| Complaint Number | Date Received | Complaint Status | Department | Complaint Types and Resolutions | Resolution Date | Summary |
| 06-09-001 | 09/26/06 | Resolved | Non Specific |
| 10/10/06 | This record was created for initial launch testing and is not a valid complaint. |
| 06-09-002 | 09/28/06 | Resolved | Non Specific |
| Unsure | Department Resolution |
| Unsure | Department Resolution |
| Unsure | Department Resolution |
| 10/19/06 | This record was created for initial launch testing and is not a valid complaint. |
| 06-09-003 | 09/28/06 | Resolved | Non Specific |
| 10/13/06 | This record was created for initial launch testing and is not a valid complaint. |
| 06-10-004 | 10/04/06 | Resolved | Public Works |
| EEO | Department Resolution |
| EEO | Referred in Error |
| 11/16/07 | Complainant alleged that she was subjected to sexual harassment by her male Supervisor (here after Respondent), and was discredited by Respondent’s rumors about her. Complainant further alleged that Respondent’s actions against her were because of her gender and that the men in the office were not treated in a similar manner. Additionally, it was alleged that co-workers (who did not want to be named) overheard Respondent state publicly and openly that - “Complainant didn’t do a good job and that she needed to be laid off.”
This investigation revealed that Respondent’s negative comments about Complainant created a difficult working environment. Trust had been breached. Complainant’s allegations were substantiated by co-workers interviewed.
Management was informed about the Cause finding of this investigation. On June 22, 2007, Respondent received written counseling and was placed on notice that his behavior be monitored. Management has taken actions deemed necessary to ensure that Complainant’s work environment is free of harassment from Respondent.
|
| 06-10-005 | 10/04/06 | Resolved | Non Specific |
| 10/13/06 | This record was created for initial launch testing and is not a valid complaint. |
| 06-10-006 | 10/04/06 | Resolved | Non Specific |
| 10/13/06 | This record was created for initial launch testing and is not a valid complaint. |
| 06-10-007 | 10/05/06 | Resolved | Tacoma Police |
| 11/21/06 | This complaint alleges that officers responding to an incident, in which a family member was involved, made the incident more serious than it needed to be. The individual felt that if it had been handled properly, it need not have resulted in an arrest. The individual also complained that officers took and would not return the driver’s license of the individual who was arrested. Finally, the individual alleged that when a request was made to speak to a representative in the Chief’s office to file a complaint, the response was that an appointment was necessary.
The results of the investigation are as follows: On September 27, 2006, Officers responded to a noise disturbance on South Trafton Street. Upon arrival, the officers determined that no crime had been committed; however, during a routine warrant check, one of the subjects was listed as a respondent to a court order, which expires in 07/07. Once it was discovered that there was a court order violation under the domestic violence statute, the officers were required to place the individual under arrest. The individual was advised of his/her Miranda Rights, which were waived, and transported to the Pierce County Jail. The investigation found that officers did not retain the individual’s driver’s license or any other personal property belonging to the subject.
As per department policy and procedure, officer complaints are responded to initially by a first-line supervisor- not the Chief of Police. Upon review of the complaint by Internal Affairs, it was found that the policy was followed in this case. A department supervisor responded to the complaint and recorded it in the department inquiry log. Appointments are necessary to speak with representatives in the Chief of Police’s Office, but individuals may also submit complaints directly through www.cityoftacoma.org/complaints or may contact any member of City staff.
|
| 06-10-008 | 10/11/06 | Resolved | Non Specific |
| 10/19/06 | The individual making this complaint claimed that he was unhappy with his shower schedule. This complaint does not activate the jurisdiction of the City. |
| 06-10-009 | 10/12/06 | Resolved | Tacoma Police |
| 05/10/07 |
The complaint submitted directly by the complainant alleges: "I have numerous complaints against the Tacoma Police Department. I was told by Internal Affairs no complaint of mine has been investigated nor would one be investigated. For example when someone attempted to murder my daughter at Point Defiance (with an Uzi?)the police would not go to the scene nor would they take the jacket of the bullet out of the back window of her car. I was told my death would be low priority like Stephen Folsom's death.”
Internal Affairs researched the issue and located the following: In August of 2003, the complainant submitted a public disclosure request for police records to the Tacoma City Manager. The request was nearly identical to a May 2003 public disclosure request to the Tacoma Police Department for a copy of the investigation of a "murder attempt on my daughter and her friend on Five Mile Drive" that occurred in the "summer of 1998." The complainant had also previously submitted this same request to the police department on several occasions in 1998. Copies of all documents on file and eligible for disclosure were provided to the complainant in each instance.
Detectives from the Tacoma Police Department prepared and submitted supplemental reports to include a Crime Laboratory Report from the Washington State Patrol.
During the time period December 1998 to June 2005, the complainant has made approximately 57 public disclosure requests to the City Legal Department. All requests received a response from the City.
This complaint is unfounded because the Park Police Department did respond to the incident and document the investigation on a General Report. The incident occurred in a City park and was investigated and reported by the appropriate agency.
|
| 06-10-010 | 10/12/06 | Resolved | Outside Agency |
| 03/05/07 | The complainant was upset at service provided by the Pierce County Health Department after a complaint about a dog that is routinely in a restaurant.
This complaint is not directed to the City of Tacoma, but rather to the Health Department. As such, it was referred to the Office of the Director of Health on November 20, 2006. For more information, please contact the Director's Office at 253-798-2899. |
| 06-10-011 | 10/12/06 | Resolved | Tacoma Police |
| 02/12/07 | Complaint alleges that an off-duty officer in his private vehicle slammed on the vehicle’s brakes intentionally to cause a rear-end accident. After the incident the officer allegedly followed the complainant. The complainant believed that the officer had no reason to drive his vehicle in such a fashion.
Internal Affairs forwarded the complaint to the officer’s supervisor for disposition. The supervisor determined there were no independent witnesses to the officer’s action.
The complaint is not sustained meaning that the investigation is unable to substantiate whether or not misconduct or violation of rules, regulations, or procedures occurred.
|
| 06-10-012 | 10/16/06 | Resolved | Tacoma Police |
| Misconduct | Department Resolution |
| 03/12/07 | Complainant alleges that he was retaliated against, falsely arrested, harassed, unlawfully imprisoned, and maliciously prosecuted and that false reports were generated.
The investigation was as follows: The subject is currently incarcerated in Monroe Correctional Facility as a result of a conviction for felony assault under the domestic violence statutes.
The investigation found that the subject was arrested based on probable cause, tried in a court of law and sentenced for the crimes. The case reports and investigation procedures were reviewed and found to be accurate and appropriate. The individual was provided with appropriate due process.
The outcome of this complaint is that the individual’s allegation that there was police misconduct is unfounded.
|
|