Police complaint case summaries provide scant detail
Lawrence Police Chief Tarik Khatib said the recent FBI
investigation into a traffic ticket-fixing scheme and the removal of two
high-ranking Lawrence police officers does not necessitate more transparency in
police misconduct cases.
“We act appropriately and hold people accountable,” Khatib
said.
For the past two years, the Lawrence Journal-World has
requested the full reports for misconduct complaints against members of the
Lawrence Police Department. The department has denied those requests, citing a
personnel exemption in the Kansas open records law. However, police have
furnished brief case summaries indicating which complaints were sustained.
Here’s a breakdown of cases since 2010:
• 2010: 10 complaints, seven sustained.
• 2011: 24 complaints, 11 sustained.
• 2012 (through May 1): 13 complaints, five sustained. Four
remain open.
The case summaries that police provided consisted of one or
two sentences, and they did not include what disciplinary action was taken
against officers. For example, the summary for the ticket-fixing incident that
the FBI investigated — in which no criminal charges were filed — said simply:
“An anonymous complaint led to the investigation of officers
for violation of the department’s gratuity and solicitation policy. The
complaint was sustained.”
Those allegations involved the dismissal of a Kansas
University athletic department official’s speeding tickets in exchange for KU
basketball tickets. The city has not identified the two officers, but city
officials have confirmed that Matt Sarna and Michael Monroe, both sergeants and
longtime officers, no longer are employed with the department.
Khatib said his office would have proactively provided the
public with information in the ticket-fixing case once the investigation was
complete. However, information obtained by media outlets led the department to
provide information sooner, he said.
Khatib did say there could be cases in which an officer was
terminated for misconduct but which wouldn’t necessitate public notification.
The chief said he believes the current system is an
effective way to inform the public about possible wrongdoing within the
department, while not sacrificing the officers’ privacy.
The current process “strikes a good balance,” Khatib said.
Charles Davis, a journalism professor at the University of
Missouri and author of two books on open records, disagrees.
“We have to take their word for it,” Davis said about a lack
of details in such cases. “How does the public have any idea it wasn’t an
entire whitewash?”
Davis also questions the use of the personnel exemption as a
rationale for limiting information. In several states, media outlets have
battled police agencies about similar exemptions, and courts have generally
ruled on the side of transparency, Davis said.
Letting the public in on cases of police misconduct is “just
part and parcel to be accountable to the public,” Davis said.
2011 complaints
• A citizen reported that an officer acted inappropriately
while handling a conflict among several individuals. The investigation revealed
the officer used some terminology that could easily be taken as unprofessional
or rude. The complaint was sustained.
• An officer engaged in a vehicle pursuit which reached high
speeds in the downtown area. The violation which initiated the call and pursuit
did not warrant the speeds driven by the officer. The complaint was sustained.
• A citizen reported that an officer failed to properly
investigate a battery. Investigation revealed that the case was properly
documented and investigated to the extent possible. The officer was exonerated.
• A citizen reported that the citizen was not treated fairly
and officers did not properly investigate a dispute the citizen had with other
another group. The original allegations were not sustained, but investigation
revealed that an officer failed to document the name of one of the parties
involved. The complaint was not sustained.
• A citizen reported officers did not adequately respond to
and handle a domestic dispute. Investigation revealed that the officer should
have completed an offense report in relation to this call, but failed to do so.
The complaint was sustained.
• Contrary to policy, an officer did not cooperate with an
investigation regarding work performance. The complaint was sustained.
• A citizen observed an officer ride a police bicycle
contrary to the traffic code without an emergency reason to do so.
Investigation revealed the citizen’s allegations were correct. The complaint
was sustained.
• A citizen complained that officers did not have a valid
reason for contacting the citizen. Investigation revealed the officers properly
responded to the reported disturbance and the contact was appropriate. The
officers were exonerated.
• An investigation into the interaction between two officers
revealed unprofessional conduct.The complaint was sustained.
• A citizen reported that an officer stopped the citizen
based upon the citizen’s race/ethnicity. Investigation revealed no racial
motivation for the officer’s decision to stop or to cite the citizen. The
officer was exonerated.
• A citizen reported that, without cause to do so, an
officer punched the citizen in the face during an arrest. Investigation
revealed there was no basis for the allegation. The officer was exonerated.
• An officer was rude and used profanity in anger toward
another officer. The complaint was sustained.
• An officer failed to properly document and initiate an
investigation during a disturbance call. The complaint was sustained.
• A citizen reported that an officer was rude and
condescending to the citizen during a disturbance call. The complaint was
sustained.
• A citizen complained that an officer was rude and
unprofessional during a suspicious activity call. The complaint was sustained.
• A civilian employee failed to inform the department of a
matter that policy required them to do so. The complaint was sustained.
• An officer was unprofessional and sarcastic during a call
for service. The complaint was sustained.
• An anonymous complaint led to the investigation of
officers for violation of the department’s gratuituy and solicitation policy.
The complaint was sustained.
• An allegation was received that an officer was
unprofessional during a vehicle stop and subsequent citizen contact. The
complaint was not sustained.
• A citizen reported that their child was taken into custody
without just cause during an investigation. The complaint was dismissed.
• A citizen reported that officers entered the citizen’s
home and made an unlawful arrest. The arrest was determined to be lawful. The
officers were exonerated.
• A citizen reported that an officer was rude during a call.
The officer was exonerated.
• After the court action, a citizen reported that officers
coerced her daughter into confessing to a crime. The officers were exonerated.