CCA 2020 Annual Report

1
Citizen Complaint Authority

2020 ANNUAL REPORT
2
MESSAGE FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Nearly two decades ago, the Citizen Complaint Authority (CCA) was born. Like any agency, we have
experienced change since our founding, but our mission remains the same: CCA investigates serious
interventions by police officers, including, but not limited to discharging of firearms, deaths in custody,
and major uses of force; and it reviews and resolves citizen complaints of law enforcement misconduct in
a fair and efficient manner. CCA zealously guards its independence and impartiality. We follow the facts
without fear or favor. We doggedly pursue truth, transparency, and accountability. We proudly protect
civil rights. Ultimately, we believe that improving mutual trust and respect between citizens and police is
foundational to ensuring justice and public safety. Together, these values ensure that CCA has the
credibility to serve our community; make unbiased decisions on sensitive matters; and ensure fair
treatment for all who live, visit, or work in Cincinnati.
Consistent with our commitment to transparency, and pursuant to Administrative Code Article XXVIII
for the City of Cincinnati, I present CCA’s 17th Annual Report. This report covers January 1 through
December 31, 2020, summarizing the Authority’s activities and providing data pertaining to its complaints
and investigations.
In 2020, CCA faced significant challenges, including a global pandemic that triggered significant
disruptions in our investigations; sudden economic uncertainty; and persistent challenges presented by a
long-term case backlog. CCA also faced a pivotal moment in the history of Cincinnati and our country, as
thousands in our community united to demand a greater measure of accountability and equity in policing
and in all our systems. We witnessed everyday citizens come together from all backgrounds to march,
organize for racial justice, and make their voices heard in the name of George Floyd and far too many
others who have gone before.
Rather than shrink or retreat, CCA saw these inflection points as moments of promise and opportunity.
Despite the pandemic’s toll, we created innovative ways to advance our investigations and engage the
public, taking many of our operations virtual. We increased our capacity to meet the moment by effectively
securing new funding allocated by the City of Cincinnati, and then leveraging those resources to hire three
new diverse and experienced investigators. We deepened collaborations with stakeholders. We applied
renewed energy and vigor to the task in front of us. We clarified our vision for the future. In short: we
recommitted ourselves to our work and to our mission.
The numbers tell a compelling story. Key takeaways from CCA’s investigations and complaint assessments
last year are as follows:
• In 2020, CCA completed investigations into 40 complaints, which involved 306 allegations and
resulted in the issuance of 306 findings. The 306 allegations we investigated represented a 4%
increase above our 3-year pre-pandemic average for those same metrics.
• With respect to findings issued in 2020, 34% of CCA’s findings were “Exonerated,” and 25.8%
were “Sustained.” By contrast, during the prior 3-year period, an average of 14.7% of findings
were “Sustained,” and an average of 48.7% of findings were “Exonerated.” Accordingly, our
findings of improper conduct by police officers increased by 75% over pre-2020 levels.
• In 2020, CCA reviewed and assessed 249 complaints on intake, 75 of which met our criteria for
investigation and were opened as active cases. Those 75 new investigations are on par with our 3-
year pre-pandemic average for new cases, despite significant disruptions in operations occasioned
by COVID-19.
Citizen Complaint Authority Annual Report 2020

3
• The 75 cases that were opened for investigation included the following kinds of allegations: 25.4%
improper search/seizure/entry; 20.9% use of force/excessive force; 11.3% discourtesy; 10.6%
improper stop/stop; 8.4% discrimination/racial profiling; and 1.3% discharge of firearm.
As we look to the future, CCA continues to do more than simply conduct and complete investigations.
CCA continues to analyze data and patterns, maintain a community engagement presence, and follow-up
on citizen complaints referred to the Cincinnati Police Department (CPD) on behalf of complainants.
CCA also continues to be a proud member of the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law
Enforcement (NACOLE). We strive to be the gold standard for civilian oversight of law enforcement,
and a model for the nation as more jurisdictions establish oversight bodies.
Our work is made possible by CCA’s Investigation and Administrative Teams, which have done an
outstanding job serving the public during a challenging year. CCA’s staff members are the backbone of
the agency, and they have earned my enduring gratitude. In addition to staff, I must thank my predecessor,
Kim Neal, whose stewardship of CCA during her tenure as Director positioned the agency to successfully
address the challenges of this past year.
I must also acknowledge current Board Members; Chair Mark (Zeek) Childers, Vice Chair George Pye,
Luz Elena Schemmel, Phyllis Slusher, Tim Barr, Jr., Tracey M. Johnson, and Wanda Spivey; former Board
Member Desiré Bennett; and former Board Chair Karen Osborne for their continued support, advocacy,
and careful attention to this work. CCA’s Board is a diverse one and is an essential part of CCA’s case
review processes and public engagement priorities.
For a civilian oversight agency like CCA to be successful, there must be a good working relationship based
on trust and professionalism with the police agency it monitors. We are grateful to have such a relationship
here in Cincinnati. CCA sincerely thanks Chief Eliot Isaac, CPD’s Assistant Chiefs, CPD’s Captains and
other command staff, CPD’s Internal Investigations Section, Training Section staff, and the entire
Department for its continued collaboration and compliance with Cincinnati Administrative Code Article
XXVIII.
We are also grateful to have the confidence of those in City leadership. CCA could not function without
the support of Cincinnati’s Mayor, City Councilmembers, and City Manager; I thank each of them. CCA
also enjoys the support of various City departments and agencies, including but not limited to the Law
Department, Human Resources, Office of Performance & Data Analytics, Public Services, Office of
Human Relations, and Criminal Justice Initiatives.
Finally, CCA thanks the community and the people of the City of Cincinnati. It is our privilege to serve
you—our fellow citizens.
Sincerely,
Gabriel A. Davis
CCA Executive Director

4
MESSAGE FROM THE BOARD CHAIR
The year 2020 will be remembered. For most of the world it will be remembered for a pandemic that
killed millions, infected even more and changed the course of our daily lives. For our country, if not the
world, it will be remembered for the murder of George Floyd and the Black Lives Matter movement. For
the Citizen Complaint Authority, 2020 will be remembered as a year of challenge and change.
As 2019 turned to 2020, the CCA identified its most pressing challenge, getting through the backlog of
cases. In order to do this as quickly as possible we needed more help. That help would come from hiring
more investigators. To that end, Board Chair Karen Osborne and I, with guidance from Executive
Director Kim Neal, wrote a letter to the City administration and City Council asking that the CCA be fully
funded. The letter was presented to the Board and public at the February board meeting. It was at this
meeting that we learned of the first change we would have. Executive Director Neal had accepted a
position in Fort Worth, Texas and this would be her last meeting.
In March, the Board approved a motion to send the letter requesting funding to the City administration
and Council. Little did we know that would be the last meeting we would have until June. The pandemic
took hold of our lives, but the CCA continued to work. Dena Brown was named Interim Executive
Director while at the same time she continued her work as Chief Investigator.
More change came to the CCA as Board Chair Osborne completed her term in May and I was elected
Board Chair in June. While we did not consider any cases in June and July, the work of the professional
staff continued, as much as it could, with the pandemic surging and face to face meetings limited.
June brought good news as the city approved extra money for our budget, but also brought the challenge
of hiring our new executive director. With the list of applicants narrowed to six, interviews were held in
July, and in August, Gabe Davis was hired as our new Executive Director.
Director Davis took the reins in the beginning of September and attended his first board meeting where
he set out his vision for the CCA. Over the next few months, he began to implement that vision. Chief
among his accomplishments, he hired and trained three new investigators. These investigators will play a
crucial part in eliminating the backlog of cases that we face. We also began to hold our monthly meetings
with the option of attending through Zoom. This change resulted in much greater public participation in
our meetings. We look forward to continuing this option for attending and hope to have even more people
participate moving forward.
All things considered, 2020 ended up being a good year for the Citizen Complaint Authority. We met our
challenges and adapted to our changes. On behalf of the Board, I would like to express our thanks to the
staff of the CCA. It is through their efforts that the mission of the Citizen Complaint Authority is fulfilled.
We look forward to building on the accomplishments of 2020 as we take on the challenges of 2021.
Mark ‘Zeek’ Childers

CCA Board Chair

5
2020: A YEAR TO REMEMBER…
SERVICE
RESILIENCE
Photo by Tim Bayer*

COMMUNITY
Photo by Zachary Ghaderi*
*As seen on CincinnatiMagazine.com, June 2021. Citizen Complaint Authority Annual Report 2020
6
MISSION STATEMENT
The Citizen Complaint Authority’s (CCA) mission is to investigate serious interventions
by police officers, including, but not limited to discharging of firearms, deaths in custody,
and major uses of force, and to review and resolve citizen complaints of law enforcement
misconduct in a fair and efficient manner.
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
CCA exists to address citizens’ concerns, improve citizens’ perceptions of quality police
service in the City of Cincinnati, and improve the delivery of those services.
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. It is also essential that the CCA
act independently consistent with its duties.
CCA works tirelessly to ensure accountability through its investigations, yet also seeks to
improve police-community relations through partnerships, problem solving, data analysis,
and community engagements.
CCA is committed to the principle that improving mutual trust and respect between
citizens and police is foundational to ensuring justice and public safety.
Taft Museum of Art, Central Business District

7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
OVERVIEW 22 Table 4A: Use of Force Allegations Closed
8 History 22 Table 4B: Excessive Force Allegations Closed
9 Citizen Complaint Authority Board 22 Table 4C: Findings for Use of Force/Excessive
9 Board Responsibilities Force Allegations Closed
9 Board Meetings and Procedures 23 Chart 2: District Where Use of Force/Excessive
10 Executive Director and Staff Force Incident Occurred
10 Organization Chart 23 Summary of Serious Incidents Closed
27 Summary of Select Use of Force Cases Closed
COMPLAINT PROCESS
11 Complaints Received STATISTICS
11 Assignment and Investigation 36 Chart 3: CCA Closed and Active Investigations
11 Investigative Guidelines 36 Chart 4: CCA Findings
12 City Manager’s Final Disposition 37 Table 5: CCA Findings for Each Allegation
12 Administrative Closings 37 Chart 5: CPD Findings
12 CPD Citizen Complaint Resolution Process 38 Chart 6: Assignment of Complaints
13 CCA Complaint Process 38 Chart 7: How Complaints Were Received
38 Chart 8: Month Complaints Were Received
DIRECTOR’S SUMMARY 39 Table 6: Circumstances of Complaints
14 Significant Accomplishments 40 Table 7: Allegations Assigned to CCA
15 Budget 40 Table 8: Allegations Assigned to CPD
16 Collaborative Agreement 41 Chart 9: Cincinnati Population Estimate
16 Community Engagement 41 Chart 10: Complainant Demographics
17 CCA and CPD Relationship 42 Chart 11: All Sworn Officers
42 Chart 12A: Officer Demographics
SERIOUS POLICE INTERVENTION 42 Chart 12B: Officer Years on Force and Rank
INCIDENTS 43 Chart 13A: Complaints from All CPD Districts
18 Serious Incidents Received 43 Chart 13B: Central Business Section Complaints
18 Table 1A: Serious Incidents Received 43 Chart 13C: District 1 Complaints by Neighborhood
18 Table 1B: District Where Incident Occurred 44 Chart 13D: District 2 Complaints by Neighborhood
19 Table 1C: Demographics of Involved Persons 44 Chart 13E: District 3 Complaints by Neighborhood
19 Use of Force/Excessive Force Incidents Received 45 Chart 13F: District 4 Complaints by Neighborhood
19 Table 2A: Use of Force Allegations Received 45 Chart 13G: District 5 Complaints by Neighborhood
19 Table 2B: Excessive Force Allegations Received 46 Chart 13H: All Other Complaints
20 Chart 1A: District Where Use of Force/Excessive 47 Highlights
Force Incident Occurred
20 Chart 1B: Demographics of Involved Persons APPENDICES
21 Serious Incidents Closed 49 Appendix I: Five-Year Statistics
21 Table 3A: Serious Incidents Closed 61 Appendix II: Definition of Terms
21 Table 3B: District Where Incident Occurred 64 Appendix III: Commonly Used Acronyms
21 Table 3C: Demographics of Involved Persons 65 Appendix IV: Staff, Training and Development
21 Table 3D: Serious Incidents Closed Findings 68 Appendix V: CCA Board Members
22 Use of Force/Excessive Force Incidents Closed 71 Appendix VI: Table and Chart Cross Reference

8
OVERVIEW
History
In April of 2001, as a result of repeated lawsuits and the public’s demand for a Department of Justice
(DOJ) investigation, former Mayor of Cincinnati (Charlie Luken) requested that DOJ review the
Cincinnati Police Department’s (CPD) Use of Force policy. The Mayor’s request was a major step in
promoting police integrity and the City’s commitment to minimizing the use of excessive force in CPD.
In response to that request, DOJ conducted an investigation pursuant to its authority under the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14.141.
To affirm its commitment, the City entered into the Collaborative Agreement (CA) and Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) with DOJ. The parties to the CA included the Black United Front (subsequently asked
and received permission to be released from the agreement), the American Civil Liberties Union and the
Fraternal Order of Police. Both agreements required the City to create a police civilian oversight agency.
The intent of the CA and MOA was to foster a better relationship between the community and CPD.
In April 2002, the Citizen Complaint Authority (CCA) was created as an

independent civilian oversight agency by City Ordinance No. 0108-2002.
Article XXVIII of the Cincinnati Administrative Code is a codification of
CCA’s creation and the CA. CCA is structured with the following 3
operating components:
1) An independent Board of up to 7 citizens appointed by the Mayor and
approved by City Council;
2) A full-time Executive Director and support staff; and
3) A team of professional investigators.
CCA was created with investigative and administrative authority to review

allegations of serious police misconduct such as discharging of firearms;
Eden Park, District 4 deaths in custody; excessive use of force; improper pointing of firearms;
improper stops; improper entries, searches and seizures; and discrimination.
Upon recommendation by the CCA Director, the Board may request and receive approval from City
Council to issue subpoenas to compel witness testimony as well as for documents, photographs and other
tangible items.
In August 2008, Federal court supervision of the two agreements officially ended. Though the work will
never end, the two agreements laid a solid foundation for the City to move forward on its own. CCA
remains committed to the intent of the two agreements. As a result, the City, CPD and the CA Partners
created a CA Plan dedicated to their engagement in an ongoing effort to improve police-community
relations. The CA Plan was executed in August 2008. The commitment was further proven by the
continued efforts and initiatives of all to comply with the CA, including the City’s commitment to a
Collaborative Agreement Refresh in 2017.
9
Citizen Complaint Authority Board
As of December 2020, there were 7 Board members who represented a cross-section of the Cincinnati
community. Board members are required to have the requisite education and experience to impartially
review evidence and render judgments on alleged officer misconduct. The Board members serve a
maximum of 2, 2-year terms.
The Mayor accepts nominations from the city’s community councils, businesses, civic, social service and
other agencies and organizations. The Mayor also accepts applications from individual city residents.
Applicants for the Board must execute a signed release authorizing a thorough background check, including
a criminal background check. No person may serve on the Board who has been convicted of:
1) A felony;
2) An assault on a police officer; or
3) Any crime of dishonesty.
Before assuming office and prior to beginning their duties, each

member must complete basic training including courses at the
Cincinnati Police Academy, instruction in constitutional and
criminal protections, and complete CPD ride-alongs.
Hyde Park, District 2
All members must adhere to CCA’s Standards of Professional
Conduct and are asked to agree and execute the Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest Policy. The Mayor
may remove a Board member for cause.
Board Responsibilities
The Executive Director recommends each completed investigation report for summary disposition or a
review hearing. If the Board conducts review hearings, they are for the following purposes:
1) Confirm completeness of CCA investigation; and

2) Approve or disapprove the investigative reports. If the Board disapproves, it shall state its reasons
and may direct further investigation or submit its own finding and recommendation along with the
Director’s original report.
Board Meetings and Procedures
Public Board meetings are generally held on the first Monday of each month at 5:00 PM in the Council
Chambers at City Hall. Prior to the Board meeting, the Director forwards a copy of each report with the
Director’s findings to each Board member for review. Additionally, copies of the investigative reports are
sent to the complainants and officers notifying the parties of the board meeting. The complainant and the
respondent officer(s) are notified that they may challenge and/or appeal the Director’s findings and
recommendations to the Director and the Board.

