City of Akron

Office of the Independent Police Auditor

Phillip L. Young IPA

2022 Annual Review – Citizen Complaints

DANIEL HORRIGAN, MAYOR

The Independent Police Auditor has been a member of the

National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) since 2008.

The independent Police Auditor has been a Certified Practitioner of Oversight since 2013.
The mission of the Independent Police Auditor (IPA) is to conduct outreach about
the complaint process and the services the police Auditor provides to the
community; to serve as an alternative location to file a complaint against an Akron
police officer; to monitor and audit Akron Police Department (APD) complaint
investigations and Use of Force investigations to ensure they are thorough,
objective and fair; to make policy recommendations to enhance and improve
policies and procedures of the APD; to respond to the scene of and review
Officer-involved shooting / fatal investigations.

The IPA accepts complaints in person at his office, through the mail, and by email.
The IPA is also notified when a complaint is submitted directly to APD. Any
investigation of complaints is not only to see if policy and procedure has been
violated, but also rules, regulations, and laws. Any information or allegations
received by the IPA in the form of citizen complaints is sent to APD for
investigation.

Sincerely,
Phillip L. Young, Certified Practitioner of Oversight
City of Akron Independent Police Auditor
 Community Oversight Paves the Road to Police Accountability
In the United States, law enforcement operates under a shroud of secrecy with far
less democratic accountability than our other public institutions. Police Oversight
Bodies are limited in power under most state laws. Police departments are able to
control the Oversight Bodies’ access to the data, evidence, witnesses, and personnel
files that they need for meaningful oversight.
A first step: The Congress discussed some critical legislation, but it didn’t pass.
However, state legislatures and municipalities, can and should pass legislation
permitting localities to establish Civilian Oversight Bodies. Localities should be able to
give these bodies subpoena power to compel the production of documents and
witnesses, allowing them to investigate, gather, analyze, and review information;
produce public reports; and to make informed recommendations related to policing
issues of significant public interest. Localities should also be able to empower these
bodies to make the final decisions on disciplining officers, adjudicating use of force,
recruiting practices, and creating policies. Localities can empower these bodies with the
independence that is necessary to have a lasting impact.
A FIRST STEP
Oversight is an important first step toward police accountability and transparency in our
communities.

PROACTIVE
● Not just reviewing misconduct complaints.
● Can include independent analysis of police data related to Use of Force, Stop-and-Frisk,
or other procedures; financial auditing and recommendations; review of policies,
independent investigations, and proposals to address systemic issues; and more.

INDEPENDENT
● Must be independent authorities, not subsidiaries of the police departments they
oversee.
● Must be independent from political processes.
● Must be independent and permanently secured financially.
● Must have independence of voice. Oversight should not keep secrets for law
enforcement.

INDIVIDUALIZED
● For each locality based on specific needs of the community.
● This requires broad (not prescriptive) enabling legislation for each municipality to
establish a structure that meets their unique needs.

COMMUNITY-DRIVEN
● Oversight should be conducted—in part or in whole—by the people most impacted by
policing in their communities.

EMPOWERED
● Subpoena (witnesses) and subpoena duces tecum (documents) authority.
 ● The statewide repeal of laws that prevent public access to and publication of police
records on discipline and other matters of public concern.
● Final decision-making authority on:
o disciplinary matters,

o adjudicating use of force,

o recruiting practices, and

o creating policies.

TRANSPARENT
● All meetings and reports should be public and all operations should be transparent.

AN INVESTMENT IN OUR COMMUNITIES

● Financial and administrative support (as requested by the individual oversight body) by
municipalities is critical to the success of police oversight.

AN ITERATIVE PROCESS
● Meaningful civilian oversight faces numerous hurdles in the United States due to the
overwhelming protections law enforcement officers have, including statutory procedural
guarantees when faced with discipline or firing that no other public official enjoys,
qualified immunity, and more. Oversight will change as these landscapes change.

