% 77.4% 29.2% 68.1% 2.7%

Table 13 A: Officer Gender Table 13D: Officer Age

Number Percentage Number Percentage Female 62 20.2% 18-24 10 3.3% Male 244 79.5% 25-34 63 20.5% Unknown 1 0.3% 35 -44 79 25.7% Total 307 100.0% 45 -54 115 37.5% 55-64 31 10.1% 65+ 4 1.3% Table 13B: Officer Ethnicity Unknown 5 1.6%

Number Percentage Total 307 100.0%

African American 97 31.6% Table 13E: Officer Years on Caucasian 207 67.4% Force

Hispanic 2 0.7% Unknown 1 0.3% Number Percentage Total 307 100.0% 0-5 98 31.9% 6-10 0 0.0% 11 -15 65 21.2% Table 13C: Officer Rank 16 -20 44 14.3%

Number Percentage 21 -25 53 17.3% Captain 1 0.3% 26 -30 36 11.7% Lieutenant 2 0.7% 31+  6 2.0% Officer 254 82.7% Unknown 5 1.6% Specialist 21 6.8% Total 307 100.0% Sergeant 29 9. 5% Total 307 100.0%

6 Provided by the Cincinnati Police Department. 24

Location of Complaints Reviewed Statistics The Cincinnati police districts and neighborhoods where reviewed complaint Statistics incidents occurred are shown in Tables 14A through 14H. There were 5 complaints reviewed that occurred out of the Cincinnati city limits and 2 complaints occurred in an unknown district.

Table 14A: Complaints from All CPD Districts Total all districts = 285 complaints

CBS 26, 9.1%

D1 48, 16.8%

D2 26, 9.1%

D3 86, 30.2%

D4 52, 18.3%

D5 40, 14.0%

Other 7, 2.5%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Table 14B: Central Business Section Complaints Total CBS = 26 complaints

Central Business Section 20, 76.9%

CBD and Downtown 6, 23.1%

0 5 10 15 20 25

Table 1 4C: District 1 Complaints by Neighborhood

Total District 1 = 48 complaints Statistics

Mt. Adams 1, 2.1%

Over-the-Rhine 24, 50.0%

Pendleton 1, 2.1%

Queensgate 4, 8.3%

West End 18, 37.5%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Table 14D: District 2 Complaints by Neighborhood Total District 2 = 26 complaints

California 2, 7.8%

Columbia Tusculum 1, 3.8%

East End 2, 7.8%

East Walnut Hills 1, 3.8%

Evanston 5, 19.2%

Hyde Park 3, 11.5%

Madisonville 3, 11.5%

Mt. Washington 6, 23.2%

Oakley 1, 3.8%

O'Bryonville 1, 3.8%

Pleasant Ridge 1, 3.8%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Table 14E: District 3 Complaints by Neighborhood Statistics Total District 3 = 86 complaints

East Price Hill 11, 12.7%

East Westwood 1, 1.2%

Fay Apartments 1, 1.2%

Lower Price Hill 2, 2.3%

North Fairmount 3, 3.5%

Price Hill 5, 5.8%

South Cumminsville 2, 2.3%

South Fairmount 4, 4.7%

West Price Hill 8, 9.3%

Western Hills 4, 4.7%

Westwood 45, 52.3%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Table 14F: District 4 Complaints by Neighborhood Total District 4 = 52 complaints

Avondale 16, 30.8%

Bond Hill 6, 11.5%

Carthage 2, 3.8%

Corryville 5, 9.7%

Hartwell 1, 1.9%

Mt. Auburn 5, 9.7%

North Avondale 3, 5.8%

Paddock Hills 2, 3.8%

Roselawn 6, 11.5%

Walnut Hills 6, 11.5%

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Table 14G: District 5 Complaints by Neighborhood Statist Total District 5 = 40 complaints

Camp Washington 3, 7.5% ics

Clifton 4, 10.0%

Clifton-University Heights 3, 7.5%

College Hill 9, 22.5%

Mt. Airy 5, 12.5%

Northside 8, 20.0%

Spring Grove Village 4, 10.0%

Winton Hills 4, 10.0%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910

Table 14H: Complaints from Outside City Limits or Unknown District Total Outside City Limits or Unknown = 7 complaints

Outside City Limits 5, 71.4%

Unknown 2, 28.6%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Serious Incidents Reviewed Statistics During the 2019 annual reporting period, CCA reviewed and opened 3 new serious intervention incidents for investigation that involved allegations of Discharge of Firearm.

Table 15A: Summary

Incidents Allegations Fatalities Officers Firearm 3 3 0 3 Death in Custody 0 0 0 0 Total 3 3 0 3

Ta ble 15B: Districts

D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 CBS OCL Firearm 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 Death in Custody 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 1 1 1 0 0 0

Ta ble 15C: Demographics

Victims Officers Male 2 3 Female 1 0 African American 3 1 Caucasian 0 2 Unknown 0 0 Total 3 3

Serious Incidents Closed

CCA closed 4 serious intervention incidents that were received in 2017 and Statistics 2018.