10
After the Board meeting, the investigative reports, with all recommended findings and recommendations,
are forwarded to the City Manager. The Police Chief also receives a copy of the investigative report. The
City Manager shall agree or disagree with any findings and recommendations either by the Director or
Board and shall inform the Director and Board in writing of any reason for disagreeing or agreeing in part.
The Director will inform the complainants and officers of the City Manager’s decision. The final decision
is then sent to the Chief of Police. The City Manager’s decision is final, and there is no appeal.
Executive Director and Staff
The City Manager appoints the Director. The City Manager may consult with the CCA Board and seek the
Board’s recommendation when appointing the Director. However, the final decision is made by the City
Manager. The City Manager respects the need of the Director to act independently. The Director must be fair
and impartial and is responsible for the day-to-day direction of the Department.
CCA’s staff is comprised of professional investigators and support specialists dedicated to CCA’s mission. CCA
staff continues to increase its knowledge in civilian oversight, law enforcement policies and procedures, and
investigative protocols. CCA reviews periodic CPD policy and procedure updates; reviews CPD statistical data;
conducts patterns reviews; attends continuing education training; recommends policy, procedural and training
actions; manages and reviews CCA data; and oversees all CCA’s administrative operations.
Organization Chart
City Manager
Paula Boggs
Muething
CCA Director
CCA Board
Gabriel Davis
Senior
Division Administrative
Manager
Specialist
Dena Brown
Michelle Bonner
Investigator Investigator Investigator Administrative

Investigator Specialist
Jonathan Batista Ikechukwu Jessalyn
Ekeke Morgan Givens Goodman Heidi Woods

11
COMPLAINT PROCESS
Complaints Received
Citizen complaints are received by CCA regardless of where they are initially filed. The Director determines
whether complaints should be investigated by CCA. Complaints that are beyond CCA’s investigative scope, in
addition to the complaints investigated by CCA, are referred to CPD.
In order to ensure that citizens are assisted in a timely, efficient and

professional manner, CCA follows certain guidelines for accepting and
investigating complaints. Any citizen can file a complaint concerning a CPD
officer. CCA also accepts third party and anonymous complaints concerning
CPD officers. Complaints should be submitted within one year of the date of
an incident, absent limited exceptions.
Complaints may be filed with CCA or CPD by telephone, facsimile, online,

mail, in person, or CCA’s email address: cca@cincinnati-oh.gov. Complaint
Over-the-Rhine, District 1 forms may be obtained on CCA’s website at: www.cincinnati-oh.gov/ccia
/citizen-complaint-authority-complaint-form. Complaint forms accessed online can be easily translated into
Spanish or into a variety of other languages for convenient submission.
Assignment and Investigation
Upon receipt of a complaint, the Director reviews the complaint and assigns it to an Investigator within
48 hours. The investigation should be completed within 90 days unless there are extenuating
circumstances. CCA provides CPD with detailed information regarding the complaint, including the time and
location of the underlying events and the name(s) of the officer(s) involved.
Investigative Guidelines
1) Complaints are evaluated based upon the preponderance of the evidence standard.
2) CCA investigates serious interventions by police officers including, but not limited to, discharging of
firearms; deaths in custody; and major uses of force; as well as citizen complaints of excessive use
of force; improper pointing of firearms; improper stops; improper entries, searches and seizures;
and discrimination/racial profiling.
3) CCA considers all relevant evidence including circumstantial, direct and physical.
4) CCA handles all investigations impartially, fairly and objectively.
5) No statements provided receive preference over another.
6) Witnesses’ statements are not disregarded because the witness has some connection to the
complainant. The same is true for involved officers and officer witnesses.
7) Every effort is made to resolve material inconsistencies between witnesses’ statements.
8) During the investigation, investigators refrain from asking officers or witnesses any leading questions
that improperly suggest what the response should be or provide legal justification.
9) All relevant police activity, including each use of force and not just the type of force, is investigated.
10) CCA may also initiate complaints even if complainants are unavailable or a complaint has been
withdrawn.

12
11) A pending or resolved adjudication may be considered when assessing whether an officer violated
CPD policy, procedure or training.
12) Investigative reports may offer policy, procedure and training recommendations as well as
comments or observations. Each allegation in an investigation is resolved with one of the following
dispositions:
• Unfounded: Where the investigation determined no facts to support the incident complained
of actually occurred.
• Sustained: Where the allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to determine that the
incident occurred, and the actions of the officer were improper.
• Not Sustained: Where there are insufficient facts to decide whether the alleged misconduct
occurred.
• Exonerated: Where the alleged conduct occurred but did not violate CPD policies, procedures
or training.
City Manager’s Final Disposition
The CA states the City Manager shall agree or disagree with any findings and recommendations of either
the Director or the Board and shall inform the Director and the Board in writing of any reasons for
disagreeing with the recommended findings. It shall be the Director’s responsibility to inform the officers
and the complainants when a decision has been
reached by the City Manager. Once reached, the City
Manager’s decision is final, and the complaint is closed
without appeal.
Administrative Closings
There are a few complaints that cannot be investigated

by CCA and are closed by administrative directive. For
instance, a complaint against an unidentified officer
may be closed if CCA could not determine if the officer Cincinnati Zoo & Botanical Gardens, District 5
was employed by CPD at the time of the complaint.
Some complaints are not within the jurisdiction of CCA to investigate because of the location of the
incident, type of allegation, or because the length of time between when the incident occurred and when
the complaint was filed is greater than one year (absent limited exceptions permitting filing beyond one
year).
CPD Citizen Complaint Resolution Process
Citizen complaints that do not fall under CCA’s established criteria are referred to CPD for investigation
internally or through their Citizen Complaint Resolution Process (CCRP). While CCA does not conduct
the CCRP investigations, CCA can monitor CPD’s citizen complaints’ closures, excluding matters
involving criminal investigations. CPD Procedure § 15.100, Citizen Complaints and Reports of Favorable
Police Conduct, provides further guidance regarding the CCRP.

13
CCA Complaint Process
How a complaint is filed
CPD ETS/EVT CCA Website CCA Facsimile CCA Phone CCA US Mail CCA Walk-in CCA Email
CCA investigates: All complaints received by CCA are

Deaths in Custody referred to CPD Internal Investigations
Discharging of Firearms/Tasers Section (IIS) for investigation or review
Discrimination/Racial Profiling through CPD’s Citizen Complaint
Excessive Force/Use of Force Resolution Process (CCRP).
Improper Searches/Seizures/Entries
Improper Pointing of Firearms
Improper Stops/Detention
Process followed for all

CCA investigations
Within 48 hours of receipt, the complaint Investigator contacts Complainant and

Investigator sends records request for all
is submitted to an Investigator and sends a Notice to Appear (NTA) to Officer
material evidence.
assigned a case number. for interviews.
Based upon all available evidence, the

Investigator determines whether the
alleged conduct occurred and if the
conduct fell within applicable law, policy Investigator reviews applicable laws, Investigator interviews Complainant,
or procedure. All relevant conduct is regulations, policies, procedures, training Officers and Witnesses.
considered, and any violations of law, materials and guidance documents.
policy or procedure discovered by the
Investigator are noted.
Investigator drafts investigative report.

Investigative report includes summary;
interviews; evidence; applicable law, Draft investigative report is given to the Complainant and CPD are notified of
policy and procedure; analysis; conclu- Director for review and approval. Upon investigative findings as well as the date
sion and findings. The report may include approval and submission to the Board, the and time for CCA Board meeting where
recommendations or observations. Unless investigation is complete. report will be discussed.
extenuating circumstances, report is
completed within 90 days.
CCA’s final investigation reports, with any Complainant and involved Officer appeal
Complaint is presented at the monthly
Board findings, are sent to the City rights end at the Board meeting. Parties
Board meeting. The Board may receive
Manager for final disposition. Chief of should contact CCA immediately or
testimony or comment. Board agrees or
Police also receives the reports. The City appear ///at Board meeting if they have
disagrees with Director’s findings.
Manager’s decision is FINAL. questions, concerns or want to appeal.
CCA notifies complainant and subject Chief of Police should review findings
The City Manager’s final decision
officers of the final disposition, including and take any necessary corrective
is sent to the Chief of Police.
the Manager’s decision. actions regarding officers’ conduct.

14
DIRECTOR’S SUMMARY
Significant Accomplishments
The Citizen Complaint Authority’s (CCA) mission is to investigate serious interventions by police officers,
including, but not limited to discharging of firearms, deaths in custody, and major uses of force, and to
review and resolve citizen complaints of law enforcement misconduct in a fair and efficient manner. At a
minimum, CCA has jurisdiction over complaints alleging excessive use of force; improper pointing of
firearms; improper stops; improper entries; improper searches;
improper seizures; and discrimination, including racial profiling.
CCA works tirelessly to ensure accountability through its

investigations, yet also seeks to improve police-community
relations through partnerships, problem solving, data analysis,
and community engagements. Cincinnati deserves a high-
caliber independent and impartial forum for the investigation
and timely resolution of serious police misconduct complaints,
Price Hill Branch Library, District 3 and this is precisely what CCA is committed to providing.
Thanks to the hard work and careful attention of CCA’s Staff and Board, the Authority has continued its
long tradition of providing quality service to Cincinnatians, despite the COVID-19 pandemic and other
challenges. The following significant accomplishments represent our year in summary:
• CCA responded to the scene of all officer-involved shootings that occurred in 2020 (3 such incidents
total). In all cases, CCA’s Investigators monitored the processing of evidence by CPD, monitored
interviews conducted by Homicide Investigators, and gathered information necessary to open
independent CCA investigations into the shootings.
• CCA responded to the scene of all cases involving deaths in police custody, or deaths potentially
resulting from police action, that occurred in 2020 (2 such incidents total). In all cases, CCA’s
Investigators monitored the processing of evidence by CPD, monitored interviews conducted by
Homicide Investigators, and gathered information necessary to open independent CCA investigations
into the deaths.
• CCA completed investigations into 40 complaints, representing 306 allegations and 306 findings issued.
Those 306 allegations and findings represent a 4% increase over our 3-year pre-pandemic average for
the number of allegations investigated and findings issued.
• In 2020, CCA reviewed and assessed 249 complaints on intake, 75 of which met our criteria for
investigation and were opened as active cases. The 75 new investigations that CCA opened represent a
less than 1% decrease from our 3-year pre-pandemic average for the number of new cases opened,
despite significant disruptions in operations occasioned by COVID-19.
• In 2020, CCA submitted over 15 unique recommendations to the City Manager and CPD. Those
recommendations addressed police policy and training, including the following topics: investigatory stops,
searches and frisks, Body Worn Camera (BWC) evidentiary access, BWC use policy, CPD’s Use of Force
Review Board, TASER deployment, defining harassment as a citizen allegation, and more.

15
• CCA collaborated with CPD on CPD’s periodic review of its use of force procedures, during which
CCA made multiple recommendations regarding CPD’s proposed policy revisions. Fifty percent (50%)
of CCA’s recommendations were ultimately adopted by CPD, including those pertaining to the use
warnings before deployment of a Conducted Electrical Weapon (CEW) (i.e. TASER), as well those
pertaining to the definition of “force” in CPD’s policies. CCA will continue to work with CPD regarding
consideration of its other recommendations.
• CCA collaborated with CPD, the Office of Performance and Data Analytics, and Criminal Justice
Initiatives, on a project to improve the transmission, reporting, and implementation assessment of CCA
recommendations. The project successfully resulted in streamlined internal processes and is expected to
result in greater public transparency with respect to CCA recommendations.
• In mid-2020, CCA published its 2019 Annual Report and also published its 2019 Patterns Report, which
examined an adopted 3-year period and tracked (i) officers who have received a high number of
complaints against them, (ii) repeat complainants who have filed complaints against officers, and (iii)
the top circumstances that formed the bases for the filing of complaints.
• CCA enhanced CCA’s Citizen Complaint Management System (CCMS) reporting features, which
included but were not limited to new programming related to numbering a tracking system which easily
identifies CCA’s recommendations and their topics; updated programming logic to citizen and officer
pattern reports; verification of data via cross-reporting by district, complaints, demographics, allegations,
citizens, etc.; creation of tracking for multiple circumstances per complaint; and more.
• CCA liaised with and provided guidance to public officials and representatives from other cities
interested in creating an oversight agency or improving existing oversight functions, including officials
and representatives from jurisdictions such as Akron, Ohio and New York City.
• CCA hired, onboarded, and trained 3 new experienced and diverse Investigators. The new Investigators
included a former NYPD detective fluent in Spanish; a former Cleveland prosecutor with criminal
defense experience; and a counterintelligence investigator from the U.S. Intelligence Community.
• CCA trained and onboarded 2 new CCA Board Members, restoring the Board to its 7-member-full-
strength level.
• CCA established new procedural guidance for its Investigators that streamlined both the use of its
allegations, and its report-writing standards, providing for greater consistency in the communication of
investigative findings and tracking of data.
Budget
The total approved operating budgets were $691,630 for FY 2020 and $899,030 for FY 2021. The
breakdown is as follows:
Category FY 2020 FY 2021