Pitfalls to Avoid
OVERSIGHT IS NOT A ONE-STEP SOLUTION FOR ALL POLICING ISSUES

OVERSIGHT IS NOT SOLELY A REACTIVE “CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD”

● “Civilian Review Board” indicates that the only power an Oversight Body has is to
“review” individual complaints. It leaves out the ability independently investigate (rather
than relying on the police department’s records) and to engage in work focused on
systemic problems.
OVERSIGHT IS NOT CHOSEN OR HOUSED BY POLICE DEPARTMENTS
● Appointees should not be chosen by the Chief of Police.
● Oversight bodies should be independent of the Police Department in all ways.
OVERSIGHT IS NOT A STATEWIDE BODY
● A statewide Oversight Bodies overseeing all law enforcement agencies in the state would
disregard best practices identified by the National Association of Civilian Oversight of
Law Enforcement (“NACOLE”).
OVERSIGHT IS NOT DONE FROM THE TOP-DOWN
● Localities should be encouraged and empowered to create strict Oversight Bodies
membership criteria based on the history and patterns of local policing to ensure that
communities most impacted by policing are represented.
OVERSIGHT IS NOT PERFORMATIVE
● State laws already afford extraordinary protections to law enforcement officers and
conceal extensive information regarding their work from the public. Civilian oversight
bodies must be given real power or else they risk being performative political
statements with no actual “teeth” or power.
OVERSIGHT IS NOT SECRETIVE
● This is a public-facing process and all efforts should be made by the Legislature and
localities to ensure that policing matters are able to be discussed in public settings and
all reports are made public.
OVERSIGHT IS NOT SOLELY VOLUNTEER-BASED
● Staff can and should be able to be hired by localities, with statewide and/or
local permanent financial support.
OVERSIGHT IS NOT A QUICK FIX
● Community-Police distrust is not new. We are at a critical moment in our nation’s history
and, as Civilian Oversight Bodies become more widespread, additional statewide
legislative pushes may be needed to ensure meaningful oversight and community
legitimacy of the oversight process.

-From the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE),
Community Law Enforcement Paves the Road to Police Accountability
Policy

Establishment of procedures for investigating complaints and allegations of employee

misconduct is a crucial part of demonstrating and protecting a law enforcement agency’s
integrity. It is the policy of the Akron Police Department to accept and review all citizen
complaints regarding police service, policy, procedure, or personnel. The purpose of this
procedure is to inform employees and the public of the process for accepting and
investigating allegations of employee misconduct.

-Akron Police Department Procedure P-2019-007, Citizen Complaint Procedure

Procedure

Acceptance and Filing of Complaints: Complaints may be filed in person, via telephone, via
mail, through the independent police auditor, or may be filed anonymously. All complaints
will be forwarded to the Patrol Operations Bureau for review.

-Akron Police Department Procedure P-2019-007, Citizen Complaint Procedure

 January
January Complaints Timeline
Between January 1, 2022 and January 31, 2022, the IPA received 10 notifications from APD,
including new complaints and completed complaint investigations. The IPA office also received 2
new complaints directly from citizens.

January 12th APD forwards the Auditor 1 new complaint

th
January 12 2 completed complaint investigations from APD
January 17th 1 new citizen complaint submitted directly to IPA office
January 21st 2 completed complaint investigations from APD
January 25th 3 completed complaint investigations from APD
January 26th 1 completed complaint investigation from APD
January 27th APD forwards the Auditor 1 new complaint
th
January 28 1 new citizen complaint submitted directly to IPA office

On Monday, January 17th, the IPA received a complaint alleging a failure to investigate. The
complaint was forwarded to APD on Wednesday, January 19th.

On Friday, January 28th, the IPA received a complaint regarding an alleged traffic stop on
January 19th. The complaint was forwarded to APD for investigation on Monday, January 31st
with a request for incident reports and Body Worn Camera (BWC) footage.

To summarize, the IPA received the following citizen complaint notifications over the month of
January:

● 2 new complaints forwarded from APD.

● 8 completed complaint investigations from APD.
● 2 new complaints received directly by IPA office.
 January Citizen Complaint Investigations
While there were 8 citizen complaint investigations completed and submitted to the Auditor in
the month of January, these 8 complaints involved 27 different components or issues.

Each of these complaint components were investigated to reach findings of Unfounded,

Exonerated, Substantiated, Unsubstantiated, Needs Adjudicated in Court, Withdrawn, or No
Disposition.

APD Procedure P-2019-007, the Citizen Complaint Procedure, defines these determinations in
the following way:

Unsubstantiated – Cannot determine whether the incident occurred or not.

Exonerated – The incident did occur, but the officer’s action(s) were legal and proper.

Unfounded – The incident did not occur.

Substantiated – The incident did occur as stated by the complaining party.

Withdrawn – When the complainant wished to withdraw the complaint before an

investigation has been completed, provided that the investigating supervisor has not
uncovered any violations of law or the rules and regulations.

While “No Disposition” does not appear in Procedure P-2019-007, it is sometimes used when
complaints do not meet APD’s criteria for investigation. The IPA has made a policy
recommendation that APD respond to these complainants with the reason there is to be no
investigation when presenting a finding of “No Disposition.” This recommendation has since
been put into place.

