Editorial: Unsubstantiated Complaints Against Police Erode Trust: How to Fix It

Since May 25, when George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis Police Department Officers, protests have occurred in every major city -and a lot of smaller cities- throughout the United States. People in foreign countries such as England and France have also been protesting. For the past week, protesters have been making their voice heard about all sorts of issues, such as:

• Use-of-force by police, especially, though not exclusively, against non-white individuals
• Police not being held internally, civilly, or criminally accountable for their misconduct

Some protesters have been speaking up about broader issues, like:

• Transgender rights
• Gender inequality
• Systemic and institutional racism
• Gun violence
• Social inequities relating to COVID-19
• Wealth inequality
• And so much more

Specifically, JMTN would like to discuss issues surrounding police not being held accountable for their misconduct. There have been numerous reports of journalists being arrested, peaceful protesters being sprayed with tear-gas, and, yes, police officers being attacked during this past week. While we understand that everyone, including police officers, are human and make mistakes, there needs to be trust between police departments and the residents they protect and serve. Yet it seems from these protests that that mutual trust doesn't exist right now.

So here's how police departments can get it back.

When confronted with allegations of police misconduct relating to use-of-force during this past week, police chiefs have rightfully said "we're looking into it." Every department has a different process for how they handle misconduct complaints, but many of them all share the same flaw: they aren't transparent.

The trouble is that when police find a complaint to be unsubstantiated, they don't communicate their reasoning to the public. It appears then to be a case of "we've investigated ourselves, and found nothing wrong." Complainants feel like they aren't being listened to. If they submit a complaint, and the department says all is well-and-good, they don't understand. After all, if the citizen knew all the policies that the department found the officer to be following, then they wouldn't have filed a complaint in the first place.

When a citizen files a complaint against an officer, they do it because they truly think that the officer was out-of-line. Even when the officer really did behave properly, and the citizen is wrong, that isn't explained to the public. There's a saying: "you can't choose how I feel." In this case, police departments cannot choose how a complainant feels. When a citizen feels that an officer messed up, even when the officer did everything right, they file a complaint. If the department finds the complaint to be unsubstantiated, it doesn't change how the complainant feels. In turn, the public feels like the department is covering for a "bad cop." This causes trust between the police and the public to erode. And in the case of these latest protests, the trust didn't just erode: it vanished.

Instead, police departments should be transparent with the public about complaints. The department needs to show the complainant evidence that causes them to change their mind, not a closed-doors investigation. That means a public database of complaints, whether unsubstantiated or not, against the department's officers. This database would include:

• The date, nature, and general location of the complaint
• A listing of the officers involved
• The names of the individual's investigating the allegation, and their relationship with the department
• A reason for disposition that is clear, documented, and understandable by both the public and the officers involved
• For example, an unsubstantiated complaint about use-of-force would have an explanation of how the officer's actions complied with the department's use-of-force policy, as well as the text of the policy itself.
• An unsubstantiated complaint about use of bad-language by an officer would have an explanation of why the words the officer used were appropriate, why less-harsh words would not have been appropriate, and the department's policy regarding language used by officers.
• A substantiated complaint would include information about what policy was violated, how the policy was violated, and why the discipline the officer faces is appropriate.

Additionally, there must be an appeals process that affords both the officer and the complainant the ability to have the case re-heard, to include the ability to testify before the investigatory committee about why they believe the initial disposition was inappropriate.

A mechanism must exist for automatically triggering a deeper look at officers who have a certain number of unsubstantiated complaints. While the officer may in fact be entirely upstanding, it's also possible that there's something going on that the review board isn't set up to find. This is important, as Derek Chauvin, the officer who sparked this round of protests, had 24 complaints filed against him during his service with the Minneapolis Police Department. All but one were found to be unsubstantiated. However, the MPD does not make these other 23 records available for public review (JMTN has filed a request with the MPD under Minnesota's FOIA-equivalent for the complaint records of all four officers involved in George Floyd's killing in hopes that they will be disclosed).

While it is possible that Chauvin's previous 23 complaints do not show anything wrong, the public sees the non-disclosure as MPD trying to 'hide something.' This erodes public trust between the department and the residents, which makes things unnecessarily harder for everyone: police officers and citizens.

A simple "we understand your feelings, you're right to feel the way you do, and here's our reasoning" goes a long way to building trust with the public.