Re “Giving the P. D. One More Chance, One More Day”
The conversation this morning with Police Chief Don Pedersen about complaining resident Charles Fernandez did not begin promisingly.
At issue was whether the Police Dept. was obligated to issue more than a flat form letter response to a series of personal charges Mr. Fernandez made after being ticketed in front of his home last month at 12:30 in the morning.
“This is a personnel matter,” Mr. Pedersen said, “and there is also the threat of litigation, which precludes me from talking about personnel matters.
“When there is a threat of litigation, neither the city nor the department will comment.”
Reacting to a story here yesterday criticizing the Police Dept. for sending a form letter to the newspaper when a specific response to Mr. Fernandez was sought, the Chief said:
“We have policies and procedures in place for receiving and investigating citizens’ complaints. In the Fernandez case, that is exactly what happened. I personally review all of the investigations regarding internal matters, and we come to several different conclusions.
“I cannot speak specifically to this matter. Generically, I will tell you…
Q. But you can make some comment.
“No, because it is a personnel matter, and also there is the threat of litigation. What I will tell you is that we have a very good process in place for the acceptance and investigation of these complaints.
“We accept complains in virtually any form that they come to the Department, whether a telephone call, a letter, a formal written complaint.
“We take all of them seriously.
“We investigate them thoroughly. And we don’t rush to any judgment. We collect facts. We want the truth regarding the matter.
“When the investigation is concluded, the investigator comes to one of, basically, four conclusions:
“The No. 1conclusion is that the matter is sustained. What that means is, by a preponderance of evidence, the alleged violation occurred. Remember, ‘preponderance; means 51 percent, not beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt.
“It can be non-sustained. It also can be exonerated. This is where people get a little confused.
“ ‘Exonerated’ would mean, for example, that an incident occurred, we looked at it, and what was alleged did happen. That action was within policy and the law.
“Here is an example: Someone is detained at the scene of a crime. Maybe we have a description of a suspect, and it matches perfectly with this person. We handcuff and detain the person at the scene of a crime. Perfectly legitimate, based on probable cause. Turns out, though, the one detained is not the person. It does not mean the Department did anything wrong. We were just doing an investigation. So the officer would be exonerated.
“Then there is the ‘unfounded’ complaint, which means the evidence clearly shows the charge did not happen. For example, somebody is accused of assaulting a suspect. However, there is a videotape in the business where this occurred. It very clearly shows it did not happen.
“Were it not for the videotape, you have a he-said/she-said, he-said/he-said situation, then it would most likely be a ‘not sustained’ complaint because it could not be proven.
“To unfound something, it is a challenge.
“And so this is how the process works. Those are the four end-results of a citizen’s complaint.
“In the case of a sustained complaint, there would be a disciplinary recommendation, which could be a verbal counseling, a written counseling, and a possible termination in a worst-case scenario.”
Q. Is it correct that your Department’s investigation of the Fernandez matter cleared the officer?
“I can’t comment.”
Q. If the officer had not been cleared, there would not be a threat of litigation.
“Not necessarily. Many times we have not done anything, or maybe we have, and there is a threat of litigation. In generic terms, that (thesis) does not mean anything.”
Q. Because of our jobs, you and I have conflicting objectives in this matter. By not commenting on pending litigation, you are making a choice. True?
“I don’t know if it is a choice. I think it is something we need to do in the year 2010.
“I mean, people are litigious, and I believe the Department has an obligation to protect itself.
“Furthermore, we have the obligation to protect our police officers. Not only do we have an obligation, I take that very seriously,” Mr. Pedersen said.
Q. In light of the fullness of this discussion, why can’t you say, on the record, “We cleared the officer”?
“Only because I am not going to comment on a personnel matter. I have pretty thoroughly explained the different conclusions.
“Further, I want this Department to know I support them. I am going to do the right thing, the ethical thing.”