Table 16A: Summary

Incidents Allegations Fatalities Officers Firearm 1 1 0 1 Death in Custody 3 9 3 9 Total 4 10 3 10

Ta ble 16B: Districts

D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 OCL Firearm 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Death in Custody 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 Total 0 0 3 0 0 1 0

Ta ble 16C: Findings

Exonerated Not Sustained Sustained Unfounded Firearm 1 0 0 0 Death in Custody 0 0 0 9 Total 1 0 0 9

Ta ble 16D: Demographics

Victims Officers Male 4 10 Female 0 0 African American 1 3 Caucasian 3 7 Unknown 0 0 Total 4 10

Highlights

CCA analyzed data and listed CCA/CPD complaint information as outlined in the Statistics Statistics section to develop clear and detailed information for our stakeholders regarding the complaints reviewed annually. Below are CCA’s noted significant 2019 statistics: • Complaints reviewed by CCA increased by 17.3% from 243 in 2018 to 285 in 2019.

• The total number of complaints investigated by CCA increased from 77 to 84 (9.1%).

• Allegations reviewed by CCA increased 52.9% from 487 in 2018 to 745 in 2019.

• The total number of allegations against CPD officers investigated by CCA increased from 209 to 322 (54.1%). • June, representing 11.2% of all CCA complaints, was the busiest month.

• Use of force/excessive force represented 25.8% of the allegations assigned to CCA for investigation.

• Lack of service represented 48.2% of the allegations referred to CPD for review.

• None of the serious intervention incidents that occurred in 2019 resulted in the death of the subject. The subjects included 1 African American and 2 Caucasian; 2 of the subjects were male and 1 was female.

• 41.7% of the 381 CCA findings were exonerated.

• The City Manager agreed with 100.0% of CCA’s 381 findings and recommendations.

• 34.3% of the 285 complaints reviewed by CCA originated from CPD’s ETS/EVT.

• Males represented 56.1% of the 271 complainants.

• African Americans represented 63.8% of the 271 complainants.

• Ages 25-34 represented 22.9% of the 271 complainants.

• District 3 represented a total of 30.2% of where the 285 complaints reviewed originated.

• 15.8% of the 285 complaints reviewed occurred in the District 3, Westwood neighborhood. • 79.5% of the 285 complaints reviewed were filed against male officers.

• 67.4% of the 285 complaints reviewed were filed against Caucasian officers.

• 37.5% of the 307 officers were between the ages of 45-54.

• 31.9% of the 307 officers served on the force 5 years or less.

• 82.7% of the 307 officers were ranked as Police Officers.

• CCA provided 19 presentations and trainings reaching 450 individuals. In addition, CCA meets with the City Manager’s Advisory Group (MAG) periodically, attends the weekly Chief of Police Statistic and Tactical Analytic Review for Solutions (STARS) meeting, the quarterly CPD Employee Tracking System Review meetings, communicates with other municipalities regarding CCA’s creation, mission and collaborates with other communities that want to start up new oversight agencies or improve already existing ones. Some of the key trainings CCA provides annually include CPD New Supervisors’, CPD New Recruits and CPD’s Citizen Police Academy.

Appendix I: Five-Year Statistics

Appendices Table 1: CCA Findings 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Exonerated 45 70 164 98 159 Not Sustained 42 53 52 32 76 Sustained 21 16 30 28 75

Unfounded 19 37 47 32 71 Pending 7 0 0 19 0 0 Total 127 176 312 190 381

Table 2: CPD Findings 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Exonerated 121 73 36 71 98 Not Sustained 90 72 25 33 42 Sustained 29 12 30 28 23 Unfounded 64 37 40 58 79 Withdrawn 0 1 4 3 1 Info File 0 0 11 26 2 Pending 42 75 172 6 0 Total 346 270 318 225 245

Table 3: Assignment of Complaints 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 CCA 55 85 65 77 84 CPD 202 164 176 158 192 Non-jurisdiction 13 4 1 6 8 Withdrawn 16 0 2 2 1 Total 286 253 244 243 285

7 Pending allegations are those that have been reviewed by the CCA Board and are not finalized 32 in the reporting year. In 2015 and 2016, some allegations were incorrectly identified as pending.