Personnel Services $ 504,970 $ 580,900
Employee Benefits 158,410 219,050
Other Expenses 28,250 99,080
Operating Total $ 691,630 $ 899,030
16
CCA looks forward to working with the Mayor, City Manager, City Council, CPD, and the citizens of
Cincinnati to ensure the Department has the resources it needs to perform its tasks proactively and in
accordance with legal standards in the next Fiscal Year. CCA will continue to operate as a Department
that provides Cincinnati citizens and stakeholders with excellent value and a strong return on taxpayer
investment. The Department’s success can be attributed to the steps it has taken to effectively utilize its
resources and develop creative ways to fulfill its mission.
Collaborative Agreement
In 2002, the City of Cincinnati took part in the historic CA to find solutions for ongoing issues related to
community-police relations. The CA was submitted to the Federal Court and became a national model
for cities across the nation. A cross-section of the entire community created the CA based on 5 shared
goals:
1) CPD and Community Members Shall Become Pro-active Partners in Community Problem-Solving
2) Build Relationships of Respect, Cooperation and Trust Within and Between CPD and Communities
3) Improve Education, Oversight, Monitoring, Hiring Practices and Accountability of CPD
4) Ensure Fair, Equitable, and Courteous Treatment for All
5) Create Methods to Establish the Public’s Understanding of the CPD Policies and Procedures as well
as Recognition of Exceptional Service in an Effort to Foster Support for CPD
CCA was created out of the CA and shares the CA’s same values. Those values permeated all of CCA’s
work in 2020.
Community Engagement
Community engagement is critical to the success of CCA. CCA has long maintained a proactive engagement
program that involves community groups, citizens, other stakeholders and CPD and is geared toward
increasing awareness about civilian oversight, citizen’s rights during police encounters, and the CA.
In 2020, CCA retooled its community engagement program to meet the challenges presented by the COVID-
19 pandemic as well as the demands of a public increasingly seeking online engagement. For the first time in
its history, CCA provided opportunities for the public to attend and participate in its monthly Board meetings
virtually via internet platforms such as Zoom.
CCA reimagined key segments of its standing Board meeting agenda in order to provide more opportunities
for the community to offer comments and present questions to the Board and staff during meetings. CCA
also used its Board meetings as a platform for stakeholders to provide educational presentations to the public
on subjects relevant to its work, and of interest to the community. These included presentations on CPD’s
new Axon body worn camera software and TASERs, presentations on the history of civilian oversight in
Cincinnati, and presentations on the Bias Free Policing Initiative.

17
In addition, CCA provided 19 community engagements and trainings, reaching over 270 people in 2020. These
engagements included CCA presentations; Q&A sessions at meetings of the Cincinnati Bar Association,
Cincinnati Black United Front, Harvard Club of Cincinnati, Leaders of the Free World, and Ohio Justice and
Policy Center; as well as liaisons with organizations such as Hearing Speech + Deaf Center.
CCA also participated in periodic meetings of the City Manager’s Advisory Group (MAG) and briefed
members of the MAG on the operations of CCA and its priorities for 2020 and 2021. CCA advised the City
Manager with respect to the functions of the MAG. CCA also engaged individual members of the MAG in
one-on-one meetings, including the Urban League of Greater Southwestern Ohio, and Metropolitan Area
Religious Coalition of Cincinnati (MARCC).
CCA is an active member of the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE).
CCA and CPD Relationship
In order for CCA to be effective, it is important that a relationship of mutual respect be maintained with
CPD. In that spirit, CCA and CPD have long maintained a protocol for the timely exchange of information
and coordination of investigations. Additionally, as mentioned earlier in this report, CCA periodically
submits recommendations to CPD and collaborates on revisions to its policies. That relationship of mutual
respect and professionalism between CCA and CPD continued in 2020. Some of CCA’s other law
enforcement engagement activities for the year are summarized below.
In 2020, CCA regularly engaged CPD’s Commanders, and also engaged with CPD Captains from nearly all
police districts and some specialized units. CCA also participated in a Q&A session with rank-and-file CPD
officers during roll call. CCA provided its annual trainings to CPD New Recruits, CPD New Supervisors, and
CPD Citizen Police Academy. New CCA Board Members also participated in ride-alongs in Districts 3 and 4
and training at the Police Academy.
CCA collaborated with CPD, community leaders, and the City Manager’s Office on issues of public safety and
police-community relations during meetings of the Bias-Free Policing Working Group and Cincinnati Initiative
to Reduce Violence (CIRV).
CCA is an active member of the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE)
(including its local chapter) and International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP).

18
SERIOUS POLICE INTERVENTION INCIDENTS

“The CCA’s mission will be to investigate serious interventions by police officers, including but not limited
to shots fired, deaths in custody and major uses of force . . . .” Article XXVIII of the Cincinnati
Administrative Code.
Serious Incidents Received
During the 2020 annual reporting period, CCA’s staff reviewed and opened 5 new, serious intervention
incidents involving either death or a firearm discharge for investigation.
1. 20030 (February): The investigation of Death in Custody is pending.

2. 20119 (June): The investigation of Discharge of Firearm is pending.
3. 20135 (July): The investigation of Discharge of Firearm is pending.
4. 20155 (August): The investigation of 2 Deaths (Other) is pending.
5. 20157 (August): The investigation of Discharge of Firearm is pending.
Table 1A: Serious Incidents Received
Incidents Victims Fatalities Officers

Discharge of Firearm 3 3 0 13
Death in Custody 1 1 1 1
Death (Other) 1 2 2 2
Total 5 6 3 16
Table 1B: District Where Incident Occurred
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 CBD1 OCL2 Unk3

Discharge of Firearm 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Death in Custody 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Death (Other) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Total 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 1
1 “CBD” denotes Central Business District

2 “OCL” denotes Outside of City Limits
3 “Unk” denotes Unknown

19
Table 1C: Demographics of Involved Persons
Victim Officer
Male 5 13
Female 1 3
African American 3 3
Caucasian 3 11
Hispanic/Latino 0 0
Other (2+) 0 1
Unknown 0 1
Total 6 16
Use of Force/Excessive Force Incidents Received
During the 2020 annual reporting period, CCA’s staff reviewed and opened 35 use of force incidents.
Those 35 incidents did not all involve a “major use of force,” however, at a minimum each incident
involved at least one allegation of use of force.
Table 2A: Use of Force Allegations Received
Use of Force Allegations

40mm Foam Rounds 2
Chemical Irritant 1
Handcuffing 2
Monadnock 1
Physical 4
Taken to Ground 1
Taser 7
Unspecified 5
Total 23
Table 2B: Excessive Force Allegations Received
Excessive Force Allegations

Bean Bag 1
Choking 1
Handcuffing 1
Pepperball 1
Physical 15
Taken to Ground 5
Taser 5
Unspecified 13
Total 42

20
Chart 1A: District Where Use of Force/Excessive Force Incident Occurred
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 CBD OCL Unk
Chart 1B: Demographics of Involved Persons
Male 30
Female 8
African American 25
Caucasian 7
Other 2
Unknown 4
<18 3
18-24 4
25-34 8
35-44 12
45-54 4
55-64 2
65+ 1
Unknown 4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

21
Serious Incidents Closed
During the 2020 annual reporting period, CCA’s staff investigated and closed 3 serious intervention
incidents.
Table 3A: Serious Incidents Closed
Incidents Allegations Victims Fatalities Officers

Discharge of Firearm 1 5 1 0 2
Death in Custody 2 7 2 2 6
Total 3 12 3 2 8
Table 3B: District Where Incident Occurred
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 OCL
Discharge of Firearm 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Death in Custody 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Total 0 0 0 1 1 0 1
Table 3C: Demographics of Involved Persons
Victim Officer
Male 3 8
Female 0 0
African American 2 0
Caucasian 1 7
Hispanic/Latino 0 1
Other (2+) 0 0
Unknown 0 0
Total 3 8
Table 3D: Serious Incidents Closed Findings
Not
Exonerated Sustained Sustained Unfounded
Discharge of Firearm 7 0 1 0
Death in Custody 3 0 0 4
Total 7 0 1 4

22
Use of Force/Excessive Force Incidents Closed
During the 2020 annual reporting period, CCA’s staff investigated and closed 19 use of force incidents.
Those 19 incidents did not all involve a “major use of force,” however, at a minimum each incident
involved at least one allegation of use of force.
Table 4A: Use of Force Allegations Closed
Use of Force
Escort 2
Hard Hands 5
Physical 4
Taken to Ground 3
Taser 4
Total 18
Table 4B: Excessive Force Allegations Closed
Excessive Force
Choking 2
Handcuffing 1
Physical 22
Taken to Ground 2
Unspecified 3
Total 30
Table 4C: Findings for Use of Force/Excessive Force Allegations Closed
Finding
Exonerated 17
Not Sustained 16
Sustained 4
Unfounded 11
Total 48

23
Chart 2: District Where Use of Force/Excessive Force Incidents Occurred
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 CBD OCL Unk
Complaints 5 4 1 5 3 0 1 0
Allegations 19 6 3 15 4 0 1 0
Summary of Serious Incidents Closed
Incident #1
CCA Complaint: #17062
Complainant: Damion McRae
CCA Investigator: Dena Brown
Incident Date: March 12, 2017
Incident Time: 12:30 a.m.
Incident Location: Gilbert Avenue
CCA Receipt Date: March 13, 2017
Summary:
Ms. Ebony Berry called the Emergency Communications Center (ECC) after her boyfriend, Mr. Damion
McRae, assaulted her. Ms. Berry advised ECC that Mr. McRae possessed a shotgun/long firearm. Officers
Kenneth Grubbs and William Keuper responded to the radio run.
Officer Grubbs encountered Mr. McRae in the apartment complex’s courtyard. When Officer Grubbs
ordered Mr. McRae to show his hands, he did not comply. Mr. McRae continued his approach, raised his
right arm, and fired one shot at Officer Grubbs, striking him. Officer Grubbs returned fire, striking Mr.
McRae. Officer Keuper also returned fire. Officer Grubbs notified ECC shots had been fired and that he
and Mr. McRae were injured. Officers Grubbs and Keuper held Mr. McRae at gunpoint until assistance
arrived. Officer Robert Nelson placed Mr. McRae into custody. Mr. McRae and Officer Grubbs were
transported to University of Cincinnati Medical Center (UCMC) for treatment.

24
Analysis:
Officers Grubbs and Keuper responded to a dispatched radio run for domestic violence. CPD Procedure
§12.554 Investigatory Stops states that in a "Terry" type encounter, an officer has reasonable suspicion to
believe the citizen is committing or has committed a crime. Based on this reasonable suspicion, the officer
may forcibly stop and detain the citizen for a brief investigatory period. Officers Grubbs and Keuper had
reason to believe Mr. McRae was involved in the related radio run when they approached him. CCA
concluded that Officers Grubbs and Keuper were in compliance with CPD’s policy, procedure, and
training during the Stop of Mr. McRae.
BWC footage showed Mr. McRae approached Officer Grubbs, drew his Kel-Tec 9mm Sub-2200 semi-
automatic firearm, and discharged it. As a result of the life-threatening resistance, Officers Grubbs and
Keuper returned fire. CPD Procedure § 12.550 Discharging of Firearms by Police Personnel maintains
that when an officer perceives what he interprets to be a threat of loss of life or serious physical harm to
himself or others at the hands of another, he has the authority to use that force reasonably necessary to
protect himself or others from death or serious physical harm at the hands of another. Officer Grubbs
and Mr. McRae sustained injuries. CCA concluded that Officers Grubbs and Keuper were in compliance
with CPD’s policy, procedure, and training when they discharged their firearms. Furthermore, the
Hamilton County Prosecutor’s Office issued a letter of declination which absolved Officers Grubbs and
Keuper of any criminal wrongdoing in the shooting of Mr. McRae.
CPD Procedure § 12.540, Body Worn Camera System, states officers are required to activate their BWC
system during all law enforcement-related encounters and activities as defined in this procedure. CCA
determined Officer Grubbs did not comply with CPD’s policy, procedure and training when he failed to
activate his BWC.
Findings:
Officer Kenneth Grubbs
Officer William Keuper
Stop (Person) - The evidence shows that the alleged conduct did occur but did not violate CPD policies,
procedures, or training. EXONERATED

Officer William Keuper
Discharge of a Firearm - The evidence shows that the alleged conduct did occur but did not violate
CPD policies, procedures, or training. EXONERATED

Procedure (BWC - Turned on Late) - The allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to determine
that the incident occurred and the actions of the officer were improper. SUSTAINED
Incident #2
Complainant: Isaiah Currie
Incident Date: December 20, 2017
Incident Time: 1:55 p.m.

25
Location: 3200 Burnett Avenue
CCA Receipt Date: December 21, 2017
Summary:
On December 20, 2017, Mr. Isaiah Currie arrived at University of Cincinnati (UC) Health Psychiatric
Emergency Services (PES) and parked his vehicle. Mr. Currie entered the building and asked UC Public
Safety Officer Patrick Kuhl where to check in. Officer Kuhl advised Mr. Currie to go to the PES side of
the building. Mr. Currie walked to PES, entered and approached the security room. He asked UC Public
Safety Officer Anthony Faulk where he could sign in. Officer Faulk exited the security room and met Mr.
Currie at the metal detector at the entrance to the lobby. Officer Faulk asked Mr. Currie to empty his
pockets and place his items on the tray. Mr. Currie complied; he placed his cellular phone and keys in the
tray and then removed two firearms from his waistband. Mr. Currie pointed both firearms at Officer Faulk
and shot him twice. A struggle ensued and Officer Faulk was able to escape the building. Mr. Currie
walked to the reception desk, fired once through the window, and then exited PES. Several 911 calls were
made to the Emergency Communications Center (ECC). Per several witnesses, Mr. Currie fired two
rounds outside as he walked toward his vehicle. Mr. Currie observed UC Officer Faulk seated by a parked
vehicle and fired another shot at him. Mr. Currie went to his vehicle but did not have his keys. He returned
to PES and fired a round at the keycard scanner to gain entrance into the Minor Care area of PES. Mr.
Currie remained in the lobby. CPD Officers Robert Nelson, Eric Carpenter and Jeffrey Meister responded
to PES. Officer Nelson entered the area between the double doors and was seen by Mr. Currie. Mr. Currie
fired one shot at Officer Nelson. Officer Nelson retreated outside for cover. Mr. Currie remained in the
lobby and fatally shot himself. CCA investigated the allegations of Death in Custody.
Analysis:
Mr. Currie arrived at UCMC PES, entered the building, and after speaking with Officer Faulk, he removed
two firearms from his waistband. He discharged his firearms, striking Officer Faulk twice. Officer Faulk
exited the building and, along with several 911 callers, alerted ECC that Mr. Currie was actively shooting
in and outside of PES. CPD Officers Nelson, Carpenter and Meister were the first officers to respond to
the scene; they acknowledged their weapons were drawn at the time of their response. CPD Procedure
§12.550 Discharging of Firearms by Police Personnel states at such time as a police officer perceives what
he interprets to be a threat of loss of life or serious physical harm to himself or others at the hands of
another, he has the authority to display a firearm, with finger outside the trigger guard and have it ready
for self-defense. The finger is only to be placed on the trigger when on target and ready to engage a threat.
CCA concluded the officers having their weapons drawn was in compliance with CPD’s policy, procedure,
and training.
Due to the rapidly evolving events, the officers had no background information on who the shooter was
or if he had any mental health issues. Officer Nelson attempted to enter the building; Mr. Currie observed
and fired a round at him. Officer Nelson did not return fire but retreated out of the building.
Subsequently, Mr. Currie died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound; the Hamilton County Coroner ruled
Mr. Currie’s death a suicide. The Hamilton County Prosecutor’s Office issued a letter of declination which
absolved any criminal wrongdoing by Officer Nelson in the death of Mr. Currie. CCA concluded that
Mr. Currie’s death was not due to any action or inaction of CPD.

