Hi, I’m Keith and I’ll be live-tweeting today’s Tuesday, June 8, 2021, the City of Cleveland’s Civilian Police Review Board Hearings (“CPRB”) starting at 10:00 AM for #CLEDocumenters & @NeighborUpCle
09:01 AM Jun 8, 2021 CDT
The CPRB is a 9 member body, appointed by the Mayor & the City Council, that reviews misconduct complaints investigated by Office of Professional Standards and makes recommendations for resolution to the Chief of Police.
Sources: https://www.clevelandohio.gov/CityofCleveland/Home/Government/CityAgencies/OPS/CPRB
https://www.clevelandohio.gov/CityofCleveland/Home/Government/CityAgencies/OPS https://t.co/1xCI5tUgRO
CPRB holds meetings the second Tuesday of each month.
The meetings are hosted live via youtube. Join us and watch today’s CPRB meeting,
The agenda for June 8, 2021 CPRB meeting and past meetings may be accessed here,
https://www.clevelandohio.gov/CityofCleveland/Home/Government/CityAgencies/OPS/Hearings
To access CPRB’s June 8, 2021 Agenda directly,
https://www.clevelandohio.gov/sites/default/files/ops_agenda/6_8_2021_Agenda.pdf https://t.co/jmWnYFzxDg
The agenda includes the following details on complaint allegations made against police officers,
COUNT
OPS#
COMPLAINANT - person who made
INVESTIGATOR - official investigating
ALLEGATION - type of misconduct
CPRB DISPOSITION - identifies police officer under investigation
@cledocumenters hosts a slew of great resources concerning CPRB which may be accessed here,
https://cleveland.documenters.org/assignments/civilian-police-review-board-hearing-2409/
A roster of Cleveland Police officers
https://cleveland.documenters.org/documents/a-roster-of-cleveland-police-officers-58605/
A roster of Cleveland Police civilians (e.g. dispatchers)
2020 Office of Professional Standards complaints, pt. 1
2020 Office of Professional Standards complaints, pt. 2
The Cleveland Office of Professional Standards is live. Come join us and access the meeting directly here,
While we are waiting for them to start, here is a list of the CPRB appointed board members referenced earlier.
Source: https://www.clevelandohio.gov/CityofCleveland/Home/Government/CityAgencies/OPS/BoardMembers https://t.co/vcdjcaANZp
Roll call has occurred.
There is new member present, Mrs. Chenoa Miller.
There are no public comment but they did ask if anyone wanted to make a public comment.
2 complainants are present. https://t.co/07q0yGBSsk
Michael Graham is talking and has informed the public that board member Earnest Turner passed away.
“He was an accomplished man who served CMSD for 30 years and was a coach. … He served for a number of years in a vital capacity.” https://t.co/a4DMQt1nmL
Chairperson Michael Graham continues,
“He was a thoughtful and considerate board member. He always sought the truth. He will be dearly messed…He was a sincerely kind person and a true gentleman…I’d like to make a motion to adopt a resolution on his legacy for his family.”
A moment of silence to remember CPRB Board Member Ernest G. Turner.
Michael Graham continues, “The happy news we have is that we are excited to welcome new member Mrs. Chenoa Miller.
Appointed by Cleveland City Council. She is a student at Cleveland State University.”
Chairperson Graham offers other details about Mrs. Miller,
“She has a keen interest in Criminal Justice....She is from the Glenville neighborhood and has been involved there in a number of community efforts.”
Mrs. Chona Miller, “Thank you and I am here to truly observe the process.”
Chairperson Graham, “Thank you Mrs. Miller. Am I correct that you will just observe today or will you participate in our deliberations?
Member Miller, “I have no problem deliberating,”
Chairperson Graham, “You were able to review the cases?”
Member Miller, “No, I was not. This will be a learning lesson.”
Chairperson Graham, “Ok, there will be some training by the office of personal Standards.”
Mrs. G Butler comments Member Miller should not vote today until she reviews the cases. https://t.co/xblKGozgWx
Minutes from the last meeting have been approved.
Access those minutes here,
https://www.clevelandohio.gov/sites/default/files/5_11_2021_Minutes.pdf
Complainant Cook is present and describing the lack of service by Patrol Officer Longer #2452, who when requested by Cook to talk to P.O. Longer #2452‘s Sergeant, he was reluctant to do so. https://t.co/2m8J0U0tvD
Board members have no questions for Complainant Cook.