Table 4: How Complaints Were Received 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 CPD 74 66 54 38 39 Appendices Email 113 18 18 25 48 ETS/EVT 16 83 88 91 70 Facsimile 0 0 1 0 28 Telephone 51 37 49 50 60 US Mail 1 2 0 3 1

Walk-in 31 47 34 36 39 Total 286 253 244 243 285

Table 5: Month Complaints Were Received 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 January 20 22 32 17 20 February 20 21 21 28 22 March 19 16 15 25 25 April 15 16 20 18 20 May 25 21 25 14 25 June 40 21 23 24 32 July 27 24 16 19 29 August 34 27 24 22 25 September 23 36 21 21 24 October 23 23 17 18 23 November 26 14 13 22 18 December 14 11 17 15 22 Total 286 253 244 243 285

0 Table 6: Circumstances of Complaints

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Appendices Accident NA 19 30 20 32

Arrest NA 4 5 18 22 Bicycle Violation NA 1 0 0 1 Call for Service 94 17 56 19 5 Citation Issued NA 0 0 2 3

Communication NA 4 25 26 23 Criminal Investigation NA 0 4 11 21 Criminal Offense NA 54 10 23 11

Curfew NA 0 1 0 0

Detention NA 1 0 0 0 Death NA 0 0 0 2 DFA NA 0 1 0 0

Disorderly NA 5 2 0 1 Domestic NA 17 14 16 11 Drug Investigation 1 4 1 1 4 Gang Investigation NA 0 0 0 1 General Investigation 137 10 30 13 17 Harassment NA 5 7 4 6 Impoundment NA 3 0 4 3 Internal w/in CPD NA 2 1 0 3 Intoxication NA 1 0 0 0 Misconduct/Unethical NA 13 5 10 4 Off-duty Detail NA 0 2 0 0 Pedestrian Stop NA 0 2 2 10 Pedestrian Violation NA 11 1 2 0 Prostitution NA 1 0 0 0 Request for Service NA 0 9 36 72 School Matter NA 6 3 1 1 Search NA 0 1 1 0 Sexual NA 7 1 0 0 Traffic/Traffic Stop 52 38 22 29 29 Trespass NA 3 0 0 0 Use of Weapon by Officer NA 2 0 0 0

Table 6: Circumstances of Complaints (continued)

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Appendices Vehicle Pursuit NA 0 1 0 0 Warrant Service NA 12 10 5 3 Weapon Investigation NA 13 0 0 0 Unknown 2 0 0 0 0 Total 286 253 244 243 285

Table 7: Allegations Assigned to CCA 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Criminal 0 0 0 1 0 Death (TASER) 1 1 0 0 0 Death in Custody 0 0 10 7 0 Detention 3 4 1 2 7 Discharge of Firearm 9 9 3 12 3 Discourtesy 21 33 18 9 39 Discrimination 12 16 8 16 15 Frisk 1 0 0 0 0 Harassment 3 8 7 9 18 Lack of Service 0 1 10 13 16 Pointing of a Firearm 10 17 12 9 10 Procedure 10 27 15 6 28 Racial Profiling 0 0 4 0 6 Search/Seizure/Entry 38 86 49 45 42 Sexual Misconduct 0 0 0 0 2 Stop 16 26 26 26 44 Unethical Conduct/ 0 0 0 0 9 Misconduct Use of Force/ 51 73 56 54 83 Excessive Force Total 175 301 219 209 322

Table 8: Allegations Assigned to CPD

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Appendices Abuse of Authority 0 2 2 1 0 Criminal 0 3 3 3 5 Discourtesy 114 97 92 75 121 Discrimination 0 0 1 3 3 Dishonesty 0 0 1 0 0

Eviction 0 1 0 0 0 Harassment 10 1 4 11 13 Lack of Service 154 109 138 127 204 Law Violation 0 4 9 6 0 Misconduct/Serious 0 0 3 1 18 Neglect of Duty 0 2 0 1 0 Off-Duty Conduct 0 2 3 1 2 Other 34 16 3 0 5 Procedure 34 25 35 34 46 Search/Seizure/Entry 0 1 1 1 0 Sexual Misconduct 0 0 5 2 2 Stop 0 0 2 2 1 Unethical Conduct 0 5 8 6 1 Use of Force/ 0 0 1 2 0 Excessive Force Verbal or Physical 0 2 7 2 2 Threat Total 346 270 318 278 423

Table 9A: Complainant Gender

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Appendices Female 120 121 136 105 116 Male 144 129 107 121 152 Unknown 1 3 4 4 3 Total 265 253 247 230 271

Table 9B: Complainant Ethnicity 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 African American 158 166 154 142 173 Asian 1 1 0 2 0 Caucasian 74 57 70 60 61 Hispanic 4 3 1 1 0 Other 8 2 4 3 6 Unknown 20 24 18 22 31 Total 265 253 247 230 271

Table 9C: Complainant Age 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Under 18 1 2 2 3 5 18-24 27 30 18 13 17 25-34 60 59 59 52 62 35-44 51 51 44 56 59 45-54 38 29 44 38 44 55-64 27 19 22 21 31 65 and older 14 12 9 6 7 Unknown 47 51 49 41 46 Total 265 253 247 230 271

Table 10A: Officer Gender

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Appendices Female 58 45 42 46 62 Male 290 221 194 211 244 Unknown 16 3 21 1 1 Total 364 269 257 258 307