26
Findings:
Officer Robert Nelson
Death in Custody – There are no facts to support the incident complained of actually occurred.
UNFOUNDED
Officer Robert Nelson

Officer Eric Carpenter
Officer Jeffrey Meister
Pointing of a Firearm – The evidence shows that the alleged conduct did occur but did not violate CPD
policies, procedures, or training. EXONERATED
Incident #3
Complainant: Robert Kasee
Incident Date: June 13, 2018
Incident Time: 8:11 a.m.
Location: Colina Drive, Villa Hills, Kentucky
CCA Receipt Date: June 14, 2018
Summary:
On June 8, 2018, CPD’s Personal Crimes Squad (PCS) filed three counts of Rape, three counts of Sexual
Battery, and one count of Felonious Assault against Mr. Robert Kasee.
On June 12, 2018, PCS provided Mr. Kasee’s cellular telephone number and a warrant for his arrest to
CPD’s Fugitive Apprehension Squad (FAS) Sergeant Eric Vogelpohl and Officers Kenneth Kober and
Scott Bode. FAS responded to where Mr. Kasee’s phone was located. The occupants at the residence
advised Mr. Kasee was working on a residence in Villa Hills, Kentucky.
On June 13, 2018, FAS and Villa Hills Officer Patrick Noll located Mr. Kasee outside at a residence in
Villa Hills, KY. Officer Kober attempted to handcuff Mr. Kasee; however, he pulled away, pushed
Sergeant Vogelpohl to the side, and “launched” himself 20 feet down an embankment, fleeing into the
woods. The officers pursued and the Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office (HCSO) helicopter 9H10 searched
for Mr. Kasee for approximately an hour but did not locate him. Approximately an hour later, Ludlow
Police Department K-9 Lieutenant Bart Beck and K-9 Oakley and Officer Bode located Mr. Kasee as he
fled into the river. The officers ordered Mr. Kasee to swim back to the shore which he did not comply
with; instead, Mr. Kasee swam further away from the riverbank. Mr. Kasee asked for help, went under
water and never resurfaced.
On June 15, 2018, Villa Hills Police Department located Mr. Kasee’s body pinned between a boat and the
dock. The indictments against Mr. Kasee were dismissed on July 18, 2018.

27
Analysis:
PCS filed several warrants against Mr. Kasee; they provided Mr. Kasee’s cellular telephone number and a
search warrant for his arrest to CPD’s FAS. CPD Procedure § 12. 260 Warrants for Adults: Service and
Recording, states Felony 1, Felony 2, and Felony 3 warrants will be forwarded to the Southern Ohio
Fugitive Apprehension Strike Team (SOFAUT) FAS. CPD Procedure § 12.555 Arrest/Citation:
Processing of Adult Misdemeanor and Felony Offenders states during Felony Arrest, Officers will make
a physical arrest on all original felony arrests, felony warrants, and felony capiases. At the time of this
incident, FAS officers were members of the US Marshals Task Force, which permitted them to serve a
warrant within the United States.
FAS and Officer Noll responded to a residence in Villa Hills, KY. Officer Kober attempted to handcuff
Mr. Kasee; however, he pulled away, pushed Sergeant Vogelpohl to the side, and “launched” himself 20
feet down an embankment, fleeing into the woods. The officers pursued Mr. Kasee. CPD Procedure §
12.536 Foot Pursuits states an officer, on foot, chases a suspect in an effort to detain or arrest that
individual who he has reasonable suspicion to believe is about to commit, is committing or has committed
a crime and who is resisting apprehension by fleeing from the officer. Approximately an hour later,
Lieutenant Beck, K-9 Oakley and Officer Bode located Mr. Kasee and observed him as he fled into the
river. The officers ordered Mr. Kasee to swim back to the shore, but he did not comply. Instead, Mr.
Kasee swam further away from the riverbank. Mr. Kasee asked for help, went under water, and never
resurfaced. The CAD report verified CPD and Villa Hills officers made rescue attempts without success.
Although there was no BWC footage, the officers provided consistent statements of their attempts to
locate, secure, and rescue Mr. Kasee.
On June 15, 2018, Villa Hills Police Department located Mr. Kasee’s body pinned between a boat and the
dock. CCA concluded that Mr. Kasee’s death was not due to any action of CPD.
Findings:
Sergeant Eric Vogelpohl
Officer Kenneth Kober
Officer Scott Bode
Death in Custody - There are no facts to support the incident complained of actually occurred.
UNFOUNDED
Summary of Select Use of Force Cases Closed
Incident #1
Complainant: Larae Clay
Incident Date: July 13, 2018
Incident Time: 11:31 AM
Location: Kenard Avenue, Cincinnati, OH
CCA Receipt Date: September 14, 2018
Summary:
On July 13, 2018, Officer Kevin Brown worked an off-duty detail, in uniform, at Kroger located at 4777
Kenard Avenue. A Kroger employee informed Officer Brown that she observed Ms. Larae Clay and two

28
juveniles (one being CM) in one of the aisles placing unpaid items in bags. Officer Brown approached Ms.
Clay and the juveniles as they bagged their items at the front of the store. Officer Brown questioned Ms.
Clay about the purchase of the items. He stated Ms. Clay produced a 2017 receipt and could not identify
who waited on her. Officer Brown requested an additional officer respond to transport two prisoners via
his police radio. Ms. Clay heard this request, left the children and quickly exited through the first set of
automated exit doors.
When Ms. Clay made it to the threshold of the final exit door, Officer Brown told her to “come back”
twice, and when she did not comply, he drew his taser and deployed it without warning. The taser
deployment took effect, and Ms. Clay was taken into custody. CM was also taken into custody. Ms. Clay
was charged with Ohio Revised Code (ORC) § 2913.02 Theft and ORC § 2921.31 Obstructing Official
Business. CM was charged with Ohio Revised Code (ORC) § 2913.02 Theft. The other juvenile left. Ms.
Clay was transported to the Hamilton County Justice Center (HCJC) by Officer Kurtis Latham.
Officer Brown admitted to the CCA Investigator he made the “prejudicial statement” about “this is why
we don’t have grocery stores,” and he failed to warn Ms. Clay of the impending taser deployment.
Analysis:
The initial interaction between Officer Brown and Ms. Clay was not recorded as Officer Brown’s BWC
was not activated. CPD Procedure § 15.540 Body Worn Camera System states the equipment is the
responsibility of the officer assigned. Officers are required to activate their BWC system during law
enforcement-related encounters and activities. It further notes that officers will wear all supplied
components of the BWC systems to ensure the BWC is properly positioned to clearly record police
activities regardless of uniform attire. CPD Manual of Rules and Regulations § 2.18 states that members
of the department shall not fail to activate their BWC system except for a good cause. Officer Brown
failed to initially activate his BWC. CCA concluded Officer Brown was in violation of CPD’s policy,
procedure, and training.
Officer Brown stated he was advised by a Kroger employee that Ms. Clay and two juveniles had placed
items in a bag and attempted to leave the store. CPD Procedure § 12.554 Investigatory Stops maintains
that when an officer has reasonable suspicion to believe a citizen is committing a crime, the officer may
forcibly stop and detain the citizen.
Ms. Clay exited Kroger as Officer Brown instructed her “to come back here;” she did not comply. Officer
Brown did not order her to stop. Without warning, he deployed his taser striking Ms. Clay in her back,
which incapacitated her, and she was taken into custody. CPD Procedure § 12.545 Use of Force states
when possible, give the subject a verbal warning the taser will be deployed unless exigent circumstances
exist that would make it imprudent to do so. CCA concluded that the initial decision to stop Ms. Clay was
in compliance with CPD’s policy, procedure, and training. CCA also concluded there were no exigent
circumstances that prevented Officer Brown from ordering Ms. Clay to stop and advising her she would
be tased if she did not comply. Officer Brown was in violation of CPD’s policy, procedure, and training
when he failed to warn Ms. Clay of the impending taser deployment.
At the time of this encounter, CPD’s Procedure § 12.545 Use of Force stated when officers have a right
to make an arrest, they may use whatever force is reasonably necessary to apprehend the offender or effect
the arrest and no more. The most desirable method for affecting an arrest is compliance. Although Officer

29
Brown failed to warn Ms. Clay of the impending taser deployment, he was in compliance with CPD’s
policy, procedure and training when he tased Ms. Clay as she attempted flee the store leaving behind two
juveniles.
CPD’s Manual of Rules and Regulations, Section One, Failure of Good Behavior lays out that CPD
members shall not commit any acts or omit any acts, which constitute a violation of any of the rules,
regulations, procedures, directives, or orders of the Department. Specifically, Section 1.06 A states CPD
members should interact with citizens, ultimately being “civil, orderly, and courteous,” and Section 1.23
C states CPD members shall not express, verbally or in writing, any prejudice or offensive comments
concerning race, religion, national origin, life-style, gender, or similar personal characteristics. A review
of Officer Brown’s BWC showed that his comment to Ms. Clay: “this is why we don’t have Kroger’s in
Bond Hill and Walnut Hills,” was offensive, unwarranted and discourteous. CCA concluded Officer
Brown was not in compliance with CPD’s policy, procedure, and training in his remark to Ms. Clay.
Findings:
Officer Kevin Brown
Stop (Person) - The evidence shows that the alleged conduct did occur but did not violate CPD policies,
Procedure (BWC – Turned on Late) - The allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to determine
that the incident occurred, and the actions of the officer were improper. SUSTAINED
Procedure (Taser - Failure to Warn) - The allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to determine
that the incident occurred, and the actions of the officer were improper. SUSTAINED
Use of Force (Taser) - The evidence shows that the alleged conduct did occur but did not violate CPD
policies, procedures, or training. EXONERATED
Discourtesy (Racial) - The allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to determine that the incident
occurred, and the actions of the officer were improper. SUSTAINED
Incident #2
Complainant: Brandon Caulton, Asia Brown, Senta Brown
CCA Investigator: Amelia Kraus
Incident Date: September 20, 2019
Incident Time: 1:11 PM
Location: Walnut Street, Cincinnati, OH
CCA Receipt Date: September 24, 2019
Summary:
On September 20, 2019, Ms. Asia Brown was “jumped” by two females outside of the Main Library on
Vine Street. Mr. Branden Caulton and Ms. Asia Brown walked through the library to get to the Walnut
Street exit. Ms. Senta Brown, Ms. Asia Brown’s mother, entered the library to meet them. As they

30
proceeded to the exit, library security staff requested to speak with Ms. Asia Brown about the incident.
Ms. Asia Brown was upset and did not want to talk with them because they did not assist her when she
was attacked.
As they continued towards the exit, Officer Aaron McMillan, who was working an off-duty detail, gave
verbal commands of “Out!” He approached and initiated force against Mr. Caulton by allegedly
“headbutting” him and pushing him backward. Ms. Asia Brown became upset and tried to intervene by
coming between Officer McMillan and Mr. Caulton. Officer McMillan allegedly “bum-rushed” Ms. Asia
Brown, grabbed her face, turned her around, and “slammed” her to the ground by her head and neck. Ms.
Senta Brown pushed Officer McMillan, who pushed her back against the glass door. Mr. Caulton stated
that Officer McMillan turned towards him and placed his arm around his neck before he “slammed” him
to the ground. Mr. Caulton was restrained by Officer McMillan and escorted to a cruiser. While placing
him in the cruiser, Officer McMillan placed his hand around Mr. Caulton’s neck. Officer McMillan
handcuffed Ms. Asia Brown and placed her in the cruiser.
Mr. Caulton was arrested for Disorderly Conduct and Resisting Arrest. Ms. Asia Brown was arrested for
Disorderly Conduct. Both were transported to Hamilton County Justice Center (HCJC).
Analysis:
On September 20, 2019, Mr. Caulton and Ms. Asia Brown were engaged in loud conversation with the
Main Library security staff. Officer McMillan overheard their interaction and intervened. CPD’s Tactical
Patrol Guide states that when an officer is in a suspect approach, verbalization is the foundation of all
control options. Further, officers should remain in control by utilizing ignoring/blocking techniques in
response to profanity, insulting remarks, or personal affronts. Officer McMillan initially used loud verbal
commands of “Out!” and hand motions to try to direct Mr. Caulton and Ms. Asia Brown out of the library.
Mr. Caulton and Ms. Asia Brown were nearing the exit but stalled their departure as they were still in
conversation with the security staff. Officer McMillan started to approach to ensure they continued
towards the exit.
As Officer McMillan approached, Mr. Caulton responded with, “Don’t walk up on her like that.” Officer
McMillan immediately stopped any further attempt at verbal commands or employing de-escalation
techniques. Instead, Officer McMillan replied, “If I do, what?” and directly approached Mr. Caulton. Mr.
Caulton repeated his comment and stood still near the exit. Officer McMillan appeared challenged by the
remark and initiated physical contact with Mr. Caulton by bumping him in the chest before using both his
hands to push Mr. Caulton backward. Mr. Caulton’s hands remained at his side the entire time and never
physically engaged Officer McMillan. CPD Procedure Manual § 12.545 Use of Force emphasizes that
whenever possible, de-escalation techniques should be employed to gain voluntary compliance of a
subject. Officers should only use the level of force that is objectively reasonable to effect an arrest or while
protecting the safety of the officer and others. CCA concluded that Officer McMillan’s self-initiated
physical force against Mr. Caulton was not within CPD’s policy, procedure, and training.
After Officer McMillan’s initial force against Mr. Caulton, BWC footage showed that he turned to Ms.
Asia Brown and pushed her backward as she simultaneously swung her arm towards him two times. CPD
Procedure Manual § 12.545, Use of Force, gives examples of subject resistance, including when the subject
makes physically evasive movements to defeat the officer’s attempt at control and assault (or threat of
assault). CPD Procedure Manual § 12.545, Use of Force, states an officer must choose the necessary
response to subject resistance and exercise proper use of force decision making, which includes the use