The following are APD’s findings of the citizen complaint investigations that were submitted to
the auditor in January 2022:

Unfounded 16 59.26%
Exonerated 8 29.63%
Substantiated 2 7.41%
Unsubstantiated 0 0%
Adjudicated in Court 0 0%
Withdrawn 0 0%
No Disposition 1 3.7%
 February
February Complaints Timeline
Between February 1, 2022 and January 28, 2022, the IPA received 10 notifications from APD
which included new complaints, completed complaint investigations, and information regarding
ongoing investigations. 3 new citizen complaints were submitted directly to the IPA, as well as
additional information on a complaint submitted in January. The IPA sent APD 1 auditor’s review
of a completed investigation.

February 1st Received information from APD regarding a Complaint Investigation

February 2nd Received information from APD regarding a Complaint Investigation
th
February 7 1 completed complaint investigation from APD
th
February 7 IPA sent an investigation review form to APD
th
February 8 8 completed complaint investigations from APD
February 13th 1 new citizen complaint submitted directly to IPA office
February 14th 1 new citizen complaint submitted directly to IPA office
February 15th IPA received additional information from a complainant
February 28th 1 new citizen complaint submitted directly to IPA office

On Tuesday, February 1st, APD responded to the request made on January 31st letting the
Auditor know that they had no BWC footage or records of any stops made at the time and place
described in the complaint. The IPA contacted the complainant, who gave a car number and a
description of the officer which matched the officer assigned to that car number. This
information alone should have warranted an investigation. It was also learned that the officer in
question was off duty at the time of the stop. Furthermore, the stop occurred close to the
neighborhood in which the officer resides. The Deputy Chief of the Uniform Sub-Division
commented that, per union contract, APD is not required to investigate 3rd party complaints.

On Tuesday, February 1st, the IPA received a complaint that they were not receiving requested
BWC footage of one of the officers in an incident that occurred in an incident in May 2020. The
BWC footage of all officers but one had already been received by the complainant. On
Wednesday, February 2nd, the IPA forwarded this request to APD. The same day, APD responded
informing the IPA that there was no BWC as the officer in question had resigned in 2020.

On Monday, February 7th, the IPA sent APD an investigation review form informing APD that an
OH1 supplement form provided to the complainant contained incorrect information. He
requested another supplement form be filled out making the correction and the complainant
being notified of the corrected form.
On Sunday, February 13th, the IPA received a complaint. The complaint was forwarded to APD
on Monday, February 14th.

On Monday, February 14th, the IPA received a complaint. The complaint was forwarded to APD
the same day.

On Tuesday, February 15th, the complainant from January 17th emailed the IPA with further
information regarding her complaint. This information was forwarded to APD the same day.

On Monday, February 28th, the IPA received a complaint alleging harassment by Akron Police
Officers and a Summit County Sheriff’s Deputy. The complaint was forwarded to APD and
Summit County Sheriff’s Department the same day.

To summarize, the IPA received the following citizen complaint notifications over the month of
February:

● 2 notifications from APD with information regarding complaints under

investigation.
● 9 completed complaint investigations from APD.
● 4 new complaints received directly by IPA office.
● 1 notification from a complainant providing additional information on a complaint.

And sent:
● 1 auditor’s review of a completed complaint investigation

February Citizen Complaint Investigations

While there were 9 completed complaint investigations submitted to the Auditor in February,
these 9 complaints involved 28 different components or issues. The following are APD’s findings
of the complaint investigations completed in February:

Unfounded 13 46.43%
Exonerated 15 53.57%
Substantiated 0 0%
Unsubstantiated 0 0%
Adjudicated in Court 0 0%
Withdrawn 0 0%
No Disposition 0 0%
 March
March Complaints Timeline
Between March 1, 2022 and March 31, 2022, the IPA received 5 notifications from APD,
including new complaints and completed complaint investigations. 1 new citizen complaint was
submitted directly to the IPA. The IPA sent APD 1 auditor’s review of a completed investigation.

March 3rd 1 completed complaint investigation

th
March 7 IPA sent an investigation review form to APD
th
March 13 1 new citizen complaint submitted directly to IPA office
March 16th APD forwards the auditor 1 new complaint
March 21st APD forwards the Auditor 1 new complaint
March 29th APD forwards the Auditor 2 new complaints

On Monday, March 7th, the IPA sent APD an auditor’s review regarding a complaint that was
originally submitted Saturday, January 22nd. In it, he recommended revisions to policy
P-2019-059, the Vehicle Impoundment and Inventory Procedure.

