COMPLAINT: UNFOUNDED

Metro's secret investigations do not instill confidence.

Metro supposedly has a procedure in place for citizens who believe they've
been mistreated by officers, or that Metro's men have exceeded their
delegated authority. When such a complaint is filed, it's supposed to be
investigated by the department's Internal Affairs Bureau.

Then, the complainant is supposed to be advised of the findings. Recently,
Metro officers ran off petition-passers seeking to gather signatures
downtown on Fremont Street in an effort to place on the ballot a referendum
to legalize marijuana for medical use.

The petition gatherers filed a complaint with Internal Affairs. On June 29,
Metro sent out the department's standard form letter to the frustrated
petition gatherers, supposedly reporting on the results of the department's
investigation.

Over the name of Sheriff Jerry Keller and the signature of Robert DuVall,
sergeant, IAB, the letter states: "The complaint you filed with the Internal
Affairs Bureau has been fully investigated and the appropriate action
taken." The form letter then presents a laundry list of "possible
dispositions of your complaint," like an old-fashioned menu offering
appetizers in column A, and entrees in column B:

"1. UNFOUNDED: Investigation established that complained-of conduct did not
occur.

"2. EXONERATED: Investigation established the the act did occur, but that it
was justified, legal and proper.

"3. NOT SUSTAINED: Investigation failed to produce sufficient evidence to
clearly prove or disprove the allegation.

"4. SUSTAINED: Investigation established that misconduct occurred.

"5. MISCONDUCT NOT BASED ON COMPLAINT: Investigation established that
misconduct occurred but was not a part of the original complaint.

"6. POLICE FAILURE: Investigation reveals that the act did occur and was in
compliance with department policy, however, it is also determined that the
allegation of misconduct could have been prevented had policy been more
clear or complete."

With our list of possible options complete (don't bother to look for "We
apologize," "The officer has been fired and indicted," or, "We promise never
to allow this to happen again"), complainants in this case were then
brusquely informed: "The following is the disposition of your complaint per
the LVMPD Internal Affairs Bureau:

"Use of force -- exonerated. Courtesy -- unfounded. If I can be of any
further assistance to you in the future ... "

And they say bureaucrats have trouble expressing themselves with brevity!

If Metro wishes to create even the passing impression that such complaints
receive a fair hearing, the department must go way beyond describing as a
"response" this kind of pitiful "check one box from column A" form letter.

Was any effort made to interview independent witnesses, or was this just the
expected case of taking an officer's word over that of a "suspect"? Did
Metro's IAB seek any advice from legal experts, about the special
consideration due our cherished freedom to "petition Government for a
redress of grievances," and the tricky question of whether the street in
question is a public place?

No one will ever know.

Such mocking letters only round out a process which is secret and
unknowable, from start to finish. Sheriff Keller is now involved in a
re-election campaign, in which he will doubtless claim he has made his
department more responsive to the taxpayers it serves.

Indeed, there have been improvements. But this kind of cynical rebuff --
blithely asserting that everything's been resolved in the secrecy of the
Star Chamber, and that's all the complainant or the public ever need know --
isn't one of them.

Checked-by: Melodi Cornett