31
of reasonable force and use of de-escalation tactics. There also must be consideration of various factors
to determine an officer’s use of reasonable force, including the seriousness of the suspected offense.
Officer McMillan’s initial encounter with Ms. Asia Brown was due to concerns of disorderly conduct in
the lobby. BWC footage showed Officer McMillan’s response lacked commands or an attempt at de-
escalation, as he reached both his arms out and grabbed Ms. Asia Brown’s upper chest, near her neck.
CCA determined that Officer McMillan’s physical force against Ms. Asia Brown was not within CPD’s
policy, procedure, and training.
Due to the BWC becoming obstructed as Officer McMillan used force against Ms. Asia Brown, CCA
could not determine if Officer McMillan ever grabbed Ms. Asia Brown around the neck. Additionally, Ms.
Asia Brown alleged that Officer McMillan “slammed” her to the ground during the encounter, however,
Officer McMillan’s BWC remained obstructed. Therefore, CCA was unable to determine if Officer
McMillan choked Ms. Asia Brown or if Officer McMillan used force to bring her to the ground as alleged
by Ms. Asia Brown.
When Officer McMillan’s BWC was retrieved and held by a library staff member, Officer McMillan had
Mr. Caulton, Ms. Asia Brown, and Ms. Senta Brown in the vestibule. After a brief conversation, Officer
McMillan informed Mr. Caulton and Ms. Asia Brown that they were no longer free to leave. Mr. Caulton
and Ms. Asia Brown had previously been disorderly with library security staff and continued to engage in
loud conversation in the library lobby. CPD Procedure Manual § 12.554 Investigatory Stops states that
when an officer has reasonable suspicion to believe the citizen is committing or has committed a crime,
the officer may forcibly stop and detain the citizen. BWC footage confirmed Officer McMillan had
reasonable suspicion that Mr. Caulton and Ms. Asia Brown had committed the crime of disorderly
conduct. CCA concluded that the stop of Mr. Caulton and Ms. Asia Brown was in compliance with CPD’s
policy, procedure, and training.
During the stop of Mr. Caulton and Ms. Asia Brown, Officer McMillan placed his left forearm around the
backside of Mr. Caulton’s neck, placing him in a neck restraint. Mr. Caulton stood against the vestibule
window when Officer McMillan placed his right hand on his neck and used his left hand to turn Mr.
Caulton around. Mr. Caulton continued to shout, “Get off my throat!” Officer McMillan gave verbal
commands for Mr. Caulton to get to the ground but still had his left arm around the neck area of Mr.
Caulton. BWC footage showed that Mr. Caulton was not actively resisting and made no movements that
could reasonably be considered as threatening. Due to how the BWC was held by the security staff
member, however, it did not capture the type of force used by Officer McMillan to take Mr. Caulton to
the ground. Officer McMillan stated in his CCA interview that he “swept his legs from underneath him”
to bring Mr. Caulton to the ground. Mr. Caulton did not show evasive movements of resistance that would
require such force be used against him. CCA concluded that the force used by Officer McMillan to bring
Mr. Caulton to the ground was not within CPD’s policy, procedure, and training.
Officer McMillan reactivated his BWC before escorting Mr. Caulton into a cruiser; Mr. Caulton stated,
“And you still putting your hand around my throat.” Officer McMillan responded with: “Yeah, I know.”
Though the angle of the BWC footage did not definitively show the exact location of Officer McMillan’s
hands, his hands could be observed near the neck area of a restrained Mr. Caulton. During the entire
encounter, Mr. Caulton made several comments that Officer McMillan had his hand on his throat. In his
interview with CCA, Officer McMillan denied those allegations. The BWC footage showed that Officer
McMillan continued to place his hand on or his arm around Mr. Caulton’s neck. Mr. Caulton never

32
exhibited signs of being uncooperative or actively resisting. He made no physical movements that could
reasonably be considered as threatening.
Though Officer McMillan continued to have his hand near or arm around the neck of Mr. Caulton, CCA
could not determine the level of pressure used by Officer McMillan when he was on Mr. Caulton’s neck.
Additionally, the BWC footage became obstructed several times during the encounter, making it difficult
in some instances to determine the exact location of Officer McMillan’s hands. Therefore, CCA was
unable to determine if Officer McMillan choked Mr. Caulton.
Ms. Senta Brown also alleged excessive force against her, but BWC footage was obstructed on the ground
when this alleged conduct would have occurred. No video footage showed any physical contact between
Officer McMillan and Ms. Senta Brown. CCA also was unable to interview any independent witnesses
about the incident. CCA could not conclude if Officer McMillan used force against Ms. Senta Brown.
Findings:
Complainant Branden Caulton
Officer Aaron McMillan

Excessive Force (Physical) – The allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to determine that the
incident occurred and the actions of the officer were improper. SUSTAINED
Stop (Person) – The evidence shows that the alleged conduct did occur but did not violate CPD policies,
Excessive Force (Taken to the Ground) – The allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to
determine that the incident occurred and the actions of the officer were improper. SUSTAINED
Excessive Force (Choking) – There are insufficient facts to decide whether the alleged misconduct
occurred. NOT SUSTAINED
Complainant Asia Brown

Excessive Force (Physical) – The allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to determine that the
Stop (Person) – The evidence shows that the alleged conduct did occur but did not violate CPD policies,
Excessive Force (Taken to the Ground) – There are insufficient facts to decide whether the alleged
misconduct occurred. NOT SUSTAINED
Excessive Force (Choking) – There are insufficient facts to decide whether the alleged misconduct

33
Complainant Senta Brown

Excessive Force (Physical) – There are insufficient facts to decide whether the alleged misconduct
Incident #3
Complainant: Sherry Barron, Roland Mitchell, AB (a minor)
Incident Date: November 22, 2019
Incident Time: 11:48 AM
Location: Vittmer, Cincinnati, OH
CCA Receipt Date: December 4, 2019
Summary:
On November 22, 2019, Ms. Sherry Barron was at her residence with her two minor children, AB and
BM. Mr. Roland Mitchell had recently left her residence. Ms. Barron later discovered that Specialist
Jeffrey Wieczorkowski and Sergeant Jacob Hicks “swarmed” Mr. Mitchell outside the residence when he
left. The officers took Mr. Mitchell to the ground and pointed a firearm in his face. Mr. Mitchell sustained
injuries to his knees.
Ms. Barron answered a knock at the door of her residence. When she opened the door, Officer
Christopher Vogelpohl allegedly pointed a firearm in her face, asked who Mr. Mitchell was, asked her to
place her dogs in the bathroom, and then entered her residence. Officer Brandon Connley arrived and
provided Ms. Barron with search warrant papers. Officer Connley informed Ms. Barron of a drug
investigation involving her son, Mr. Brandon Stone, and then handcuffed her. AB began recording the
encounter on her phone. Officers Douglas Utecht and Robert Zeller entered and searched her residence.
Specialist Wieczorkowski escorted Ms. Barron outside to be searched by Officer Rachel White. Once
outside, Ms. Barron heard AB scream. AB later advised Ms. Barron that Officers Connley and Utecht
took her to the ground by her hair and tased her eight times; they “pushed” her arm towards her neck,
dislocating it. AB was charged and Officer Rachel White transported her to the Hamilton County Juvenile
Court Youth Center (HCJCYC).
Specialist Wieczorkowski transported Ms. Barron to District 3 where she remained for approximately 10
hours then to the Hamilton County Justice Center (HCJC). Ms. Barron did not receive a receipt of the
items taken from the residence and alleged that approximately $6,500 was missing.
Analysis:
On November 21, 2019, Officer Connley obtained a search warrant that was signed by Judge Triggs to
search several locations that were connected to Mr. Stone, including Ms. Barron’s residence. CPD
Procedure §12.700 Search Warrants/Consent to Search states the life of all Ohio search warrants is 72
hours from the time of issuance by the judge. On November 22, 2019, various law enforcement
authorities including the ATF, SWAT, and CPD units conducted searches of those locations. CPD
Officers Connley, Vogelpohl, Utecht, Zeller and Specialist Wieczorkowski were assigned to Ms. Barron’s
residence.

34
Mr. Mitchell alleged Specialist Wieczorkowski and Sergeant Hicks ordered him to get on the ground at
gunpoint. Specialist Wieczorkowski and Sergeant Hicks denied drawing their firearms. CPD Procedure
§12.550 Discharging of Firearms by Police Personnel states officers who perceive what they interpret to
be a threat of loss of life or serious physical harm to himself or others at the hands of another, have the
authority to display a firearm, with finger outside the trigger guard and have it ready for self-defense. CCA
is unable to render a finding on this allegation due to the lack of any MVR/DVR or BWC footage of the
incident.
Mr. Mitchell also alleged he was “slammed” to the ground. Both officers denied this allegation. CPD
Procedure § 12.545 Use of Force states they may use whatever force is reasonably necessary to apprehend
the offender or effect the arrest and no more. CCA is unable to render a finding on this allegation due to
the lack of any MVR/DVR or BWC footage of the incident.
Ms. Barron, Mr. Mitchell, and AB alleged when Ms. Barron opened the front door, officers pointed their
firearms at them. It was confirmed that multiple agencies were involved in the encounter and ATF officers
cleared the residence before CPD officers entered. It appears evident that some officers displayed their
firearms during the incident; Officer Vogelpohl acknowledged his rifle was slung on his shoulder but not
pointed at any person. CPD Procedure § 12.550, Discharging of Firearms by Police Personnel, explains
that, “At such time as a police officer perceives what he interprets to be a threat of loss of life or serious
physical harm to himself or others at the hands of another, he has the authority to display a firearm, with
finger outside the trigger guard and have it ready for self-defense.” Due to the lack of any MVR/DVR
or BWC footage from the incident, CCA was unable to determine whether it was ATF or CPD officers
who pointed their firearms at Ms. Barron, Mr. Mitchell, and Ms. Barron’s children.
AB alleged Officers Connley, Utecht, and Zeller used excessive force when she was forced to the ground
and tased several times. In Officer Connley’s statement, he relayed he heard AB indicate to someone on
the phone about “possibly coming to the residence,” and was concerned the action would create an
“unsafe environment.” Officer Connley and AB acknowledged he ordered AB to get off the phone and
she did not comply. Officer Connley reported he instructed AB she was under arrest and attempted to
grab the phone, but AB resisted and “flailed” her limbs. CPD Procedure § 12.545 Use of Force states
that officers may use whatever force is reasonably necessary to apprehend the offender or effect the arrest
and no more. It defines the use of hard hands as the use of physical pressure to force a person against
an object or the ground, use of physical strength or skill that causes pain or leaves a mark, leverage
displacement, joint manipulation, pain compliance, and pressure point control tactics. Officers Utecht and
Connley confirmed they took AB to the ground.
CPD Procedure § 12.545 Use of Force defines actively resisting arrest to include when the subject is
making physically evasive movements to defeat the officer’s attempt at control to avoid or prevent being
taken into or retained in custody. Further, the procedure states the TASER is designed for self-defense
or to temporarily immobilize a subject who is actively resisting arrest. Officers Vogelpohl, Utecht, and
Zeller heard Officer Connley warn AB she would be tased, but AB continued to resist. The CPD Taser
Download showed Officer Connley drive stunned AB twice in drive stun mode. However, there were no
independent witnesses or recorded footage of either incident. Therefore, CCA was unable to determine
if Officers Connley’s, Utecht’s, or Zeller’s use of force was excessive or in compliance with CPD’s policy,
procedure, and training.

35
When Specialist Wieczorkowski stopped Mr. Mitchell, he did not activate his BWC as required. CPD
Procedure §12.540 Body Worn Camera System denotes officers are required to activate their BWC system
on any call for service or self-initiated activity during all law enforcement-related encounters and activities.
Findings:
Complainant Roland Mitchell
Specialist Jeffrey Wieczorkowski

Sergeant Jacob Hicks
Excessive Force - There are insufficient facts to decide whether the alleged misconduct occurred. NOT
SUSTAINED
Improper Pointing of a Firearm - There are insufficient facts to decide whether the alleged misconduct
Specialist Jeffrey Wieczorkowski
Procedure Violation (BWC) – The allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to determine that the
Complainant Ms. Sherry Barron
Officer Christopher Vogelpohl
Complainant AB
Officer Brandon Connley

Officer Douglas Utecht
Officer Robert Zeller
Excessive Force - There are insufficient facts to decide whether the alleged misconduct occurred. NOT
SUSTAINED

36
STATISTICS
Chart 3: CCA Closed and Active Investigations
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Closed Active
Complaints 40 155
Allegations 306 1037
Chart 4: CCA Findings

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Exonerated Not Sustained Sustained Unfounded
Number 104 75 79 48
Percentage 34.0% 24.5% 25.8% 15.7%
Total Findings: 306

37
Table 5: CCA Findings for Each Allegation
Not
Allegation Exonerated Sustained Sustained Unfounded Total
Abuse of Authority 0 1 0 0 1
Detention 2 0 0 0 2
Discharge of a Firearm 2 0 0 0 2
Discourtesy 1 5 16 8 30
Discrimination 0 8 0 1 9
Entry 1 2 0 0 3
Excessive Force/Use of Force 17 18 4 11 50
Harassment 0 2 0 7 9
Improper Pointing of a
18 6 0 8 32
Firearm/Pointing of a Firearm
Improper Procedure/Procedure/
4 13 50 4 71
Procedure Violation
Improper Search/Search 20 9 9 0 38
Improper Stop/Stop 39 10 0 0 49
Lack of Service 0 1 0 5 6
Totals 104 75 79 48 306
Chart 5: CPD Findings
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Not
Exonerated Sustained Unfounded
Sustained
Number 97 31 20 119
Percentage 36.3% 11.6% 7.5% 44.6%
Total Findings: 267

38
Chart 6: Assignment of New Complaints
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Assigned to CCA Referred to CPD Non-Jurisdiction
Number 75 170 4
Percentage 30.1% 68.3% 1.6%
Total Complaints: 249
Chart 7: How Complaints Were Received
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
CPD Email EVT Phone US Mail Walk-in
Number 30 54 76 74 3 12
Percentage 12.0% 21.7% 30.6% 29.7% 1.2% 4.8%
Chart 8: Month Complaints Were Received

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Number 25 22 13 11 16 33 27 27 24 19 16 16
Percentage 10.0% 8.8% 5.2% 4.4% 6.4% 13.4% 10.9% 10.9% 9.6% 7.6% 6.4% 6.4%