On Sunday, March 13th, the IPA received a complaint alleging improper parking by a school
crossing guard. This complaint was forwarded to APD on Monday, March 14th.

To summarize, the IPA received the following citizen complaint notifications over the month of
March:

● 4 new complaints forwarded from APD.

● 1 completed complaint investigation from APD.
● 1 new complaint received directly by the IPA.

And sent:
● 1 auditor’s review of a completed complaint investigation
 March Citizen Complaint Investigations
While there was only 1 completed complaint investigation submitted to the Auditor in March,
this complaint involved 2 different components or issues. The following are APD’s findings of the
complaint investigation completed in March:

Unfounded 0 0%
Exonerated 1 50%
Substantiated 0 0%
Unsubstantiated 1 50%
Adjudicated in Court 0 0%
Withdrawn 0 0%
No Disposition 0 0%
 April
April Complaints Timeline
Between April 1, 2022 and April 30, 2022, the IPA received 7 notifications from APD, including
new complaints and completed complaint investigations. 2 new citizen complaints were
submitted directly to the IPA.

April 1st 3 completed complaint investigation

April 1st 1 new citizen complaint submitted directly to IPA office
April 5th APD forwards the Auditor 1 new complaint
th
April 11 2 completed complaint investigation
th
April 12 APD forwards the Auditor 1 new complaint
th
April 20 1 new citizen complaint submitted directly to IPA office

On Friday, April 1st, the IPA received a complaint alleging traffic violations by an APD marked
police vehicle. The complaint was forwarded to APD the same day.

On Wednesday, April 20th, the IPA received a complaint regarding an officer’s interaction with
the complainant’s juvenile son. This complaint was forwarded to APD the same day.

To summarize, the IPA received the following citizen complaint notifications over the month of
April:

● 2 new complaints forwarded from APD.

● 5 completed complaint investigations from APD.
● 2 new complaints received directly by IPA office.

April Citizen Complaint Investigations

While there were 5 completed complaint investigations submitted to the Auditor in April, these
5 complaints involved 9 different components or issues. The following are APD’s findings of the
complaint investigation completed in April:

Unfounded 4 44.44%
Exonerated 1 11.11%
Substantiated 1 11.11%
Unsubstantiated 2 22.22%
Adjudicated in Court 1 11.11%
Complaint Withdrawn 0 0%
No Disposition 0 0%
 May
May Complaints Timeline
Between May 1, 2022 and May 31, 2022, the IPA received 3 notifications from APD, including a
new complaint and completed complaint investigations. 1 new citizen complaint was submitted
directly to the IPA. The IPA sent APD 1 auditor’s review of a completed investigation.

May 3rd APD forwards the Auditor 1 new complaint

May 3rd 1 completed complaint investigation
May 3rd IPA submitted an evidence request to APD
th
May 4 1 completed complaint investigation
th
May 26 1 new citizen complaint submitted directly to IPA office

On Tuesday, May 3rd, the IPA submitted an evidence request to APD for BWC footage, radio
traffic, and crash reports regarding an incident in a complaint submitted on April 29th.

On Thursday, May 26th, the IPA received a complaint regarding a Terry stop while the
complainant was driving with his girlfriend. This complaint was forwarded to APD the same day.

To summarize, the IPA received the following citizen complaint notifications over the month of
May:

● 1 new complaint forwarded from APD.

● 2 completed complaint investigations from APD.
● 1 new complaint received directly by IPA office.
And sent:
● 1 evidence request form to APD

May Citizen Complaint Investigations

While there were 2 completed complaint investigations submitted to the Auditor in May, these
2 complaints involved 6 different components or issues. The following are APD’s findings of the
complaint investigations completed in May:

Unfounded 5 83.33%
Exonerated 0 0%
Substantiated 0 0%
Unsubstantiated 1 16.66%
Adjudicated in Court 0 0%
Complaint Withdrawn 0 0%
No Disposition 0 0%
 June
June Complaints Timeline
Between June 1, 2022 and June 30, 2022, the IPA received 2 notifications from APD, both of
which were new complaints. 5 new citizen complaints were submitted directly to the IPA. The
IPA sent 2 evidence request forms to APD.

June 2nd APD forwards the Auditor 2 new complaints

June 2nd 2 new citizen complaints submitted directly to IPA office
June 7th 1 new citizen complaint submitted directly to IPA office
th
June 10 IPA submitted 2 evidence requests to APD
th
June 13 1 new citizen complaint submitted directly to IPA office
th
June 15 1 new citizen complaint submitted directly to IPA office
June 20th APD forwards the Auditor 1 new complaint

On Thursday, June 2nd, the IPA received a complaint regarding the APD’s report lookup function.
The complaint was forwarded to APD on Monday, June 6th.