Table 10B: Officer Ethnicity 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 African American 104 72 84 72 97 Asian 4 0 1 1 0 Caucasian 232 181 141 181 207 Hispanic 1 2 0 2 2 Other 4 3 1 1 0 Unknown 19 11 30 1 1 Total 364 269 257 258 307

Table 10C: Officer Rank 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Captain 0 1 0 1 1 Lieutenant 1 3 1 0 2 Officer 282 227 207 231 254 Sergeant 21 16 14 11 29 Specialist 34 21 14 15 21 Unknown 26 1 21 0 0 Total 364 269 257 258 307

Table 10D: Officer Age Appendices 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 18-24 4 3 0 1 10 25-34 78 46 34 51 63 35-44 102 67 68 95 79 45-54 138 113 86 84 115

55-64 16 6 15 17 31 65 and over 0 0 3 6 4 Unknown 26 34 51 4 5 Total 364 269 257 258 307

Table 10E: Officer Years on Force 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 0-5 52 52 51 68 98 6-10 74 27 26 18 0 11-15 87 61 49 57 65 16-20 72 49 40 44 44 21-25 34 35 29 37 53 26-30 18 26 22 21 36 31-35 1 5 3 8 6 Unknown 26 14 37 5 5 Total 364 269 257 258 307

Table 11A: Complaints from All CPD Districts 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Appendices CBS/CBD 16 16 23 22 26 District 1 43 37 31 32 48 District 2 28 35 26 25 26 District 3 70 61 57 62 86 District 4 53 49 61 54 52

District 5 41 44 37 37 40 OCL/Unknown 6 11 9 11 7 Total 257 253 244 243 285

Table 11B: Central Business Section Complaints 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 CBS/CBD 16 16 23 22 26 Total 16 16 23 22 26

Table 11C: District 1 Complaints by Neighborhood 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Mt. Adams 4 3 2 1 1 Over-the-Rhine 23 21 20 20 24 Pendleton 3 0 1 1 1 Queensgate 0 1 1 0 4 West End 13 12 7 10 18 Total 43 37 31 32 48

Table 11D: District 2 Complaints by Neighborhood

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Appendices California 1 1 1 0 2 Columbia-Tusculum 0 1 1 0 1 East End 1 2 2 1 2 East Walnut Hills 3 2 1 0 1 Evanston 1 3 3 3 5

Hyde Park 5 7 3 7 3 Kennedy Heights 0 3 2 2 0 Linwood 0 0 1 0 0 Madisonville 6 8 8 4 3 Mt. Lookout 0 2 1 1 0 Mt. Washington 7 1 1 3 6 Oakley 1 3 0 1 1 O'Bryonville 0 0 0 0 1 Pleasant Ridge 3 2 2 3 1 Total 28 35 26 25 26

Table 11E: District 3 Complaints by Neighborhood 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 East Price Hill 13 2 6 9 11 East Westwood 2 0 3 2 1 Fay Apartments 0 0 2 0 1 Lower Price Hill 2 0 4 2 2 Millvale 3 1 0 1 0 North Fairmount 3 4 2 3 3 Price Hill 0 7 9 3 5 Riverside 1 1 0 3 0 Roll Hill 0 2 0 0 0 Sayler Park 1 2 1 2 0 South Cumminsville 0 2 1 1 2 South Fairmount 5 2 0 1 4 West Price Hill 16 6 6 8 8

Table 11E: District 3 Complaints by Neighborhood (continued ) Appendices 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Western Hills 0 3 3 1 4 Westwood 24 29 20 26 45 Total 70 61 57 62 86

Table 11F: District 4 Complaints by Neighborhood 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Avondale 17 22 39 19 16 Bond Hill 7 2 2 2 6 Carthage 3 1 2 0 2 Corryville 5 2 3 5 5 Hartwell 0 1 1 1 1 Mt. Auburn 2 5 5 6 5 North Avondale 0 2 3 5 3 Paddock Hills 3 2 1 2 2 Roselawn 8 5 2 5 6 Walnut Hills 8 7 3 9 6 Total 53 49 61 54 52

Table 11G: District 5 Complaints by Neighborhood 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Camp Washington 3 3 3 1 3 Clifton 7 8 9 8 4 Clifton Heights/Uni versity 9 7 1 2 3 Heights /Fairview College Hill 5 3 5 8 9 Mt. Airy 5 8 6 6 5 Northside 8 11 4 2 8 Spring Grove Village 1 4 3 3 4 Winton Hills 3 0 1 2 4 Winton Place 0 0 5 5 0 Total 41 44 37 37 40

Table 11H: Complaints from Outside City Limits or

Unknown District Appendices 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 OCL 1 4 9 10 5 Unknown 5 7 0 1 2 Total 6 11 9 11 7

Table 12: Serious Incidents Reviewed 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Incidents 8 6 6 7 3 Allegations 16 14 13 19 3 Fatalities 3 4 4 4 0