Chairperson Graham is seeking clarification for Investigator Oliver, “Did Officer Longer complete his report? Did he add a subsequent report?”
Investigator Oliver, “He made the first report but was not aware of the second incident.”
Chairperson Graham, “Mr. Cook, were you aware of the report filed?”
Complainant Cook, “Yes, I am aware of the first report but I came back for a second incident and [P.O. Longer #2452] said “He already made a report.” Additionally, both times I asked to speak to the sergeant.”
Chairperson Graham, “Is your main issue that he did not let you speak to his supervisor or that he did not file a second report?”
Complainant Cook, “I would say a compilation of both. … He was very rude and he wouldn’t let me speak to the Sergeant.”
Chairperson Graham, “Did you ever speak to the Sergeant?”
Complainant Cook, “No, but I did find out the Sergeant was a woman.”
Chairperson Graham, “[Investigator] Mr. Oliver, the first date with a longer video a report was generated. The second video does not capture the initial interaction. Can you explain this? https://t.co/yQgFVLeM7A
Investigator Oliver, “I believe it captures the majority of their interaction…when the video started they were already interacting…” https://t.co/Cson9q9m5K
Investigator Oliver’s recommendation to the CPRB is that Complainant Cook’s allegations of misconduct against P.O Longer #2452 are unfounded as he abruptly left during the second incident before a report could be filed.
Investigator Oliver continues to describe the video and the interaction between Complainant Cook and P.O Longer #2452. Oliver states the video reveals that Cook asked “Who is your supervisor?” to P.O Longer but did not request to see the Sergeant.
Roz Quarto motions, “As to the allegation by Mr. Cook, the preponderance of the evidence including video evidence & the report support a finding that alleged misconduct did not occur. P.O Longer filed an initial report and attempted to file a second report before Mr. Cook left.” https://t.co/2wBQHtohGc
Chairperson Graham seconds the motion.
CPRB attempts to vote but pauses as Member Mary Clark is having audio issues. https://t.co/hKuXUmdsQa
Graham thanks Mr. Cook, “We do take your complaint seriously. We looked at the evidence we had available…We largely based our decision on the evidence…If you want to look at the videos you can make a request to do so. I appreciate you making the time to make the complaint.”
Mr. Cook, “Thank you for allowing me to rebuttal and I am apologetic for wasting your time.”
Chairperson Graham, “It is not a waste of time. This is what we are here to do. Even if we find no misconduct, it does not mean the interaction was perfect.”
Investigator Kevin Wynne reads the next allegation of misconduct brought fourth from Complainant Gottschalt made against P.O Leyva #2415 for an improper tow of her vehichle. https://t.co/nBAO3ME8mu
Investigator Kevin Wynne describes the interaction of Complainant Gottschalt and P.O Leyva #2415. Officer towed the vehicle upon discovering Gottschalt has more than 5 unpaid tickets.
CPRB has no questions for Investigator Wynne.
Complainant Gottschalt is not present to question.
Member Quartos with a second by the Chairperson Graham motions,
“The preponderance of evidence…supports a finding that the officer actions were consistent with GPO & codified ordinances in that the complainant had more than 5 unpaid parking tickets at the time of the tow.”
Mr. Smith notifies CPRB (1) another complainant is present and (2) that the next case is for administrative vote only. https://t.co/6j42Pf6mOI
Chairperson Graham comments he rewatched the video and motions that,
“The video evidence does not support a finding of misconduct occurred.”
CPRB carries the motion.
Mr. Smith introduces the administrative dismissal appeal. The complainant referenced earlier is present for this case.
Complainant Boone alleged that two white police officers were sitting in the middle of the street and that he questioned the the officers why they were then. https://t.co/zcRb52Ym4v
Mr. Smith continues describing the allegation, “Then the POs departed their vehicle and slammed him on the hood of his car causing him pain and injuries.”
Investigator Wynne was unable to identify the officers the Complainant interacted with due to a lack of reports. https://t.co/15NC5AFWHk
Present is Ms. Jane Berry, a counselor for Complainant Boone,
“I am concerned that there were no findings. Mr. Boone was issued a ticket. I do have an electronic photograph of it that is more legible. I do not know if that can be supplied.”
Ms. Berry continues, “I was never contacted despite filling out the information for the investigator. Mr. Boone has disabilities that make communication difficult at time for him.”
A conversation about the ticket & its contents occur.