On Thursday, June 2nd, the IPA received a complaint regarding an eviction incident in which
force was used. The complaint was forwarded to APD on Monday, June 6th.

On Tuesday, June 7th, the IPA received a complaint regarding being detained and searched by
APD officers in front of her children. The complaint was forwarded to APD the same day.

On Friday, June 10th, the IPA submitted an evidence request for BWC footage of a traffic stop
involved in a complaint submitted June 2nd.

On Friday, June 10th, the IPA submitted an evidence request for BWC footage of the incident
mentioned in the complaint submitted on May 26th.

On Monday, June 13th, the IPA received a complaint regarding a use of force incident the
complainant reported to have occurred in November 2014. The complaint was forwarded to
APD the same day.

On Wednesday, June 15th, the IPA received a complaint regarding an incident in which she
claims an officer threatened her dog. The complaint was forwarded to APD on Thursday, June
16th.
To summarize, the IPA received the following citizen complaint notifications over the month of
June:

● 2 new complaints forwarded from APD.

● 6 new complaints received directly by IPA office.

And sent:
● 2 evidence request forms to APD.

June Citizen Complaint Investigations

APD did not submit completed complaint investigations to the IPA in June.
 July
July Complaints Timeline
Between July 1, 2022 and July 31, 2022, the IPA received 1 notification from APD, a new
complaint. 1 new citizen complaint as well as additional information on an existing complaint
that was submitted in June. The IPA sent APD 1 evidence request to APD.

July 7th IPA submitted an evidence request to APD

July 17th IPA received additional information from a complainant
July 20th 1 new citizen complaint submitted directly to IPA office
st
July 21 APD forwards the Auditor 1 new complaint

On Thursday, July 7th, the IPA submitted an evidence request to APD for BWC footage of an
incident regarding a complaint submitted on June 23rd.

On Sunday, July 17th, the complainant from June 13th emailed the IPA with further information
regarding his complaint. This information was forwarded to APD on Thursday, July 28th.

On Wednesday, July 20th, the IPA received a complaint regarding a police entry to her home on
May 17th that a neighbor informed her of. The complaint was forwarded to APD the same day.

To summarize, the IPA received the following citizen complaint notifications over the month of
July:

● 1 new complaint forwarded from APD.

● 1 notification from a complainant providing additional information on a complaint.
● 1 new complaint received directly by IPA office.

And sent:
● 1 evidence request form to APD.

July Citizen Complaint Investigations

APD did not submit completed complaint investigations to the IPA in July.
 August
August Complaints Timeline
Between August 1, 2022 and August 31, 2022, the IPA received 15 notifications from APD,
including new complaints, completed complaint investigations, and a letter of No Disposition. 1
new citizen complaint was submitted directly to the IPA.

August 2nd APD sent copy of No Disposition letter to IPA

August 3rd APD forwards the Auditor 1 new complaint
August 12th 11 completed complaint investigations
th
August 18 APD forwards the Auditor 1 new complaint
rd
August 23 APD forwards the Auditor 1 new complaint
th
August 27 1 new citizen complaint submitted directly to IPA office

On Saturday, August 27th, the IPA received a complaint alleging what she considered
inappropriate behavior by an officer at a public event. The complaint was forwarded to APD on
Monday, August 29th.

To summarize, the IPA received the following citizen complaint notifications over the month of
August:

● 3 new complaints forwarded from APD.

● 11 completed complaint investigations from APD.
● 1 letter of No Disposition from APD.
● 1 new complaint received directly by IPA office.

August Citizen Complaint Investigations

While there were 11 completed complaint investigations submitted to the Auditor in August,
these 11 complaints involved 28 different components or issues. The following are APD’s
findings of the complaint investigations completed in August:

Unfounded 17 58.62%
Exonerated 7 24.14%
Substantiated 2 6.9%
Unsubstantiated 2 6.9%
Adjudicated in Court 0 0%
Complaint Withdrawn 0 0%
No Disposition 1 3.45%
 September
September Complaints Timeline
Between September 1, 2022 and September 30, 2022, the IPA received 6 notifications from
APD, including new complaints, a completed complaint investigation, and letters of No
Disposition. 1 new citizen complaint was submitted directly to the IPA.