Table 13: Serious Incidents Closed Findings 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Exonerated 3 10 12 8 1 Not Sustained 0 0 1 3 0 Sustained 0 0 3 1 0 Unfounded 0 0 0 4 9 Total 3 10 15 16 10

Appendix II: Definition of Terms

Accident – An unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and uninten- Appendices tionally, typically resulting in damage or injury. Allegation – When a citizen accuses an officer of a specific wrongdoing. Arrest – Seized by legal authority and taken into custody. Arrest Warrant – A warrant issued by a judge or magistrate on behalf of the state, which authorizes the arrest and detention of an individual, or the search and seizure of an individual's property. Article 28 – Cincinnati Municipal Code, Administrative Code XXVIII. Assigned – Complaints identified for investigation by a CCA Investigator. Bicycle Stop – An investigatory contact of a bicyclist. Citizen Complaint Resolution Process - Complaints that do not fall under CCA’s established criteria are referred to CPD for review internally or through their Citizen Complaint Resolution Process (CCRP). The process involves mediation between the complainant and the subject CPD officer regarding quality of service complaints. Examples of these complaints include, but are not limited to, discourtesy/unprofessional attitude, harassment, lack of service, procedure violation, improper procedure, etc. Case – The identification of an investigation. Circumstance – Refers to the underlying reason for a citizen/officer encounter. Citation Issued – An official summons to appear (as before a court). Communication – The exchange of information between people, e.g. by means of speaking, writing, or using a common system of signs or behavior. Complaint – An allegation (excluding any criminal investigation) from any source, of any action or inaction by CPD personnel, which the source considers to be contrary to law, proper procedure, good order, or in some manner prejudicial to the individual, CPD or community. Complainant – A citizen filing a complaint against a sworn CPD officer. Contact/Cover – Describes the practice of having two or more officers working together during a foot pursuit. The officers work in unison via direct or indirect communication to coordinate their efforts, remain aware of the locations of officers and suspects, and keep abreast of the status of the interaction. Criminal Offense – An illegal act punishable as a crime under the law. Death – The ending of all vital functions or processes in an organism or cell.

Death in Custody – A person who dies while in police custody whether or not the police officer’s action contributed to the death. “In custody” is defined as under Appendices the control of the police. The control does not have to be an arrest or physical possession of a person. Detention – The act of keeping somebody in custody or the state of being kept in custody. Discharge of Firearm – Any and all discharge of a firearm by a CPD officer, either intentional or accidental.

Discrimination – Prejudicial treatment because of sex, age, gender, sexual orientation, gender expression and identity, marital status, disability, religion, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, Appalachian regional ancestry, veteran status, military status, genetic history, and HIV status or other group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit. Disposition – Final arrangement; settlement. Drug Investigation – An investigation by law enforcement with the intent to arrest drug dealers and/or take or seize assets gained through criminal and illegal measures by those same drug dealers. Exonerated – Where a preponderance of evidence shows that the alleged conduct occurred but did not violate CPD policies, procedures or training. Finding – The conclusion of an investigation of the allegation against an officer. Foot Pursuit – A situation in which an officer, on foot, chases a suspect in an effort to detain or arrest that individual who the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe is about to commit, is committing, or has committed a crime and who is resisting apprehension by fleeing from the officer. Gang Investigation – Investigation of gang-related crimes committed by members of criminal street gangs. General Investigation – A varied or wide scope examination or inquiry into a situation. Harassment – Persistent aggressive pressure or intimidation. High Risk Felony Stop – A felony pedestrian or vehicle stop or offense involving reasonable suspicion the suspect may be armed with a weapon. Internal Within CPD – An investigation conducted inside the Cincinnati Police Department. Intoxication – The condition of having physical or mental control markedly diminished by the effects of alcohol or drugs. Investigation – An official review that includes, but is not limited to, witness interviews; evidence collection; policy, procedure and legal review; analysis and conclusion with findings.

Misconduct – Behavior or activity that is illegal or wrong and does not conform to a high moral standard. Appendices Non-jurisdiction – An allegation beyond the scope or geographic area in which CCA may exercise authority. Not Sustained – Where there are insufficient facts to decide whether an alleged misconduct occurred. Officer – The term “officer” or “police officer” means any sworn law enforcement

officer employed by CPD. Outside City Limits (OCL) – The incident did not occur in the City of Cincinnati. Pedestrian Stop – An investigatory contact with a pedestrian. Pointing of a Firearm – When an officer points a firearm at a person. Preponderance of the Evidence – The greater weight of the evidence required in a civil (non-criminal) lawsuit for the trier of fact (jury or judge without a jury) to decide in favor of one side or the other. This preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence. Racial Profiling – Discriminatory practice involving t he detention, interdiction or other disparate treatment of an individual based on race, ethnicity, religion or national origin as a factor, other than in the case of a physical description. Reviewed – All complaints filed with or referred to CCA and assigned for investigation. Search – Examination of a person's premises (residence, business or vehicle) by law enforcement officers looking for evidence of the commission of a crime. The search is proper if it is incident to an arrest or written permission is granted to conduct the search. The courts have granted exceptions to searches without a search warrant and each specific incident should be reviewed. Search Warrant – An order issued by a judge that authorizes police officers to enter and search premises. Seizure – The taking (seizure and removal) of articles of evidence (such as controlled narcotics or a firearm). The courts have granted exceptions to a seizure without a search warrant and each specific incident should be reviewed. Suspect – Includes any individual who a police officer reasonably believes is about to commit, is committing or has committed an offense or poses an immediate threat to the safety of the public, other officers or themselves. Sustained – Where the complainant’s allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to determine that the incident occurred, and the actions of the officer were improper.