39
Table 6: Circumstances of Complaints
Circumstance Number Percentage

Accident 24 9.6%
Arrest 4 1.6%
Call for Service 2 0.8%
Citation Issued 3 1.2%
Communication 18 7.2%
Criminal Investigation 8 3.2%
Criminal Offense 6 2.4%
Curfew 2 0.8%
Death 1 0.4%
Detention 1 0.4%
DFA 1 0.4%
Domestic 9 3.6%
Drug Investigation 1 0.4%
Gang Investigation 1 0.4%
General Investigation 15 6.2%
Harassment 5 2.0%
Impoundment 7 2.8%
Internal within CPD 8 3.2%
Nuisance Property 1 0.4%
Pedestrian Stop 2 0.8%
Protest 9 3.6%
Request for Service 96 38.6%
School Matter 2 0.8%
Traffic 2 0.8%
Traffic Stop 16 6.4%
Trespass 1 0.4%
Vehicle Pursuit 3 1.2%
Warrant Service 1 0.4%
Total 249 100.0%

40
Table 7: Allegations Assigned to CCA
CCA Allegations Number Percentage
Death in Custody 1 0.3%
Detention 6 1.9%
Discharge of Firearm 4 1.3%
Discourtesy 35 11.3%
Discrimination/Racial Profiling 26 8.4%
Harassment 13 4.2%
Lack of Service 9 2.9%
Law Violation 1 0.3%
Pointing of a Firearm 19 6.1%
Procedure 19 6.1%
Search/Seizure/Entry 79 25.4%
Stop 33 10.6%
Unethical Conduct/Misconduct 1 0.3%
Use of Force/Excessive Force 65 20.9%
Total 311 100.0%
Table 8: Allegations Assigned to CPD

CPD Allegations Number Percentage
Criminal 1 0.3%
Discourtesy 103 30.0%
Discrimination 1 0.3%
Harassment 14 4.0%
Illegal Eviction 1 0.3%
Improper Procedure 17 5.0%
Lack of Service 183 53.3%
Law Violation 2 0.6%
Misconduct 8 2.3%
Off-Duty Conduct 2 0.6%
Other 5 1.5%
Procedure Violation 4 1.2%
Unethical Conduct 1 0.3%
Verbal or Physical Threat 1 0.3%
Total 343 100.0%

41
4
Chart 9: Cincinnati Population Estimate
Total Population: 303,940
Chart 10: Complainant Demographics

160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0 African
Cauca- Hispan Under
Female Male Unk Amer- Asian Other Unk 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ Unk
sian - ic 18
ican
Number 130 129 6 152 3 70 2 8 30 6 14 50 66 33 29 14 53
Percentage 49.1% 48.7% 2.2% 57.4% 1.1% 26.4% 0.8% 3.0% 11.3% 2.2% 5.3% 18.9% 24.9% 12.5% 10.9% 5.3% 20.0%
Total Complainants: 265
4 Population estimates, July 1, 2019, (V2019). https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/cincinnaticityohio

42
5
Chart 11: All Sworn CPD Officers
800
600
400
200
0
African
Female Male Caucasian Other
American
Number 229 769 283 683 32
Percentage 22.9% 77.1% 28.4% 68.4% 3.2%
Total Sworn Officers: 998
Chart 12A: Officer Demographics

250
200
150
100
50
0 African
Cauca- Hispan-
Female Male Unk Amer- Asian 2+ Unk 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ Unk
sian ic
ican
Number 62 249 7 77 3 225 2 3 8 7 64 92 105 31 4 15
Percentage 19.5% 78.3% 2.2% 24.2% 0.9% 70.9% 0.6% 0.9% 2.5% 2.2% 20.1% 28.9% 33.1% 9.7% 1.3% 4.7%
Total Officers: 318
Chart 12B: Officer Years on Force and Rank
250
200
150
100
50
0 Lieuten- Special-
0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31+ Unk Captain Officer Sergeant
ant ist
Number 94 22 41 49 65 28 5 14 1 8 262 17 30
Percentage 29.6% 6.9% 12.9% 15.4% 20.4% 8.8% 1.6% 4.4% 0.3% 2.5% 82.4% 5.3% 9.5%
Total Officers: 318
5 Provided by the Cincinnati Police Department.

43
Chart 13A: Complaints from All CPD Districts
CBS/CBD 17, 6.8%
D1 40, 16.1%
D2 34, 13.7%
D3 60, 24.1%
D4 40, 16.1%
D5 46, 18.5%
Other 12, 4.7%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Chart 13B: Central Business Section Complaints
Central Business Section 3, 17.6%
CBD and Downtown 14, 82.4%
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Chart 13C: District 1 Complaints by Neighborhood
Over-the-Rhine 22, 55.0%
Pendleton 1, 2.5%
Queensgate 4, 10.0%
West End 13, 32.5%
0 5 10 15 20

44
Chart 13D: District 2 Complaints by Neighborhood
Columbia Tusculum 1, 2.9%
East End 1, 2.9%
Evanston 5, 14.7%
Hyde Park 7, 20.6%
Kennedy Heights 2, 6.0%
Madisonville 3, 8.8%
Mt. Washington 5, 14.7%
Oakley 7, 20.6%
Pleasant Ridge 3, 8.8%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Chart 13E: District 3 Complaints by Neighborhood
East Price Hill 7, 11.7%
East Westwood 3, 5.0%
English Woods 1, 1.7%
Lower Price Hill 2, 3.3%
Millvale 1, 1.7%
South Cumminsville 3, 5.0%
West Price Hill 8, 13.3%
Western Hills 2, 3.3%
Westwood 33, 55.0%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

45
Chart 13F: District 4 Complaints by Neighborhood
Avondale 15, 37.5%
Bond Hill 3, 7.5%
Corryville 3, 7.5%
Mt. Auburn 2, 5.0%
North Avondale 1, 2.5%
Paddock Hills 2, 5.0%
Roselawn 6, 15.0%
Walnut Hills 8, 20.0%
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Chart 13G: District 5 Complaints by Neighborhood
Camp Washington 4, 8.7%
Clifton 10, 21.7%
Clifton-University Heights 7, 15.2%
College Hill 14, 30.5%
Mt. Airy 5, 10.9%
Northside 2, 4.3%
Spring Grove Village 1, 2.2%
Winton Hills 1, 2.2%
Winton Place 2, 4.3%
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

46
Chart 13H: All Other Complaints
Outside City Limits 4, 33.3%
Unknown 8, 66.7%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Serious Incidents Tables
The Serious Incidents Received in 2020 tables can be found on Page 18.
The Serious Incidents Closed in 2020 tables can be found on Page 21.
Columbia-Tusculum, District 2

47
HIGHLIGHTS
CCA analyzed data and listed CCA/CPD complaint information as outlined in the Statistics section to
develop clear and detailed information for our stakeholders regarding the complaints reviewed and
investigations completed annually. Below are noted 2020 statistics:
• Complaints reviewed by CCA decreased by 14.5% from 285 in 2019 to 249 in 2020.
• The total number of investigations opened by CCA decreased by 12.0% from 84 in 2019 to 75 in 2020.
The decline was less than 1% in comparison with our 3-year pre-pandemic average (75.3 new
investigations.
• The total number of allegations against CPD officers in new investigations opened by CCA decreased by
3.5% from 322 to 311.
• The busiest month was June with 33 complaints representing 13.4% of all CCA complaints received.
• Use of force/excessive force allegations represented 20.9% of the allegations assigned to CCA for
investigation, and allegations of improper search/seizure/entry represented 25.4% of allegations.
• Lack of service represented 53.3% of the allegations referred to CPD for review.
• Of the 5 serious incidents that occurred in 2020, there were no deaths resulting from the 3 discharge of
firearm incidents. The other 2 serious incidents resulted in the deaths of 3 people. The subjects involved in
these serious incidents were 3 African Americans and 3 Caucasians. 5 of the subjects were male and 1
subject was female.
• CCA completed 40 investigations in 2020, which involved 306 allegations and resulted in the issuance
of 306 findings. The 306 allegations we investigated represented a 4% increase above our 3-year pre-
pandemic average (294.3 allegations) for those same metrics.
• 34.0% of the 306 CCA findings were exonerated; 25.8% were sustained. By contrast, during the prior
3-year period, an average of 14.7% of findings were “Sustained,” and an average of 48.7% of findings
were “Exonerated.” Accordingly, our findings of improper conduct by police officers increased 75%
over pre-2020 levels.
• In 2020, CCA submitted over 15 unique recommendations to CPD. Those recommendations addressed
police policy and training, including the following topics: investigatory stops, searches and frisks, Body
Worn Camera (BWC) evidentiary access, BWC use policy, CPD’s Use of Force Review Board, TASER
deployment, defining harassment as a citizen allegation, and more.
• Males represented 48.7% of the 265 complainants and 48.4% of the overall Cincinnati population.
• African Americans represented 57.4% of the 265 complainants and 42.3% of the overall Cincinnati
population.
• Ages 35-44 represented 24.9% of the 265 complainants.
• 60 complaints originated in District 3 which represents 24.1% of the total 249 complaints received.
• 55% of the 60 complaints from District 3 originated in the Westwood neighborhood.

48
• Of the 318 officers associated with the 249 complaints reviewed, 78.3% were filed against male officers;
Male officers represent 77.1% of the CPD.
• Of the 318 officers associated with the 249 complaints reviewed, 70.9% were filed against Caucasian
officers; 68.4% of CPD is Caucasian.
• 33.1% of the 318 officers were between the ages of 45-54.
• 29.6% of the 318 officers served on the force 5 years or less.
Carew Tower, Central Business District

49
APPENDIX I: Five-Year Statistics
Table 1: CCA Closed Investigations
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Complaints Closed 60 60 41 76 40
Table 2: CCA Findings

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Exonerated 70 164 98 159 104
Not Sustained 53 52 32 76 75
Sustained 16 30 28 75 79
Unfounded 37 47 32 71 48
Pending6 0 19 0 0 0
Total 176 312 190 381 306
Table 3: CPD Findings

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Exonerated 73 36 71 98 97
Sustained 12 30 28 23 20
Unfounded 37 40 58 79 119
Pending6 75 172 6 0 0
Total 269 303 196 242 267
Table 4: Assignment of Complaints

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
CCA 85 65 77 84 75
CPD 164 176 158 192 170
Non-jurisdiction 4 1 6 8 4
Withdrawn 0 2 2 1 0
Total 253 244 243 285 249
6 Pending allegations are those that have been reviewed by the CCA Board and are not finalized in the reporting year.
In 2016, some allegations were incorrectly identified as pending.

50
Table 5: How Complaints Were Received

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
CPD 66 54 38 39 30
Email 18 18 25 48 54
ETS/EVT 83 88 91 70 76
Facsimile 0 1 0 28 0
Telephone 37 49 50 60 74
US Mail 2 0 3 1 3
Walk-in 47 34 36 39 12
Total 253 244 243 285 249
Table 6: Month Complaints Were Received

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
January 22 32 17 20 25
February 21 21 28 22 22
March 16 15 25 25 13
April 16 20 18 21 11
May 21 25 14 24 16
June 21 23 24 32 33
July 24 16 19 29 27
August 27 24 22 25 27
September 36 21 21 24 24
October 24 17 18 23 19
November 14 13 22 18 16
December 11 17 15 22 16
Total 253 244 243 285 249

51
Table 7: Circumstances of Complaints

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Accident 19 30 20 32 24
Arrest 4 5 18 22 4
Bicycle Violation 1 0 0 1 0
Call for Service 17 55 19 5 2
Citation Issued 0 0 2 3 3
Communication 4 25 26 23 18
Criminal Investigation 0 4 11 21 8
Criminal Offense 54 10 23 11 6
Curfew 0 1 0 0 2
Death 0 0 0 2 1
Detention 1 0 0 0 1
DFA 0 1 0 0 1
Disorderly 5 2 0 1 0
Domestic 17 14 16 11 9
Drug Investigation 4 1 1 4 1
Gang Investigation 0 0 0 1 1
General Investigation 10 30 13 17 15
Impoundment 3 0 4 3 7
Internal w/in CPD 2 1 0 3 8
Intoxication 1 0 0 0 0
Misconduct/Unethical 13 5 10 4 0
Off-duty Detail 0 2 0 0 0
Nuisance Property 0 0 0 0 1
Pedestrian Stop 0 2 2 10 2
Pedestrian Violation 11 1 2 0 0
Prostitution 1 0 0 0 0
Protest 0 0 0 0 9
Request for Service 0 9 36 72 96
School Matter 6 3 1 1 2
Search 0 1 1 0 0
Sexual 7 1 0 0 0
Traffic/Traffic Stop 38 22 29 29 18
Trespass 3 0 0 0 1
Use of Weapon by Officer 2 0 0 0 0
Vehicle Pursuit 0 1 0 0 3
Warrant Service 12 10 5 3 1
Weapon Investigation 13 0 0 0 0
Unknown 0 1 0 0 0
Total 253 244 243 285 249

52
Table 8: Allegations Assigned to CCA

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Criminal 0 0 1 0 0
Death (TASER) 1 0 0 0 0
Detention 4 1 2 7 6
Discharge of Firearm 9 3 12 3 4
Discourtesy 33 18 9 39 35
Lack of Service 1 10 13 16 9
Law Violation 0 0 0 0 1
Pointing of a Firearm 17 12 9 10 19
Procedure 27 15 6 28 19
Racial Profiling 0 4 0 6 0
Search/Seizure/Entry 86 49 45 42 79
Sexual Misconduct 0 0 0 2 0
Stop 26 26 26 44 33
Unethical Conduct/Misconduct 0 0 0 9 1
Use of Force/Excessive Force 73 56 54 83 65
Total 301 219 209 322 311
Table 9: Allegations Assigned to CPD

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Abuse of Authority 2 2 1 0 0
Criminal 3 3 3 5 1
Discourtesy 97 92 75 121 103
Dishonesty 0 1 0 0 0
Illegal Eviction 1 0 0 0 1
Lack of Service 109 138 127 204 183
Law Violation 4 9 6 0 2
Misconduct/Serious 0 3 1 18 8
Neglect of Duty 2 0 1 0 0
Off-Duty Conduct 2 3 1 2 2
Other 16 3 0 5 5
Procedure 25 35 34 46 21
Search/Seizure/Entry 1 1 1 0 0
Sexual Misconduct 0 5 2 2 0
Stop 0 2 2 1 0
Unethical Conduct 5 8 6 1 1
Use of Force/Excessive Force 0 1 2 0 0
Verbal or Physical Threat 2 7 2 2 1
Total 270 318 278 423 343

53
Table 10A: Complainant Gender

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Female 121 136 105 116 130
Male 129 107 121 152 129
Unknown 3 4 4 3 6
Total 253 247 230 271 265
Table 10B: Complainant Ethnicity

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
African American 166 154 142 173 152
Asian 1 0 2 0 3
Caucasian 57 70 60 61 70
Hispanic 3 1 1 0 2
Other 2 4 3 6 8
Unknown 24 18 22 31 30
Total 253 247 230 271 265
Table 10C: Complainant Age

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Under 18 2 2 3 5 6
18-24 30 18 13 17 14
25-34 59 59 52 62 50
35-44 51 44 56 59 66
45-54 29 44 38 44 33
55-64 19 22 21 31 29
65 and older 12 9 6 7 14
Unknown 51 49 41 46 53
Total 253 247 230 271 265

