Citizen Oversight Board

201 W. Colfax Ave., Dept. 1201

Denver, CO 80202
p: 720.913.3306
f: 720.913-3305
www.denvergov.org/oim

December 10, 2014

Robert White, Chief of Police
Denver Police Department
1331 Cherokee Street
Denver, CO 80202
Dear Chief White:
We, the members of the Citizen Oversight Board write to you in response to DPDs recent public
statements about an open investigation by Internal Affairs (IAB). We have very serious concerns about
some of these statements, which in our view lack objectivity, could compromise the investigation, and
could intimidate people from coming forward if they witness perceived misconduct by DPD officers in the
future.
On November 24, 2014, Fox31 aired a news story about an officer who was shown punching a man a
number of times allegedly to remove drugs from his mouth, and then shown tripping his pregnant
girlfriend when she approached. A witness to this event stated in the Fox31 story that officers had used
inappropriate force against this man and his girlfriend. The witness also stated that officers threatened to
arrest him, and that an officer took his tablet computer and deleted a video of the situation. The story
stated that the witness was later told by friends to delete the video, which he had recovered from the
cloud, so the DPD would not attempt to jam him up.
We understand from other news stories, and from the Independent Monitor, that IAB has opened an
investigation to look into this incident. On November 28, although the investigation had just begun, the
DPD issued a four-page press release about the incident on DPDs official Twitter and Facebook accounts.
In the release, the DPD repeatedly defended the behavior of officers involved in this situation, including
stating that their use of force was appropriate. For example, the release suggested that the officers use
of force had been necessary because of the arrested mans own violent resist[ance to] officers and
refus[al] to obey their legal commands. When discussing the officers decision to repeatedly punch the
arrested man in the face, rather than using other means to remove drugs from his mouth, the release said
we feel this was the better of the two choices. Regarding the force used against the arrested mans
pregnant girlfriend, the release stated that the officers had acted appropriately in pushing her. These
statements, which were made without the benefit of a completed IAB investigation, lead us to believe
that the DPD has already made up its mind about this matter.
The press release also made statements to attack the credibility of the witness who came forward with
the video. It stated that the witness has a criminal record, and listed several crimes that he was allegedly
imprisoned for in another state. It stated that he was recently released after a lengthy prison sentence,

and that the witness has six aliases, which occurs as a result of a legal name change or the illegal use of
someone elses name or lying about ones identity to the police.
We strongly believe that it was not appropriate for the DPD to make these statements. There is already
significant community concern and distrust of the DPD and IAB. Instead of thanking the witness who
came forward to share information, the DPD publicly attacked his character. It is very likely that the
DPDs attacks on this witness will only reinforce fears in the community, and inhibit other members of the
public from cooperating with DPD or IAB if they witness possible officer misconduct in the future.
We are aware that the stated purpose of IAB investigations is to fairly determine the facts so that
decisions can be made about whether any officers engaged in misconduct. There should be no
predetermined conclusions at the beginning of an IAB investigation. In this case, however, the DPD has
publicly stated that the force was appropriate before IAB has even conducted its investigation. In the
news story, the DPD Commander admitted that the Department had not yet viewed the witness full
video of the use of force. Isnt that a very important piece of evidence that would have to be viewed
before deciding that repeatedly punching the man and tripping his pregnant girlfriend was appropriate?
Given the nature and timing of the aforementioned public statements by the DPD, as the Citizen
Oversight Board we are very concerned that the DPD may not be approaching this matter with an open
mind and a willingness to look into it without bias. At this early stage of the IAB inquiry, it is not known if
any misconduct was involved or not. We understand that the Independent Monitor is actively monitoring
the IAB investigation, and we have requested regular reports from him regarding the fair and thorough
conduct of that investigation.
We look forward to your response to the concerns expressed in this letter.
Sincerely,

Dr. Mary Davis, Chair

Cisco Gallardo, Vice-Chair
Pastor Paul Burleson
Rabbi Steven Foster
Cathy Reynolds
Nita Gonzales
Mark Brown
cc:

Mr. Nicholas E. Mitchell, Independent Monitor

Ms. Stephanie OMalley, Executive Director of Safety

-2-