September 6th APD sent copy of No Disposition letter to IPA

th
September 6 APD forwards the Auditor 1 new complaint
th
September 16 APD forwards the Auditor 1 new complaint
September 20th APD sent copy of No Disposition letter to IPA
September 23rd 1 completed complaint investigation
September 27th APD forwards the Auditor 1 new complaint
September 27th The IPA hand-delivers 20 complaints to APD
September 28th 1 new citizen complaint submitted directly to IPA office

On Tuesday, September 27th, the IPA delivered 20 complaints to APD which had been collected
and held over a period of several months by Reverend Raymond Greene with Freedom Bloc.

On Wednesday, September 28th, the IPA received a complaint requesting the reason for a traffic
stop that occurred on September 11th. The complaint was forwarded to APD on Thursday,
September 29th.

To summarize, the IPA received the following citizen complaint notifications over the month of
September:

● 3 new complaints forwarded from APD.

● 1 completed complaint investigation from APD.
● 2 letters of No Disposition from APD.
● 21 new complaints received directly by IPA office.
 September Citizen Complaint Investigations
While there was only 1 completed complaint investigation submitted to the Auditor in
September, that complaint involved 2 different components or issues. The following are APD’s
findings of the complaint investigation completed in September:

Unfounded 0 0%
Exonerated 2 50%
Substantiated 0 0%
Unsubstantiated 0 0%
Adjudicated in Court 0 0%
Complaint Withdrawn 0 0%
No Disposition 2 50%
 October
October Complaints Timeline
Between October 1, 2022 and October 31, 2022, the IPA received 18 notifications from APD,
including new complaints, a completed complaint investigation, and letters of No Disposition. 4
new citizen complaints were submitted directly to the IPA.

October 11th APD forwards the Auditor 2 new complaints

October 14th 1 completed complaint investigation
October 16th 1 new citizen complaint submitted directly to IPA office
th
October 16 1 new citizen complaint submitted directly to IPA office
th
October 19 APD sent copies of 12 Disposition letters to IPA
st
October 21 APD forwards the Auditor 2 new complaint
October 25th 1 new citizen complaint submitted directly to IPA office
October 26th 1 new citizen complaint submitted directly to IPA office
October 28th APD sent copy of No Disposition letter to IPA
October 31st APD forwards the Auditor 1 new complaint

On Sunday, October 16th, the IPA received a complaint regarding an officer interaction during a
home alarm call that occurred on July 28th. The complaint was forwarded to APD on Monday,
October 17th.

On Sunday, October 16th, the IPA received a complaint alleging an officer wrote a false police
report to enact an arrest that was made on September 21st. The complaint was forwarded to
APD Monday, October 17th.

On Tuesday, October 25th, the IPA received a complaint alleging inappropriate behavior and
reckless driving from officers during a pursuit and neighborhood search that occurred on
October 22nd. The complaint was forwarded to APD on Wednesday, October 26th.

On Wednesday, October 26th, the IPA received a complaint regarding a narcotics-related search
warrant that had taken place on September 22nd. The complaint was forwarded to APD the
same day.
To summarize, the IPA received the following citizen complaint notifications over the month of
October:
● 5 new complaints forwarded from APD.
● 1 completed complaint investigation from APD.
● 13 Letters of Disposition from APD (4 No Disposition, 9 Adjudicated in Court).
● 4 new complaints received directly by IPA office.

October Citizen Complaint Investigations

While there was only 1 completed complaint investigation submitted to the Auditor in October,
that complaint involved 2 different components or issues. The following are APD’s findings of
the complaint investigation completed in October:

Unfounded 1 6.67%
Exonerated 0 0%
Substantiated 1 6.67%
Unsubstantiated 0 0%
Adjudicated in Court 9 60%
Complaint Withdrawn 0 0%
No Disposition 4 26.67%
 November
November Complaints Timeline
Between November 1, 2022 and November 30, 2022, the IPA received 2 notifications from APD,
a new complaint and a letter of No Disposition. 1 new citizen complaint was submitted directly
to the IPA.

November 4th APD sent copy of No Disposition letter to IPA

November 10th 1 new citizen complaint submitted directly to IPA office
November 22nd APD forwards the Auditor 1 new complaint
th
November 28 IPA receives investigation request from APD

On Thursday, November 10th, the IPA received a complaint alleging a failure to properly
investigate the death of the complainant’s daughter. The complaint was forwards to APD Friday,
November 11th.

On Tuesday, November 22nd, the IPA was informed of the newly created Detective Bureau Door
Hanger that had been requested in response to the July 20th complaint regarding a police entry
to the complainant’s home while she was away. A copy of this new door hanger may be found
on the following page.