54
Table 11A: Officer Gender

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Female 45 42 46 62 62
Male 221 194 211 244 249
Unknown 3 21 1 1 7
Total 269 257 258 307 318
Table 11B: Officer Ethnicity

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
African American 72 84 72 97 77
Asian 0 1 1 0 3
Caucasian 181 141 181 207 225
Hispanic 2 0 2 2 2
Two or more 0 0 0 0 3
Other 3 1 1 0 1
Unknown 11 30 1 1 7
Total 269 257 258 307 318
Table 11C: Officer Age

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
18-24 3 0 1 10 7
25-34 46 34 51 63 64
35-44 67 68 95 79 92
45-54 113 86 84 115 105
55-64 6 15 17 31 31
65 and over 0 3 6 4 4
Unknown 34 51 4 5 15
Total 269 257 258 307 318

55
Table 11D: Officer Years on Force

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
0-5 52 51 68 98 94
6-10 27 26 18 0 22
11-15 61 49 57 65 41
16-20 49 40 44 44 49
21-25 35 29 37 53 65
26-30 26 22 21 36 28
31-35 5 3 8 6 5
Unknown 14 37 5 5 14
Total 269 257 258 307 318
Table 11E: Officer Rank

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Captain 1 0 1 1 1
Lieutenant 3 1 0 2 8
Officer 227 207 231 254 262
Sergeant 16 14 11 29 17
Specialist 21 14 15 21 30
Unknown 1 21 0 0 0
Total 269 257 258 307 318
Table 12A: Complaints from All CPD Districts

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
CBS/CBD 16 23 22 26 17
District 1 37 31 32 48 40
District 2 35 26 25 26 34
District 3 61 57 62 86 60
District 4 49 61 54 52 40
District 5 44 37 37 40 46
Outside City Limits/Unknown 11 9 11 7 12
Total 253 244 243 285 249

56
Table 12B: Central Business Section Complaints

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
CBS/CBD/Downtown 16 23 22 26 17
Total 16 23 22 26 17
Table 12C: District 1 Complaints by Neighborhood

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Mt. Adams 3 2 1 1 0
Over-the-Rhine 21 20 20 24 22
Pendleton 0 1 1 1 1
Queensgate 1 1 0 4 4
West End 12 7 10 18 13
Total 37 31 32 48 40
Table 12D: District 2 Complaints by Neighborhood

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
California 1 1 0 2 0
Columbia-Tusculum 1 1 0 1 1
East End 2 2 1 2 1
East Walnut Hills 2 1 0 1 0
Evanston 3 3 3 5 5
Hyde Park 7 3 7 3 7
Kennedy Heights 3 2 2 0 2
Linwood 0 1 0 0 0
Madisonville 8 8 4 3 3
Mt. Lookout 2 1 1 0 0
Mt. Washington 1 1 3 6 5
Oakley 3 0 1 1 7
O'Bryonville 0 0 0 1 0
Pleasant Ridge 2 2 3 1 3
Total 35 26 25 26 34

57
Table 12E: District 3 Complaints by Neighborhood

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
East Price Hill 2 6 9 11 7
East Westwood 0 3 2 1 3
English Woods 0 0 0 0 1
Fay Apartments 0 2 0 1 0
Lower Price Hill 0 4 2 2 2
Millvale 1 0 1 0 1
North Fairmount 4 2 3 3 0
Price Hill 7 9 3 5 0
Riverside 1 0 3 0 0
Roll Hill 2 0 0 0 0
Sayler Park 2 1 2 0 0
South Cumminsville 2 1 1 2 3
South Fairmount 2 0 1 4 0
West Price Hill 6 6 8 8 8
Western Hills 3 3 1 4 2
Westwood 29 20 26 45 33
Total 61 57 62 86 60
Table 12F: District 4 Complaints by Neighborhood

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Avondale 22 39 19 16 15
Bond Hill 2 2 2 6 3
Carthage 1 2 0 2 0
Corryville 2 3 5 5 3
Hartwell 1 1 1 1 0
Mt. Auburn 5 5 6 5 2
North Avondale 2 3 5 3 1
Paddock Hills 2 1 2 2 2
Roselawn 5 2 5 6 6
Walnut Hills 7 3 9 6 8
Total 49 61 54 52 40

58
Table 12G: District 5 Complaints by Neighborhood

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Camp Washington 3 3 1 3 4
Clifton 8 9 8 4 10
Clifton Heights/University
7 1 2 3 7
Heights/Fairview
College Hill 3 5 8 9 14
Mt. Airy 8 6 6 5 5
Northside 11 4 2 8 2
Spring Grove Village 4 3 3 4 1
Winton Hills 0 1 2 4 1
Winton Place 0 5 5 0 2
Total 44 37 37 40 46
Table 12H: All Other Complaints

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Outside City Limits 4 9 10 5 4
Unknown 7 0 1 2 8
Total 11 9 11 7 12
Table 13: Serious Incidents Received

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Incidents 6 6 7 3 5
Fatalities 4 4 4 0 3
Table 14: Serious Incidents Closed Findings

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Exonerated 10 12 8 1 7
Sustained 0 3 1 0 1
Unfounded 0 0 4 9 4
Total 10 15 16 10 12

59
Chart 14: Discharge of Firearm Incidents and Fatalities 2016 - 2020
3 3
2 2
0 0 0
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Incidents Fatalities
Chart 15: Discharge of Firearm Incidents by CPD District 2016 – 2020
0
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 CBS OCL UNK
2016 0 2 3 0 0 1 0 0
2017 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
2018 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 0
2019 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
2020 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

60
Map 1: Discharge of Firearm Locations 2016 - 2020
20157
18097
16096
16033
19151
19206
16233 17107
17062
18169 16030
16011 20119 18135
18167
18178 16152
19163
Total Incidents: 19
20157 Outside City Limits 18097 College Hill (D5)

20135 Unknown (Not mapped) 17107 Corryville (D4)
20119 West End (D1) 17062 Avondale (D4)
19206 Avondale (D4) 16233 Fairmount (D3)
19163 East Price Hill (D3) 16152 Central Business Section
19151 Madisonville (D2) 16096 Madisonville (D2)
18178 Central Business Section 16033 Westwood (D3)
18169 Walnut Hills (D4) 16030 Mt. Lookout (D2)
18167 Price Hill (D3) 16011 Westwood (D3)
18135 Clifton (D5)

61
APPENDIX II: Definition of Terms
Accident – An unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in
damage or injury.
Allegation – An accusation or assertion of a specific wrongdoing or act of misconduct.
Arrest – Seized by legal authority and taken into custody.
Arrest Warrant – A warrant issued by a judge or magistrate on behalf of the state, which authorizes the
arrest and detention of an individual, or the search and seizure of an individual's property.
Article 28 – Cincinnati Municipal Code, Administrative Code XXVIII.
Assigned to CCA – Complaints or allegations identified for investigation by a CCA Investigator.
Assigned to CPD – Complaints or allegations identified for investigation by a CPD Investigator.
Bicycle Stop – An investigatory contact involving a bicyclist.
Citizen Complaint Resolution Process - Complaints that do not fall under CCA’s established criteria
are referred to CPD for review internally or through their Citizen Complaint Resolution Process (CCRP).
The process involves mediation between the complainant and the subject CPD officer regarding quality
of service complaints. Examples of these complaints include, but are not limited to, discourtesy/
unprofessional attitude, harassment, lack of service, procedure violation, improper procedure, etc.
Case – The identification of an investigation.
Circumstance – A fact or condition accompanying an event that plays a determining role in the outcome
of the event or that bears on the event, such as an underlying reason for a citizen/officer encounter or a
factor that contributes to the filing of a citizen complaint.
Citation Issued – An official summons to appear (as before a court).
Close – To conclude a matter, generally upon completion of an investigation
Communication – The exchange of information between people, e.g. by means of speaking, writing, or
using a common system of signs or behavior.
Complaint – An allegation (excluding any criminal investigation) from any source, of any action or
inaction by CPD personnel, which the source considers to be contrary to law, proper procedure, good
order, or in some manner prejudicial to the individual, CPD or community.
Complainant – A citizen filing a complaint against a sworn CPD officer.
Contact/Cover – Describes the practice of having two or more officers working together during a foot
pursuit. The officers work in unison via direct or indirect communication to coordinate their efforts,
remain aware of the locations of officers and suspects, and keep abreast of the status of the interaction.
Criminal Offense – An illegal act punishable as a crime under the law.
Death – The ending of all vital functions or processes in an organism or cell.
Death in Custody – The death of a person while in police custody, or under police control, regardless of
whether the police officer’s action contributed to the death. Whether a person is in custody or under
police control is not limited to whether that person is under arrest or whether police have physical
possession of that person.
Death (Other) – The death of a person not in police custody or under police control when such death
was related to a police officer’s action, and such action potentially contributed to the death.
Detention – The act of keeping somebody in custody or the state of being kept in custody.

62
Discharge of Firearm – Any and all discharge of a firearm by a CPD officer, either intentional or
accidental.
Discrimination – Prejudicial treatment because of sex, age, gender, sexual orientation, gender expression
and identity, marital status, disability, religion, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, Appalachian regional
ancestry, veteran status, military status, genetic history, and HIV status or other group, class, or category to
which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.
Disposition – Final arrangement; settlement.
Drug Investigation – An investigation by law enforcement with the intent to arrest drug dealers and/or
take or seize assets gained through criminal and illegal measures by those same drug dealers.
Exonerated – Where a preponderance of evidence shows that the alleged conduct occurred but did not
violate CPD policies, procedures or training.
Finding – The conclusion of an investigation of the allegation against an officer.
Foot Pursuit – A situation in which an officer, on foot, chases a suspect in an effort to detain or arrest
that individual who the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe is about to commit, is committing, or
has committed a crime and who is resisting apprehension by fleeing from the officer.
Gang Investigation – Investigation of gang-related crimes committed by members of criminal street gangs.
General Investigation – A varied or wide scope examination or inquiry into a situation.
Harassment – Persistent aggressive pressure or intimidation.
High Risk Felony Stop – A felony pedestrian or vehicle stop or offense involving reasonable suspicion
the suspect may be armed with a weapon.
Internal Within CPD – An investigation conducted inside the Cincinnati Police Department.
Intoxication – The condition of having physical or mental control markedly diminished by the effects of
alcohol or drugs.
Investigation – An official review that includes, but is not limited to, witness interviews; evidence
collection; policy, procedure and legal review; analysis and conclusion with findings.
Misconduct – Behavior or activity that is illegal or wrong and does not conform to a high moral standard.
Non-jurisdiction – An allegation beyond the scope or geographic area in which CCA may exercise authority.
Not Sustained – Where there are insufficient facts to decide whether an alleged misconduct occurred.
Officer – The term “officer” or “police officer” means any sworn law enforcement officer, generally one
employed by CPD unless otherwise stated.
Open – To commence an investigation upon review of a complaint.
Outside City Limits (OCL) – The incident did not occur in the City of Cincinnati.
Pedestrian Stop – An investigatory contact with a pedestrian.
Pointing of a Firearm – When an officer displays a firearm during a citizen/police encounter, generally
when it is pointed at a person or when its display is directed toward a citizen.
Preponderance of the Evidence – The greater weight of the evidence required in a civil (non-criminal)
lawsuit for the trier of fact (jury or judge without a jury) to decide in favor of one side or the other. This
preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on
the amount of evidence.

63
Racial Profiling – Discriminatory practice involving the detention, interdiction or other disparate
treatment of an individual based on race, ethnicity, religion or national origin as a factor, other than in the
case of a physical description.
Review – To assess a complaint filed with or referred to CCA.
Search – Examination of a person's premises (residence, business or vehicle) by law enforcement officers
looking for evidence of the commission of a crime. The search is proper if it is incident to an arrest or
written permission is granted to conduct the search. The courts have granted exceptions to searches
without a search warrant and each specific incident should be reviewed.
Search Warrant – An order issued by a judge that authorizes police officers to enter and search premises.
Seizure – The taking (seizure and removal) of articles of evidence (such as controlled narcotics or a
firearm) or seizure of a person. The courts have granted exceptions to seizures without a warrant and each
specific incident should be reviewed.
Suspect – Includes any individual who a police officer reasonably believes is about to commit, is
committing or has committed an offense or poses an immediate threat to the safety of the public, other
officers or themselves.
Sustained – Where the complainant’s allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to determine that the
incident occurred, and the actions of the officer were improper.
TASER – A weapon designed for self-defense or to temporarily immobilize a subject who is actively
resisting arrest.
Traffic – The movement (of vehicles or pedestrians) through an area or along a route; the business of
transporting goods or people.
Traffic Stop – An investigatory contact of a driver of a vehicle.
Unfounded – Where an investigation determined no facts to support the incident complained of actually occurred.
Use of Excessive Force – Officer(s) use of some type of force whether physical or by instrument that is
beyond what is reasonably necessary.
Use of Force – Officer(s) use of some type of force, whether physical or by instrument that restricts the
movement of a person.
Vehicle Pursuit – An attempt by a law enforcement officer operating an emergency vehicle and
simultaneously utilizing lights and siren to apprehend an occupant(s) of another moving vehicle, when the
driver of the fleeing vehicle is aware of the attempt and is resisting apprehension by maintaining or
increasing speed, disobeying traffic laws, ignoring or attempting to elude the officer.
Victim – A person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.
Withdrawn – A complaint that is reviewed and subject to closure per directive.