TASER – A weapon designed for self-defense or to temporarily immobilize a subject who is actively resisting arrest. Appendices Traffic – The movement (of vehicles or pedestrians) through an area or along a route; the business of transporting goods or people. Traffic Stop – An investigatory contact of a driver of a vehicle. Unfounded – Where an investigation determined no facts to support the incident complained of actually occurred.

Use of Excessive Force – Officer(s) use of some type of force whether physical or by instrument that is beyond what is reasonably necessary. Use of Force – Officer(s) use of some type of force, whether physical or by instrument that restricts the movement of a person. Vehicle Pursuit – An attempt by a law enforcement officer operating an emergency vehicle and simultaneously utilizing lights and siren to apprehend an occupant(s) of another moving vehicle, when the driver of the fleeing vehicle is aware of the attempt and is resisting apprehension by maintaining or increasing speed, disobeying traffic laws, ignoring or attempting to elude the officer. Victim – A person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action. Withdrawn – A complaint that is reviewed and closed per directive.

47 Appendices Appendices

Appendix III: Commonly Used Acronyms 2020 Hamilton County Juvenile Court Youth Center CA Collaborative Agreement CBD Central Business District CBS Central Business Section CY Calendar Year (January 1 through December 31) CCA Citizen Complaint Authority CCRP Citizen Complaint Resolution Process (CPD) CPD Cincinnati Police Department D1 Cincinnati Police District 1 D2 Cincinnati Police District 2 D3 Cincinnati Police District 3 D4 Cincinnati Police District 4 D5 Cincinnati Police District 5 DOF Discharge of Firearm DOJ Department of Justice ECC Emergency Communications Center ETS Employee Tracking System FY Fiscal Year (July 1 through June 30) IC Independent Contractor HCJC Hamilton County Justice Center HCPO Hamilton County Probation Officer IACP International Association of Chiefs of Police IIS Internal Investigations Section (CPD) MAG City Manager’s Advisory Group MARCC Metropolitan Area Religious Coalition of Cincinnati MCT Mobile Crises Team MHRT Mental Health Response Team MOA Memorandum of Agreement

NACOLE National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement

NJ Non-Jurisdiction Appendices NOBLE National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives OCL Outside City Limits PERF Police Executive Research Forum STARS Statistical and Tactical Analytic Review for Solutions

UCMC University of Cincinnati Medical Center

Appendix IV: Staff, Training and Development

Executive Director Appendices Prior to CCA, Kim Neal held other senior level positions in other major cities in the areas of policy, employment, higher education, compliance, ethics, privacy and information disclosure in the public sector at different levels of government, and the private sector in the fields of utilities, government contracting, and legal, holding such positions as chief ethics officer, chief of staff, senior policy advisor, director and business consultant. Neal also served as Professor of Legal Studies at the University of Maryland University College in Adelphi, MD. Neal earned her Bachelor’s degree in Business Administration from Georgetown University and Juris Doctorate from University of Baltimore School of Law. In addition, she has certifications in compliance and ethics. Neal is a volunteer Court Appointed Special Advocate in Hamilton County, OH. She is also an active member of the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement, International Association of Chiefs of Police, National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, Ethics and Compliance Initiative and Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics. Currently, she is certified to present and instruct the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives “The Law and Your Community” engagement, which is a nationally recognized hands-on interactive training program for community members designed to improve communications with law enforcement officers and understanding of federal, state and local laws.

Chief Investigator Dena Brown began her career as a CCA Investigator in March 2006. Ms. Brown was promoted to Chief Investigator in 2018. Prior to her employment with the City, Ms. Brown was a Probation Officer for 11 years with Hamilton County Adult Probation Department. She is resourceful and works well independently. As the longest tenured Investigator in CCA, she possesses expert knowledge on CPD policies, procedures and training. Ms. Brown oversees the Citizen Complaint intake process. She also supervises, writes and consults on all investigations of citizen complaints. Ms. Brown acts as the liaison between CCA and CPD. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Criminal Justice from the University of Cincinnati.