On Monday, November 28th, the IPA received a request from an investigating supervisor to
retrieve video evidence from a complainant who was reticent to go to the police station. The IPA
responded to the request the same day and was eventually able to meet the complainant to
retrieve the video footage on Wednesday, December 7th.

To summarize, the IPA received the following citizen complaint notifications over the month of
November:

● 1 new complaint forwarded from APD.

● 1 letter of No Disposition from APD.
● 1 new complaint received directly by IPA office.

November Citizen Complaint Investigations

APD did not submit completed complaint investigations to the IPA in November.

No Disposition 1 100%
New Detective Bureau Door Hanger Document
 December
December Complaints Timeline
Between December 1, 2022 and December 31, 2022, the IPA received 3 notifications from APD,
all of which were new complaints. 3 new citizen complaints were submitted directly to the IPA.

December 6th 1 new citizen complaint submitted directly to IPA office

December 12th 1 new citizen complaint submitted directly to IPA office
December 19th APD forwards the Auditor 1 new complaint
December 20th APD forwards the Auditor 2 new complaints
December 27th 1 new citizen complaint submitted directly to IPA office

On Tuesday, December 6th, the IPA received a complaint alleging longstanding misconduct by an
APD officer. The complaint was forwarded to APD the same day.

On Monday, December 12th, the IPA received a complaint regarding the School Resource Officer
at the complainant’s child’s school. The complaint was forwarded to APD the same day.

On Tuesday, December 27th, the IPA received a complaint regarding an officer’s use of OC spray
during a high school basketball game. The complaint was forwarded to APD the same day.

To summarize, the IPA received the following citizen complaint notifications over the month of
December:

● 3 new complaints forwarded from APD.

● 3 new complaints received directly by IPA office.

December Citizen Complaint Investigations

APD did not submit completed complaint investigations to the IPA in December.
 2022 Citizen Complaint Statistics

New complaints submitted directly to IPA office: 47

New complaints forwarded to IPA office by Akron Police Department: 27

Completed complaint investigations submitted to IPA for review: 38

Over the course of 2022, 45 complaints were submitted by citizens directly to the Police
Auditor’s Office. These complaints were received as original complaint forms which were either
physically dropped off, picked up by the Auditor, sent by US Postal Service, or emailed. In
addition, 26 citizen complaints were submitted to the Akron Police Department—in these cases,
APD sent the Auditor a copy of the complainant’s original complaint form before beginning their
investigation of the complaint.

The Auditor received 37 completed complaint investigations from APD throughout 2022. In
addition, 19 completed investigations and 3 letters of no disposition were sent to the IPA for
review between the 10th and 19th of January 2023—all 22 of these corresponded to complaints
submitted in 2022.

The Police Auditor is aware that some citizen complaints may not end up investigated by the
Department. APD may choose not to investigate a complaint if the complaint is a third-party
complaint without corroborating evidence, if they determine the complaint has already been
investigated, or if the complaint’s only allegation that the complainant did not commit a crime
that they were charged with. As per a recommendation given by the Auditor in 2022, APD now
sends complainants a letter of disposition when it decides their complaints will not be
investigated.

Although the Police Auditor forwarded 45 complaints to the Akron Police Department, there
were at least twice that number of complaints or inquiries which were handled with phone
conversations to the Auditor’s Office. Many of these calls were transferred from the Mayors
Action Line or City Council Member referrals. A large majority of these calls are fully handled
over the phone and a formal complaint is not found to be necessary. Even though a formal
complaint is not filed, these calls can be very time consuming. The Auditor must investigate the
situation, read reports, make further phone calls, and recontact the original caller in most cases.
Total Investigation Determinations: 130

Unfounded 56 43.08%
Exonerated 34 26.15%
Substantiated 6 4.62%
Unsubstantiated 6 4.62%
Adjudicated in Court 19 14.62%
Complaint Withdrawn 0 0%
No Disposition 9 6.92%

The ‘Auditor’s Review Form’ mentioned throughout this report is used by the Auditor to report
findings on APD investigations, as well as provide recommendations based on those
investigations. This form previously had various issues, including a checkbox to certify an
investigation “met the investigative standard”. As the term “investigative standard” has no
formal definition, the Auditor was unable to objectively confirm or deny that an investigation
had met it. Additionally, the form required neither a notification of receipt nor a response. A
revised version of the Auditor’s Review Form addressing these issues was finalized in December
2022. This revised Auditor’s Review Form may be found on the following pages.
 This form is to be used to report findings and determinations of citizen reported Complaints and Use of Force investigations.