Ms. Berry continues, “I believe the officers do not want to be associated with this interaction…My client did describe, ‘Hey, how are ya doin’?’ Then he tapped the Officer’s car. My client has intellectual disabilities.”
David Gatian addresses CPRB,
“Yes, we see a copy of this ticket in the case file other than that it is clear the ticket # is identifiable. My layman’s understanding is that they’re issued to an officer and should be, I would expect someone logs the book.”
David Gatian continues, “My expectation is that we should know which Officer had this ticket unless is fraudulent.”
Mr. Wynne states, “They could not find it their electronic system…There is no name associated with that citation number.” https://t.co/bse0KBTlME
Mr. Smith interjects, “Whether ticket books are issued sequentially, at this time we do not have information that suggest that is the case though logically it would appear so.”
Mr. Graham, “MetroHealth confirms the method of arrival was Cleveland Police…Someone at MetroHealth believes they saw police officers. Additionally, complainant provides details about their physical descriptions. I just wonder can we see who worked that zone that day?”
Chairperson Graham continues, “Can we work through process of elimination to identify the officers?”
After some deliberations, CPRB motions to grant the appeal of OPS#21-011 and asks OPS to review the details of the case.
When an administrative appeal is granted the investigation continues.
CPRB reviews Count 2, OPS#19-217, Complainant Ruiz Velez allegations of improper stop, search, and excessive force against 4 patrol officers - Leonardi #1965, Smiley #1138, Det. Soros #1852, & Gonzalez #2001. https://t.co/TwXs1FBfJz
Investigator David Hammons details Complainant Velez allegations that the officers entered her home without a warrant, improperly searched her home, and used excessive force when one of the officer’s slammed her son. https://t.co/Vmni2laEiN
Investigator Hammons reviews the defense the officers allege, which is that they were in hot pursuit of the individuals on the porch. A hot pursuit is an exception that permits a warrantless entry.
Investigator Hammons reviews case evidence, case law, and Supreme Court holdings, and finds that the Officers were not in hot pursuit, as in they were not chasing the individuals, but only identified them upon patrol.
A CPRB member asks, “Is there a grey area for hot pursuit?”
Hammon contends there is little grey area.
Member Quarto believes that the Supreme Court of the United States holding in United States V. Santana (1976) defines this case more than Ohio case law (Finch v Columbus?).
Investigator Hammon argues that Ohio Case law details exceptions to Santana.
Member Quarto and Investigator Hammon disagree about the details of OPS#19-217 and which Judicial holdings are relevant.
CPRB motions to table the case to clarify the legal argument.
Re. Hot Pursuit and Warrantless Exceptions.
he following is dated information but is good starting place to learn about the concepts.
Again, is dated circa 2014. 7 years have passed which means Ohio Judicial holding have very likely changed.
https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Media/Newsletters/Law-Enforcement-Bulletin/April-2014/Warrants-(the-Hot-Pursuit-Exception)-State-of-Ohio https://t.co/hd2uWOFpqd
CPRB moves on & reviews Count 4, OPS#20-057, Complaint Elder alleges P.O Tylka #1772 improperly cited him for not displaying his vehicle plates and the P.O engaged in unprofessional conduct & biased policing. https://t.co/pNgMtahxyH
Chairperson Graham moves to exonerate P.O Tylka #1772 for the allegation of improper citation as the ticket cited the codified ordinance, and the interview of the complaint in which Elder admitted he did not have plates on as it was new car.
Chairperson Graham moves to sustain the allegation of unprofessional conduct as a codified ordinance permits citizens to display plates on their rear windows & are not legally required to place them on the bumper. P.O Tylka admitted he told Elder to place the plate in said area.”
Member Gatian entertains discussion on this case, “The P.O was incorrect in his direction about the location of the temp tag. … Unprofessional conduct rises to another level. P.O remained the same demeanor.
Member Gatian continues, “My concern is that we are tagging this as unprofessional conduct, that said I don’t see where else we can check a box for his actions.”
Chairperson Graham offers Professional Misconduct.
Correction: Past tweet stated, “Chairperson Graham offers Professional Misconduct.”
Chairperson Graham offered Procedural Misconduct.
Member Hess disagrees with Gatian, “It was pretty reckless to make Elder stand on the side of the road.” https://t.co/Pb3VSSSZ5V
Chairperson Graham comments, “If you going to enforce the law, you must know the law. It is unprofessional because he doesn’t know the law. Though I tend to agree with Mr. Gaitan that his tone was not confrontational.” https://t.co/XQljqDGrUC
Member Gatian against comments and notes that a balance in the interpretation of unprofessional conduct, noting the spectrum does exist between behavior and procedural practice.