Investigators Jessalyn Goodman began her career as a CCA Investigator in September 2018. Prior to her employment with the City, Ms. Goodman served three years for Statewide Intake at the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS), providing direction for assessment and documentation of potential adult and child abuse reports. She also spent five years as a DFPS Child Protective

Services Investigations Supervisor and Investigator, conducting and overseeing child abuse Investigations across south central Texas. She received a Bachelor's Appendices degree in Criminal Justice, with a Russian minor and Criminalistics certification and a Master’s degree in Linguistics with a certification in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL).

Amelia Kraus began her career as a CCA Investigator in December 2019. Prior to her employment with the City, Ms. Kraus worked three years in gaming surveillance investigations in Erie, PA. Ms. Kraus served a supervisory role, where she worked with the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board to ensure state regulated policies and procedures were followed. She also served on the Executive Board with Mercyhurst University’s Alpha Phi Sigma Criminal Justice Honor Society. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Criminal Justice, with a concentration in Law Enforcement and a Master’s degree in Criminal Justice Administration from Mercyhurst University.

Administrative Professionals Michelle Bonner began her career with CCA in May 2006. Ms. Bonner is a highly motivated, results-oriented, hands-on professional with over 27 years of local government experience with emphasis on complex administrative duties and project/office management in the areas of Law, Health and Engineering. As the department’s Senior Administrative Specialist, Ms. Bonner serves as the office manager overseeing all CCA administrative functions. She acts as CCA’s liaison for ETS, Human Resources, Risk Management, Budget, ADA, Fleet, Procurement, Purchasing, Public Records Disclosure and City Council. Ms. Bonner possesses expertise in IT and customer service and offers a wide variety of technical support and business knowledge. She acts as CCA’s Data Analyst.

Heidi Woods began her career with CCA in January 2017. Ms. Woods has experience in data management, project coordination, marketing, communications, social media and graphic design that has proven to serve as great assets to CCA. As CCA’s Administrative Specialist, Ms. Woods also serves as the liaison for Safety, Communications and plays a vital role in the development, monitoring and updating of CCA’s website and social media venues. She creates and designs CCA’s presentations, brochures, reports and other informational materials that are used for trainings as well as disseminated throughout the City of Cincinnati. Ms. Woods has a Bachelor’s degree in Business Administration from Miami University.

Training and Development

CCA remains committed to maintaining a top-notch staff that consists of experts in Appendices their fields. To accomplish this, CCA continues to participate in relevant trainings and meetings as well as engage community in all aspects of what CCA does. Ultimately, CCA is committed to being impactful in the accomplishment of its duties as well as the continual improvement of effective community and law enforcement interactions.

CCA Team members fulfill training mandates required of all City employees regarding compliance with the City’s administrative regulations, state law requirements including Government Ethics training and Ohio Sunshine Laws as well as participate in continuing education courses to remain proficient in their technical capabilities.

Appendix V: CCA Board Members

Appendices Chair Karen Osborne Appointed May 2016 Vice-Chair August 2017 - August 2018 Appointed Chair September 2018 For the last 18 years, Ms. Osborne has managed and directed the Corporate

Security Department for a large global company, providing software and customer care services to top companies in the communications, financial services, technology, and healthcare industries in over 30 countries. She is a Corporate Security professional with public and private experience in fraud detection, financial crimes and narcotics investigations, physical security, and executive protection. Ms. Osborne has a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from the University of South Carolina. She is an active volunteer for a non-profit, fair trade organization that markets handcrafted products made by artisans in more than 35 developing countries, creating an opportunity for artisans to earn a fair income selling their products.

Desiré Bennett Appointed June 2018 Ms. Bennett is a community connector promoting equity, racial justice and women’s empowerment, economic self-sufficiency and upward mobility. She is a Senior Social Equity Specialist at Design Impact and most recently, she was the first Advocacy Manager for YMCA Greater Cincinnati and named a local Ambassador for the United State of Women, an organization promoting gender equality nationally. In addition to serving as a CCA Board Member, Ms. Bennett serves on the Women’s Fund’s Leadership Council, the City of Cincinnati’s Gender Equality Taskforce, the Hamilton County Commission on Women and Girls, the MLK Coalition and is a PTP volunteer reader for the Cincinnati Association for the Blind and Visually Impaired. Ms. Bennett recently received an Alumni Award from the University of Cincinnati for her dedicated professional and activist work on behalf of women and girls in the Cincinnati metropolitan region. Ms. Bennett speaks about women’s issues, often sharing her climb from teenaged single- mother and high school dropout to completing a postgraduate degree and working as a Social Justice Advocate.

Mark (Zeek) Childers Appointed June 2018 Appendices Mr. Childers has been a Cincinnati resident since 1985. He has been involved in his community in various ways over the last 30 plus years. Mr. Childers has served on the board of Price Hill Civic Club in the past and is currently a board member and Treasurer of Price Hill Will CDC. He teaches High School Social Studies, the last 22 years at Diamond Oaks Career Campus. He has a Bachelor’s degree in Education from Miami University and a Masters of Education from Xavier

University.