Please provide immediate confirmation upon receipt of this form

Written response to this form is required within 30 days of its receipt

Case Number:

Complainant’s / Citizen’s Name:

Case Information Summary

Investigation Type:
☐ Citizen Complaint
☐ Use of Force

Names and ID Numbers of Officer(s) Involved:

Name of Supervisor on scene:

Investigation written by:

Urgent APD Action Recommended:

☐ Complainant was not contacted as per procedure. Explain why.

☐ Was complainant asked to withdraw their complaint? Explain why.

 BODY WORN CAMERA (BWC) FOOTAGE

Please explain:
☐ Partial footage
☐ BWC not used; Authorized
☐ Video Footage: BWC not used; No Response
☐ Other

AUDITOR RECOMMENDATIONS

☐ Auditor Recommends Additional Investigation

☐ Auditor Recommends Revision to Policy and Procedure / Rules and Regulations
☐ Auditor Recommends Training
☐ Auditor Recommends Commendations
☐ Other

Audited by:

Date Submitted by Auditor:

 Auditor Recommendations
Throughout 2022, the IPA made several recommendations to APD regarding changes or
improvements to their policies, procedures, and training. Some of these recommendations have
since been implemented, while others have not.

The following is a list of the recommendations the IPA made in 2022:

1. The APD procedure governing citizen complaints, Procedure P-2019-007, provides 6

different determinations that can be made about each allegation in a complaint:
Unsubstantiated, Exonerated, Unfounded, Substantiated, Withdrawn, and Adjudicated in
Court. However, APD would also routinely determine “No Disposition” to a complaint when
they found no need to investigate it. The IPA recommended that in cases where APD
determines there is no need to investigate a complaint, they send a letter of No Disposition
to the complainant informing them of this fact and the reasoning behind the determination.
This recommendation has since been implemented.

2. APD may currently determine that a complaint does not require investigation at the behest
of a single Deputy Chief. The IPA recommended that the decision to determine “No
Disposition” to a complaint require the joint agreement of the Chief of Police and all Deputy
Chiefs. This recommendation has not yet been implemented.

3. The IPA recommended that APD’s Office of Professional Standards and Accountability
(OPSA) be expanded and assigned to investigate all Citizen Complaints and Use of Force
cases. This would allow for more consistent investigations and allow First-Line Supervisors to
spend more time on the road supervising their subordinates, with high emphasis on
afternoon and midnight shifts where younger officers are assigned. This recommendation
has not yet been implemented.

4. The IPA recommended that complaints and Use of Force cases regarding all specialty units
(Narcotics, S.N.U.D., SWAT, etc.) or Secondary Employment jobs always be investigated by
OPSA. This recommendation has not yet been implemented.

5. The IPA recommended that all stops made by both S.N.U.D. and Narcotics units be reported
and that officers in these units be assigned and required to wear BWC units during citizen
contacts and stops. This recommendation has not yet been implemented.

6. The IPA recommended that officers in charge of accepting reports of drug houses and drug
sells arrange at least 2 days per week to be available to take calls and information rather
than forcing citizens to leave messages. This recommendation has not yet been
implemented.
7. The IPA recommended that complainants not be contacted after 11pm unless the
complainant has explicitly stated that they may be contacted at any time.

8. The IPA recommended that the follow-up procedure for Unsolved Murders be updated. In
the updated procedure, the designated family/contact person would be updated every 6
months for 2 years even if no new information has become available. If an assigned
detective changed assignments, he or she would still be able to receive messages from
citizens regarding the case(s) they had been working on. Newly assigned detectives to the
case would reach out to the family with their contact information.

9. The IPA recommended that officers review some of their own captured BWC footage each
month. This policy would aim to promote better service, better communication with
citizens, better positioning, and better officer safety skills.

10. The IPA made 2 recommendations on the police towing procedure.

11. The IPA has recommended implementation of a non-retaliation policy annually since 2008. A
draft of the IPA’s suggested policy may be found below:

Non-Retaliation Policy

It is important that all persons of our community have the right to disclose
potential misconduct on members of the Akron Police Department, without fear
of retaliation. It is imperative that such an environment exists so that the
professional standards and conduct of the Department are not compromised.

Department personnel shall not interfere in any way with the complaint process
or with any person’s ability to raise concerns regarding alleged misconduct
and/or violations of the Akron Police Department/City policy, or State or Federal
Law. Retaliation against any party in response to a complaint made to the Akron
Police Department or the Independent Police Auditor is prohibited. No
Department member shall directly or indirectly intimidate, threaten, coerce,
direct, or influence any person or witness with the intent of interfering with that
person’s right to disclose alleged misconduct violations.