CPRB motions to sustain the Unprofessional Conduct.
CPRB carries the motion to discipline P.O Tylka for Unprofessional Conduct.
CPRB motions that there is sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation of Biased Policing.
CPRB reviews Count 3, OPS#20-025, Complainant Karim alleges T.C. Shaw #7060 engaged in unprofessional conduct and racial discrimination.
Investigator Barbara William-Bennett reviewed the case. https://t.co/2Leu6c5EiT
Investigator William-Bennett informs CPRB that Karim operates a limousine business and alleges that he was parked at the curb side of the airport when there was no traffic when traffic controller approached him and told him to get the F out of the way. https://t.co/wtyMUcbDfA
Investigator William-Bennett states that there are no findings to the allegations.
Kenneth Mountcastle notes, “In the video the traffic controller can observe he skipped several vehicles to approach Karim’s limousine, why?” https://t.co/VEZSoWMD1c
Investigator William-Bennett states that citizens may park while waiting but not limousines who must wait in another area.
Graham inquires “Was Mr. Karim adamant that T.C Shaw #7060 used foul language?”
Investigator William-Bennett, “Yes, but there is none in the video.”
Chairperson Graham moves for a finding of unfounded allegations as the video does not indicate unprofessional conduct or of Racial Discrimination.
CPRB carries the motion. https://t.co/p2bmioipce
CPRB reviews Count 6, OPS# 20-224, Complainant Blatt alleges P.O Rakovec #1695 engaged in unprofessional conduct when P.O posted inappropriate comments online. https://t.co/cgQjXq3FQI
Investigator Merritt shares that she did not interview the complainant but did interview P.O Rakovec #1695. During the interview, Rakovec admitted to engaging in a public dispute on Facebook that could be construed as unprofessional. https://t.co/wxfddySznZ
Member Hess asks, “Does Rakovec state he his a CPD officer?”
Investigator Merritt states, “He implies it and does not deny it.”
Member Gatian recuses himself as he shares a common friend with the officer. https://t.co/sR80XvFHXX
Chairperson Graham moves to sustain the allegations due to the preponderance of evidence and to the P.O Rakovec #1695 confession during the interview due in part to a violation of the social media policy. https://t.co/PgoOkzvjbf
CPRB carries the motion that finds P.O Rakovec #1695 engaged in unprofessional conduct when he made public comments and engaged in an argument on Facebook
CPRB motion and carries a Group 1 disciplinary action for Rakovec.
CPRB reviews Count 7, PO# 20-265, Complainant Hayes alleges Sgt. Newton #9233 and Dispatcher Washko #105 engaged in Unprofessional Conduct. https://t.co/XcruTi61sX
Investigator Anitra Merrit reviews the allegations.
Complaint Hayes alleges the Sergeant yelled at her on the phone and hung up on her. Additionally, the Dispatcher Washko failed to identify themselves when he called her back to check on her. https://t.co/j0cW2AdPOq
Quarto moves and CPRB carries the motion to find that the preponderance of evidence supports a finding that
(1) Sgt Newton did not interact with Hayes and did not engage in Unprofessional Conduct
(2) sustains the Dispatcher Washko #105 engaged in unprofessional conduct https://t.co/eNQC6aISIX
CPRB reviews Count 10, OPS# 20-058, Complainant Blochowiak alleges Det. Cunningham #1724 engaged in unprofessional conduct when she requested he wear a mask. https://t.co/CZx67T032n
Investigator Merritt describes how Det. Cunningham #1724 drank a cup of coffee in a waiting area and removed his mask to do so and during a testimony removed his mask while sitting behind a plastic screen.
Chairperson Graham abstains from the case.
Member Quarto motions that the preponderance of evidence supports the finding that Det. Cunningham properly relaxed his mask according to social distancing guidelines.
CPRB carries the motion.
CPRB reviews Count 8, OPS# 21-014, Complainant Loretta Jewel alleges P.O Sheets #1276 engaged in a lack of service when she filed a police report and Sheets incorrectly added information to the report. https://t.co/01tIe5cdFw
Investigator Julie Delaney reviewed the case and found that P.O. Sheets correctly included the information in the report from Complainant Jewell as detailed in video evidence. Therefore, P.O Sheets did not engage in the alleged lack of service and should be exonerated. https://t.co/1XoordMD0I
Chairperson Graham asks if this can be unfounded instead of exonerated.