Vice Chair, George Pye Appointed November 2017 Appointed Vice-Chair September 2018 After 17 years, Mr. Pye retired in 2017 from the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections as an Adult Parole Officer. He worked with various agencies: DEA, FBI, and the US Marshall Services. Mr. Pye investigated new Parole Officer applicants for hire, trained 15 other Parole Officers in report writing, investigations, interpersonal skills, field skills, case management and court procedures, and supervised hundreds of offenders’ cases. He investigated their criminal behavior when necessary. Mr. Pye volunteered with the Cincinnati Police Surveillance Team, Crime Stoppers and the Dayton Mediation Center for Juveniles. Although retired, he remains committed to keeping Cincinnati citizens safe. Mr. Pye has a Bachelor’s degree in Criminal Justice with a minor in Business Administration from the University of Cincinnati.

Luz Elena Schemmel Appointed November 2018 Luz Elena Schemmel is the Director of Santa Maria Community Services’ Immigrant, Wellness Services and International Welcome Center. She was previously the Domestic Violence Advocate for the Hispanic Health Project in Indianapolis. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Economics from the Universidad de las Americas-Puebla in Mexico and a Master’s degree in Public Administration from Indiana State University. Ms. Schemmel has been a voice for disadvantaged families for the last seven years in Cincinnati. She was a recipient of the 2016 Distinguished Hispanic Ohioan Award from the Ohio Latino Affairs Commission and the 2016 Community Award for Community Outreach from League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC).

Phyllis Slusher Appointed May 2018 Appendices Before her recent retirement, Ms. Slusher was a Senior Vice President of Corporate Communications for U.S. Bank. Prior to working at U.S. Bank, she worked in retail advertising and promotion at department stores in Cincinnati and Chicago. Ms. Slusher is active in her community and currently is president of the College Hill Forum Community Council. She volunteers regularly at Dress for Success Cincinnati. Ms. Slusher is a Cincinnati native and graduated from Ohio University with a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism.

Former Board Members Ronald Dumas Appointed May 2018 Resigned October 2019 Mr. Dumas retired from the Hamilton County Juvenile Court after 32 years of service. During his tenure with the Court, he worked as a Correction Officer at the Juvenile Detention Center, an Investigator at Hillcrest, a Court Constable and ended his career as Court Bailiff for Judge Tom Lipps. Since his retirement, Mr. Dumas established Rely Supply, LLC, which supplies lubricants and coolants to public and private customers for their fleet operations. An avid golfer, Mr. Dumas also worked as an Assistant Golf Professional at Reeves Golf Course and Avon Fields Golf Course. In 1997, he established Reaching Out For Kids, Inc., which operates a non-profit Junior Golf Program each summer. Mr. Dumas attended Prairie View A&M University.

Appendix VI: Table Cross Reference

Appendices

Appendix II Annual 5-Year Statistics Statistics Tables Table Description Tables Table Page Table Page CCA Findings 2 17 1 32 CPD Findings 3 17 2 32

Assignment of Complaints 4 18 3 32 How Complaints Were Received 5 18 4 33 Month Complaints Were Received 6 19 5 33 Circumstances of Complaints 7 20 6 34 Allegations Assigned to CCA 8 21 7 35 Allegations Assigned to CPD 9 22 8 36 Complainant Gender 11A 23 9A 37 Complainant Ethnicity 11B 23 9B 37 Complainant Age 11C 23 9C 37 Officer Gender 13A 24 10A 38 Officer Ethnicity 13B 24 10B 38 Officer Rank 13C 24 10C 38 Officer Age 13D 24 10D 39 Officer Years on Force 13E 24 10E 39 Complaints from All CPD Districts 14A 25 11A 40 Central Business Section Complaints 14B 25 11B 40 District 1 Complaints by Neighborhood 14C 26 11C 41 District 2 Complaints by Neighborhood 14D 26 11D 41 District 3 Complaints by Neighborhood 14E 27 11E 42 District 4 Complaints by Neighborhood 14F 27 11F 42 District 5 Complaints by Neighborhood 14G 28 11G 42 Complaints from Outside City Limits or 14H 28 11H 43 Unknown District Serious Incidents Reviewed 12 43 Summary 15A 29 Districts 15B 29 Demographics 15C 29 Serious Incidents Closed 13 43 Summary 16A 30 Districts 16B 30 Findings 16C 30 Demographics 16D 30

Design by Michael Stillion

Located at Main Street & East 13th Street

Photo by J. Miles Wolf

Design by Lucie Rice

Located at 910 Race Street

Photo by J. Miles Wolf

Design by Tina Westerkamp

Located at 718 State Avenue

Photo by J. Miles Wolf

Citizen Complaint Authority Two Centennial Plaza 805 Central Avenue, Suite 222 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

Telephone: 513.352.1600 Email: [email protected] Facsimile: 513.352.3158 Website: www.cincinnati-oh.gov/ccia/