Civilians on Dallas' police oversight board may not get to see many complaints against officers

When disabled veteran Dynell Lane was mocked by Dallas police officers after he reportedly was denied access to a restroom and urinated on himself, he submitted a complaint in hopes of justice.

The city’s 15-member council-appointed Community Police Oversight Board was established to handle just this kind of issue. The main responsibility for the civilians serving on the board is to investigate complaints made against police officers.

But instead, Lane’s case has raised questions about how much oversight the board is actually able to provide.

And, it also revealed that Dallas police and other city employees may limit which complaints the supposedly independent board actually sees.

The board receives a monthly accounting of complaints submitted to both the Office of Community Police Oversight (OCPO) and the Internal Affairs Department (IAD). That report only has a short summary of the and the city’s determination.

Some board members said during Tuesday’s meeting they were concerned at a decrease in the complaints the board reviews. What once was four or five complaints being reviewed a month, members say has dwindled to none.

Members fear the result of a new ‘confidential’ interpretation of city code — which others say does not change how the board operates — may be limiting how many complaints they see.

“I am just wondering, if its whittled down to that number because we don’t get as many complaints,” District 4 Board Member Loren Gilbert-Smith said during the meeting. “Or if something has happened in the process that is preventing those complaints from coming to the board, that is my concern.”

District 14 Board Member Brandon Friedman told KERA before the meeting that the board relies on the oversight office to surface the more serious complaints — and is also concerned about the cases the board isn’t reviewing.

“We have no way of knowing whether its just because there aren’t any serious complaints in the last few months, or if there’s a different standard being applied,” Friedman told KERA.

The board started investigating Lane’s complaint last year after the officers involved were originally cleared and body camera footage was discovered. But that was before city staff released a new interpretation of the code governing how the board functions.

That recent legal opinion — which was anonymously handed down by the City Attorney’s Office — says the board can’t call for an independent investigation into complaints that have been deemed “no investigation” by IAD.

Both offices received a total of 90 complaints in February, according to city data. Nearly all those complaints are labeled as being reviewed by the OCPO and IAD and given the determination “no investigation.”

That means the board apparently can’t review — or investigate — any of them.

It was announced at Tuesday meeting that the four officers involved in the Lane casereceived written reprimands for their handling of the incident — and mandatory training. But under the new interpretation of the code governing the oversight board, it may not have been able to investigate Lane’s case.

Lane’s case had been initially labeled “no investigation” according to one board member.

‘Not bringing serious complaints’

The board was created to conduct independent investigations into complaints against police officers. Board members have said they have worked for nearly four years under the assumption of independence from both OCPO and IAD.

KERA started asking the city questions about how complaints against officers are processed by the OCPO and IAD in late February.

But nearly three weeks later, the city has yet to provide any details on the process for reviewing complaints and how they are picked for review by the oversight board.

Friedman says under the last police monitor, Tonya McClary, there was more discussion into board investigations. But he says that’s changed since McClary abruptly left the position last year.

“If you look at the agendas, they all say the Police Oversight Office is…monitoring what’s going on, but they’re not bringing serious complaints to us,” Friedman said.

And the monthly complaint reports give little insight into the nature of what happened. A one line sentence and OCPO and IAD’s determination.

Some complaints are thrown out because of administrative errors — a duplicate complaint or a submission unrelated to Dallas law enforcement.

But other complaint summaries allege more serious incidents.

“[Complaint] wants to file a lawsuit against DPD for shooting him with a taser and giving him a shot at the hospital,” one complaint summary read.

Another summary “[complaint] alleged 4 off duty police officers abducted him and took him to Green Oaks Psychiatric Hospital.”

Others allege misconduct in investigations into murders and racial profiling. Many of these complaints have been given a “no investigation” determination.

“We heard that the policy of IA is to investigate every single report of misconduct and I would say the overwhelming majority of complaints that we see are deemed ‘no investigation’,” District 9 Board Member Alison Grinter Allen said during the meeting. “That is a major problem because evidently we can’t do anything about things that IA determines to be ‘no investigation’.”

Allen asked whether IAD was in fact conducting an investigation into every complaint.

“The answer would be no,” Internal Affairs Division Major Irene Alanis told board members. “However what we do do is vet every complaint.”

Alanis said that process includes reviewing body worn camera footage and police reports.

“Once all that has been vet, and we determine what outcome would come from that complaint, we then handle it as such,” Alanis said. “If its not something that rises to the level of a formal investigation, then no we will not conduct one.

‘Pushed around by secret lawyers’

Friedman says there’s a lot of lawyers on the oversight board who disagree with that opinion.

During a late February board meeting, nearly all members voiced outrage at the legal opinion that seems to have now essentially limited their power.

“Board, we are being played,” District 3 Board Member Walter Higgins said during the meeting. “What we see in that ordinance is not what we agreed upon or we would have walked out of the meeting and burned the whole process down.”

Higgins was a part of the negotiation process that led to creation of the ordinance initially.

When board members pressed OCPO Interim Director Elaine Chandler on who exactly passed down the new legal interpretation — she would not say.

The opinion document is confidential. It wasn’t shared directly with the board — only summarized by Chandler.

When reached for comment about the confidentiality of the opinion after the meeting, a city spokesperson told KERA “a request for a legal opinion from the City Attorney’s Office is confidential attorney-client communication that the City Attorney’s Office cannot waive.”

“Where does the secrecy come from?” District 9 Board Member Alison Grinter Allen said during the late February meeting. “I don’t know that we get pushed around by secret lawyers who aren’t here and didn’t write us anything, and whose names you won’t tell us.”

‘All of a sudden’

The board is still in limbo. No staffers from the City Attorney’s Office were at attendance at the late February meeting to explain the bombshell legal opinion. City Manager T.C. Broadnax said he would ensure city staff would be available at mid-March’s meeting.

“I expect the city manager to keep his word on that,” Friedman said.

One city attorney was present during Tuesday’s meeting — but did not discuss the memo and the item was not placed on the board’s agenda. The city attorney did speak privately to Vice Chair Jose Rivas who was running the meeting.

After every time, Rivas reminded board members voicing their concerns about the recent legal confusion, to stay on the agenda topics.

“We know that this board has a serious problem with this issue,” District 3 Board Member Walter Higgins said during the meeting. “I’m asking…when is it slated for us to discuss the fact that we are now powerless to do investigations unless the Dallas Police Department says they want to investigate something?”

Higgins was part of the negotiation process that led to creation of the ordinance initially. Higgins has said before what is happening now, is not what was agreed on when the code was crafted.

Many issues including trying to find a permanent director for the OCPO, clarifying the code governing the board — and figuring out if past board investigations that resulted in administrative action are no null and void — remain.

Friedman says the legal opinion uproots the way the board has operated for years.

“It used to be that we could investigate those,” Friedman said. “We spent four years investigating those. Then all of a sudden…city attorney has decided the way the police oversight board has been operating for four years, is not correct.”

Got a tip? Email Nathan Collins at ncollins@kera.org. You can follow Nathan on Twitter @nathannotforyou.

KERA News is made possible through the generosity of our members. If you find this reporting valuable, consider making a tax-deductible gifttoday. Thank you.