Investigator Delaney does not agree with this as P.O Sheets did as he to fulfilled his obligated duties.
Furthermore, Complainant Jewell had a hard time grasping she was at fault when she was struck upon making a right turn after stopping at a red light.
Note: You don’t have right of way to turn on a red light if the perpendicular traffic has a green light.
Chairperson Grahm motions to find the allegation against P.O. Sheets #1276 as unfounded.
CPRB carries the motion.
CPRB reviews Count 9, OPS# 21-040, Complainant McIntyre alleges three officers engaged in 2 counts of lack of service. https://t.co/UUDjKkCkFZ
Investigator Art Bowker reviewed the case.
Complainant McIntyre alleges the Officers should have turned over her children based on New York custodial documents and should have arrested two individuals. https://t.co/RmK9qrg1e7
Investigator Bowker,
“OPS finds that the Officers should be exonerated for a lack of service as they did provide service … and were justified to not arrest the two individuals Complainant McIntyre wanted arrested.”
CPRB has no questions for Investigator Bowker.
Quarto motions to exonerate the officers on all allegations.
Seconded by Chairperson Graham.
CPRB carries all the motions. https://t.co/1m4pCC8GeC
CPRB finishes presentation of investigations.
CPRB moves to Director Disciplinary Decisions.
CPRB reviews Count 2, OPS# 20-016, initially filed by Complainant Gubanich against P.O Holcomb #877 for an improper tow of his vehicle due to conflicting signs. https://t.co/N201N7yiJ2
CPRB then sustained the allegation filed against P.O Holcomb and recommended a Group I disciplinary action.
Chief Williams dismissed the allegation and CPBB’s disciplinary recommendation.
Director Howard upheld Chief’s Williams dismissal.
CPRB now reviews Director Howard’s decision to uphold Chief’s Williams dismissal.
Chairperson Graham does not agree with Director Howard or Chief Williams decision to uphold and dismiss the allegation but will not fight it.
Quarto also agrees with Graham.
CPRB will not appea.
CPRB reviews Count 3, OPS# 20-111, Complainant Farmer alleged P.O Sheets #1276 & P.O Fitchwell’s #134 failed to cite the person who struck their vehicle for leaving the scene and OVI. https://t.co/zYzkWaJRE5
CPRB sustained Complainant Farmer’s allegations against the Officers and recommended a Group I disciplinary action.
Chief Williams dismissed the allegations and CPRB recommendations against the Officers due to lacking probable cause due to the time difference of 2.5 hours between the call and the time of the crash.
Director Howard upheld the Chief’s dismissal.
Chairperson Graham worries that not taking action encourages intoxicated people to leave the scene of the accident and wait it out as Cleveland Police will not take action due to the lapse of time.
Member Gatian disagrees with him.
Member Mountcastle agree with Graham.
CPRB does not file an objection against Chief Williams’ dismissal and Director Howard’s decision to uphold the dismissal despite worrying about the decision to not hold the assailant responsible for fleeing the scene of the accident.
Roger Smith puts on record the services for Ernest G. Turner,
viewing today 12:00 PM to 7:00 PM
E. F. Boyd & Son Funeral Home
2165 E 89th St, Cleveland, OH 44106
Tomorrow’s Funderal Service 10:30 AM
Providence Baptist Church
12712 Kinsman Rd, Cleveland, OH 44120 https://t.co/RXBxeqmbDJ
Read Ernest G. Turner’s obituary here,
https://www.echovita.com/us/obituaries/oh/cleveland/ernest-turner-12835501
The Minutes of Civilian Police Review Board’s June 8, 2021 meeting will be posted here as well as next meeting’s agenda,
https://www.clevelandohio.gov/CityofCleveland/Home/Government/CityAgencies/OPS/Hearings
If you are interested in learning about the Cleveland Police Disciplinary Measures review the General Police Orders, pages 59 to 69.
https://www.clevelandohio.gov/node/28493
As referenced in the aforementioned meeting, Group I offenses and disciplinary measures are, https://t.co/3WtTAmkDGg
If you need recorded notes of this meeting. They should be posted soon on the site,
To become involved and for more meeting coverage, check out http://documenters.org. Have questions? Think we got something wrong? Send any enquiries on the meeting or these tweets to @cledocumenters
Or email us at lcaswell@neighborhoodgrants.org