When officers sit down to an interview with investigators at the Citizen's Complaint Authority, they expect to be recorded, but a recent lawsuit states those same investigators are refusing to allow others to record them.
Cincinnati's police union president Dan Hils and three other officers who were interviewed by the CCA this week filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court Thursday.
Borne out of the civil unrest in 2001, the CCA is the city's own agency for civilian oversight of police. It investigates both serious incidents involving police and direct complaints from citizens. City law requires that officers be truthful during CCA interviews.
The lawsuit names the City of Cincinnati, the director of the CCA, Gabriel Davis, and a specific investigator.
In the suit, Hils and the officers stated the CCA investigator recently used a "selective recording" technique instead of recording the entire interview with an officer "creating a deceptive and inaccurate record of the matter."
The suit also states the investigator intimidated and threatened an officer prior to an interview "to obtain misleading statements."
The FOP president also told The Enquirer that the CCA has recently refused to turn over recordings of interviews in at least two cases raising his suspicions that investigators are not conducting themselves properly.
Hils said he felt compelled to begin recording the entirety of the interviews himself, an act he said is completely legal under state law and constitutionally protected. In recent years, Hils has used this practice with the media, recording interviews he gives to guard against his statements being used out of context.
But during interviews, this week, Hils and the other officers said they were given an ultimatum before beginning their interviews: stop recording or we'll stop the interview and potentially finish this investigation without hearing your testimony.
The lawyer representing the officers attached a script to the lawsuit, which he states CCA investigators are using.
"If you chose(sic) to proceed with Mr. Hils today, then we will end the interview at this time pending further consultation with the Law Department for the City of Cincinnati," the alleged script reads. "You are advised that CCA reserves the right to complete its investigation into this matter relying solely on information obtained from other sources."
Hils told The Enquirer he's usually at the CCA representing a police officer five to seven times a week.
He said he will continue to attempt to record the interviews but will allow the officer being interviewed to make the final decision. If an officer wants him to stop recording so the interview can continue, he will, Hils said.
"On its face, it's disgraceful," Hils said. "It's belligerent... They are trying to dictate who represents the officer."
CCA Board Chairman Mark "Zeek" Childers declined to comment for this story. A message was left for Davis, who had not yet responded. Cincinnati's city manager's office had also not responded to requests for comment at the time of publication.
This is the latest issue in ongoing conflicts between the CCA and the police union.
In 2017, Hils sought a temporary restraining order against the agency creating a controversy that reached the top of the city's government.
Last year, the CCA told City Council that the police department refuses to collaborate with the agency to improve policing in the city.
The union's overarching criticism of the agency is apparent in the lawsuit filed this week.
"The CCA, originally intended to create transparency and accountability, has instead, through its operation, had an adverse effect on policing and safety of the community," the lawsuit states. "Its non-professional, untrained, layperson second-guessing has resulted in reactive-only policing, increasing the city's murder rate to record high levels."
"CCA’s ultimate goal is to address citizens’ concerns and improve citizens’ perceptions of quality police service in the city of Cincinnati," the agency's mission statement says. "It is essential that CCA uniformly be perceived as fair and impartial, and not a vehicle for any individuals or groups to promote their own agendas."
Source link