64
APPENDIX III: Commonly Used Acronyms

CA Collaborative Agreement
CBD Central Business District
CBS Central Business Section
CY Calendar Year (January 1 through December 31)
CCA Citizen Complaint Authority
CCRP Citizen Complaint Resolution Process (CPD)
CPD Cincinnati Police Department
D1 Cincinnati Police District 1
DOJ Department of Justice
ETS Employee Tracking System
FY Fiscal Year (July 1 through June 30)
HCJC Hamilton County Justice Center
IACP International Association of Chiefs of Police
IIS Internal Investigations Section (CPD)
MAG City Manager’s Advisory Group
MARCC Metropolitan Area Religious Coalition of Cincinnati
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
NACOLE National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement
NJ Non-Jurisdiction
NOBLE National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives
OCL Outside City Limits
UCMC University of Cincinnati Medical Center

65
APPENDIX IV: Staff, Training and Development

Executive Director
Gabe Davis has served as Director of CCA since September of 2020. Before joining CCA, Gabe served
as a prosecutor for seven years, including as a federal prosecutor in the Civil Rights Division at the U.S.
Department of Justice. At the Justice Department, Gabe specialized in prosecuting law enforcement
misconduct cases and hate crimes. Although based in Washington, D.C., Gabe’s civil rights prosecution
work required him to lead investigations across the country, including in Ohio, Alabama, and Puerto
Rico.
After leaving the Justice Department and moving back to Cincinnati with his wife and daughter, Gabe
joined Cincinnati law firm Frost Brown Todd as a commercial litigator and defense attorney. Gabe left
his firm in 2020 to become CCA’s Director.
Early in his career, Gabe served as an Assistant District Attorney at the Manhattan District Attorney’s
Office. Before becoming an attorney, Gabe worked as a community organizer with a Cincinnati
nonprofit focused on reducing health disparities.
Gabe graduated from Yale University, earning a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science. Gabe also
graduated from Harvard Law School, earning a Juris Doctor degree.
Gabe was born and raised in Cincinnati, Ohio. He is the son of a retired Cincinnati Police Officer and
a Head Start Manager with the Cincinnati-Hamilton County Community Action Agency. Gabe’s family
also served abroad as missionaries during Gabe’s childhood. He is a product of Cincinnati Public
Schools and the Seven Hills School.
Gabe is an active member of several local civic organizations and nonprofit boards. He is a member of
the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement, International Association of
Chiefs of Police, and National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives. Gabe is also an
alumnus of several Cincinnati-area organizations, including the SWEL Foundation and Public Allies
Cincinnati.
Investigators
Dena Brown, Division Manager, began her career as a CCA Investigator in March 2006. Ms. Brown
was promoted to Chief Investigator in 2018. Prior to her employment with the City, Ms. Brown was a
Probation Officer for 11 years with Hamilton County Adult Probation Department. She is resourceful and
works well independently. As the longest tenured Investigator in CCA, she possesses expert knowledge
on CPD policies, procedures and training. Ms. Brown oversees the Citizen Complaint intake process.
She also supervises, writes and consults on all investigations of citizen complaints. Ms. Brown acts as
the liaison between CCA and CPD. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Criminal Justice from the University
of Cincinnati.

66
Jonathan Batista began his career as a CCA Investigator in November 2020. Prior to his employment
with the City, Mr. Batista was a New York City police officer and detective for 12 years. While working
with the New York City Police Department he started his career in the South Bronx. He then was
promoted to detective where he worked in numerous investigative units including the Gang Unit,
Firearms Suppression Section and the Narcotics Bureau. He has been a part of many long-term and
short-term investigations throughout his career. He received a Bachelor’s degree in Criminal Justice
from the City University of New York.
Ikechukwu (Ike) Ekeke began his career as a CCA Investigator in November 2020. Before his
employment with the City, Mr. Ekeke served 2.5 years as an assistant prosecuting attorney in Cuyahoga
County, prosecuting cases involving misdemeanor to major felonies in the juvenile and general felony
units. While working as an assistant prosecuting attorney, he began coaching and still coaches the Case
Western Reserve University School of Law (CWRU Law) Black Law Student Association (BLSA) Mock
Trial Team. Ike departed from prosecution to practice and teach Criminal Defense in CWRU Law’s
Milton A Kramer Law Clinic (Clinic). Afterward, Ike managed and co-taught in the Intellectual Property
Clinic. He graduated with a Bachelor of Science in Engineering in Industrial Engineering and a Master
of Science in Engineering in Engineering Management degree from Mercer University in Macon, GA.
Morgan Givens began her career as a CCA Investigator in December 2020. Prior to her employment
with the City, Ms. Givens was a Counterintelligence Investigator/Special Agent where she conducted
investigations with the mission of preventing foreign adversaries from penetrating the United States
Intelligence Community through various means. Her experience and background includes personnel,
physical and operational security, but she is most passionate about conducting interviews with the
overarching goal of eliciting information. Ms. Givens has Bachelor’s degree in Criminal Justice from the
University of Cincinnati and is currently pursuing a Master’s degree in Homeland Security from Tulane
University.
Jessalyn Goodman began her career as a CCA Investigator in September 2018. Prior to her
employment with the City, Ms. Goodman served three years for Statewide Intake at the Texas
Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS), providing direction for assessment and
documentation of potential adult and child abuse reports. She also spent five years as a DFPS Child
Protective Services Investigations Supervisor and Investigator, conducting and overseeing child abuse
Investigations across south central Texas. She received a Bachelor’s degree in Criminal Justice, with a
Russian minor and Criminalistics certification and a Master’s degree in Linguistics with a certification in
Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL).
Administrative Professionals
Michelle Bonner began her career with CCA in May 2006. Ms. Bonner is a highly motivated, results-
oriented, hands-on professional with over 27 years of local government experience with emphasis on
complex administrative duties and project/office management in the areas of Law, Health and
Engineering. As the department’s Senior Administrative Specialist, Ms. Bonner serves as the office
manager overseeing all CCA administrative functions. She acts as CCA’s liaison for ETS, Human
Resources, Risk Management, Budget, ADA, Fleet, Procurement, Purchasing, Public Records
Disclosure and City Council. Ms. Bonner possesses expertise in IT and customer service and offers a
wide variety of technical support and business knowledge. She acts as CCA’s Data Analyst.

67
Heidi Woods began her career with CCA in January 2017. Ms. Woods has experience in data management,
project coordination, marketing, communications, social media and graphic design that has proven to serve as
great assets to CCA. As CCA’s Administrative Specialist, Ms. Woods also serves as the liaison for Safety,
Communications and plays a vital role in the development, monitoring and updating of CCA’s website and
social media venues. She creates and designs CCA’s presentations, brochures, reports and other informational
materials that are used for trainings as well as disseminated throughout the City of Cincinnati. Ms. Woods has
a Bachelor’s degree in Business Administration from Miami University.
Former Staff
Prior to CCA, Kim Neal (resigned February 2020) held other senior level positions in other major cities in
the areas of policy, employment, higher education, compliance, ethics, privacy and information
disclosure in the public sector at different levels of government, and the private sector in the fields of
utilities, government contracting, and legal, holding such positions as chief ethics officer, chief of staff,
senior policy advisor, director and business consultant. Neal also served as Professor of Legal Studies
at the University of Maryland University College in Adelphi, MD. Neal earned her Bachelor’s degree in
Business Administration from Georgetown University and Juris Doctorate from University of Baltimore
School of Law.
Amelia Kraus (resigned September 2020) began her career as a CCA Investigator in December 2019. Prior
to her employment with the City, Ms. Kraus worked three years in gaming surveillance investigations in
Erie, PA. Ms. Kraus served a supervisory role, where she worked with the Pennsylvania Gaming Control
Board to ensure state regulated policies and procedures were followed. She also served on the Executive
Board with Mercyhurst University’s Alpha Phi Sigma Criminal Justice Honor Society. She has a
Bachelor’s degree in Criminal Justice, with a concentration in Law Enforcement and a Master’s degree
in Criminal Justice Administration from Mercyhurst University.
Training and Development
CCA remains committed to maintaining a top-notch staff that consists of experts in their fields. To
accomplish this, CCA continues to participate in relevant trainings and meetings as well as engage community
in all aspects of what CCA does. Ultimately, CCA is committed to being impactful in the accomplishment
of its duties as well as the continual improvement of effective community and law enforcement interactions.
CCA Team members fulfill training mandates required of all City employees regarding compliance with the
City’s administrative regulations, state law requirements including Government Ethics training and Ohio
Sunshine Laws as well as participate in continuing education courses to remain proficient in their technical
capabilities.

68
APPENDIX V: CCA Board Members
Mark (Zeek) Childers, Chair
Appointed June 2018
Appointed Chair June 2020
Mr. Childers has been a Cincinnati resident since 1985. He has been involved in his community in
various ways over the last 30 plus years. Mr. Childers has served on the board of Price Hill Civic Club
in the past and is currently a board member and Treasurer of Price Hill Will CDC. He teaches High
School Social Studies, the last 22 years at Diamond Oaks Career Campus. He has a Bachelor’s degree in
Education from Miami University and a Masters of Education from Xavier University.
George Pye, Vice Chair

Appointed November 2017
Appointed Vice-Chair September 2018
After 17 years, Mr. Pye retired in 2017 from the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections as
an Adult Parole Officer. He worked with various agencies: DEA, FBI, and the US Marshall Services. Mr.
Pye investigated new Parole Officer applicants for hire, trained 15 other Parole Officers in report writing,
investigations, interpersonal skills, field skills, case management and court procedures, and supervised
hundreds of offenders’ cases. He investigated their criminal behavior when necessary. Mr. Pye volunteered
with the Cincinnati Police Surveillance Team, Crime Stoppers and the Dayton Mediation Center for
Juveniles. Although retired, he remains committed to keeping Cincinnati citizens safe. Mr. Pye has a
Bachelor’s degree in Criminal Justice with a minor in Business Administration from the University of
Cincinnati.
Tim Barr, Jr.

Tim Barr, originally from Dayton, OH is a graduate of Xavier University and currently lives in
Cincinnati, OH. Tim is passionate about developing neighborhoods and building communities through
entrepreneurship. Tim has held previous roles at St. Vincent DePaul, 3CDC, and the Urban League of
Greater Southwestern Ohio. Tim serves his community as co-chair of CYBP (Cincinnati Young Black
Professionals), mentors a child with a chronic illness through MedMentor Cincinnati, and also serves
on the Citizen Complaint Authority Board. Currently, Tim is leading as the Outreach and Expansion
Manager for MORTAR, working intentionally to grow MORTAR’s relationships in Cincinnati
neighborhoods and beyond.
Desiré Bennett
Appointed June 2018
Resigned December 2020
Ms. Bennett is a community connector promoting equity, racial justice and women’s empowerment,
economic self-sufficiency and upward mobility. She is a Senior Social Equity Specialist at Design Impact
and most recently, she was the first Advocacy Manager for YMCA Greater Cincinnati and named a local

69
Ambassador for the United State of Women, an organization promoting gender equality nationally. In
addition to serving as a CCA Board Member, Ms. Bennett serves on the Women’s Fund’s Leadership
Council, the City of Cincinnati’s Gender Equality Taskforce, the Hamilton County Commission on
Women and Girls, the MLK Coalition and is a PTP volunteer reader for the Cincinnati Association for
the Blind and Visually Impaired. Ms. Bennett recently received an Alumni Award from the University
of Cincinnati for her dedicated professional and activist work on behalf of women and girls in the
Cincinnati metropolitan region. Ms. Bennett speaks about women’s issues, often sharing her climb from
teenaged single-mother and high school dropout to completing a postgraduate degree and working as a
Social Justice Advocate.
Tracey M. Johnson
Ms. Johnson works at the University of Cincinnati’s Office of Equal Opportunity & Access where she
investigates issues and complaints of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation for faculty, students
and staff alleged to have violated University policies. She also provides consultation, advice and
education to University leadership and community members on University policies. Ms. Johnson spent
several years practicing law in the both the public and private sector working as a Hamilton County
Public Defender, City of Cincinnati Prosecutor and Associate Attorney as well as working as an
Investigator for the U.S. Department of Labor. Ms. Johnson obtained her undergraduate degree in
criminal justice and law degree from the University of Cincinnati.
Chair Karen Osborne

Appointed May 2016
Vice-Chair August 2017 - August 2018
Chair September 2018 – May 2020
For the last 18 years, Ms. Osborne has managed and directed the Corporate Security Department for a
large global company, providing software and customer care services to top companies in the
communications, financial services, technology, and healthcare industries in over 30 countries. She is a
Corporate Security professional with public and private experience in fraud detection, financial crimes
and narcotics investigations, physical security, and executive protection. Ms. Osborne has a Bachelor
of Arts in Political Science from the University of South Carolina. She is an active volunteer for a non-
profit, fair trade organization that markets handcrafted products made by artisans in more than 35
developing countries, creating an opportunity for artisans to earn a fair income selling their products.
Luz Elena Schemmel

Luz Elena Schemmel is the Director of Santa Maria Community Services’ Immigrant, Wellness Services
and International Welcome Center. She was previously the Domestic Violence Advocate for the
Hispanic Health Project in Indianapolis. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Economics from the
Universidad de las Americas-Puebla in Mexico and a Master’s degree in Public Administration from
Indiana State University. Ms. Schemmel has been a voice for disadvantaged families for the last seven
years in Cincinnati. She was a recipient of the 2016 Distinguished Hispanic Ohioan Award from the
Ohio Latino Affairs Commission and the 2016 Community Award for Community Outreach from
League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC).

70
Phyllis Slusher
Appointed May 2018
Before her recent retirement, Ms. Slusher was a Senior Vice President of Corporate Communications
for U.S. Bank. Prior to working at U.S. Bank, she worked in retail advertising and promotion at
department stores in Cincinnati and Chicago. Ms. Slusher is active in her community and currently is
president of the College Hill Forum Community Council. She volunteers regularly at Dress for Success
Cincinnati. Ms. Slusher is a Cincinnati native and graduated from Ohio University with a Bachelor’s
degree in Journalism
Wanda Spivey
Dr. Wanda Wall Spivey has over 30 years of leadership experience in corporate, government and
academic sectors. Dr. Spivey has advised state and local elected officials on job creation, wealth creation
and job growth in minority communities. Dr. Spivey’s experience includes executive marketing positions
at The Procter and Gamble Company, The Pillsbury Company and National Car Rental. She served as
the Director of the Minnesota Minority Business Development Center which was funded through grants
from the United States Department of Commerce and corporate partners.
Dr. Spivey’s community service includes The Ohio Justice and Policy Center Board of Directors, The
Cincinnati Chapter of The Links, Incorporated, Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority Incorporated and the
Florida A&M University Alumni Association.
Dr. Spivey holds a bachelor’s degree in Accounting from Florida A&M University (FAMU), a Master
of Business Administration from the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business and the
Ph.D. in Public Policy with a concentration in Economic Development from The Georgia Institute of
Technology (Georgia Tech).
Brent Spence Bridge Newport Southbank Bridge
John A. Roebling Suspension Bridge Daniel Carter Beard Bridge

71
APPENDIX VI: Table and Chart Cross Reference
Appendix II
Description Annual Statistics 5-Year Statistics
Page Page
Serious Incidents Received Table 1A 18 Table 13 58
Serious Incidents Closed Findings Table 3D 21 Table 14 58
CCA Closed Investigations Chart 3 36 Table 1 49
CCA Findings Chart 4 36 Table 2 49
CPD Findings Chart 5 37 Table 3 49
Assignment of Complaints Chart 6 38 Table 4 49
How Complaints Were Received Chart 7 38 Table 5 50
Month Complaints Were Received Chart 8 38 Table 6 50
Circumstances of Complaints Table 6 39 Table 7 51
Allegations Assigned to CCA Table 7 40 Table 8 52
Allegations Assigned to CPD Table 8 40 Table 9 52
Complainant Gender Chart 10 41 Table 10A 53
Complainant Ethnicity Chart 10 41 Table 10B 53
Complainant Age Chart 10 41 Table 10C 53
Officer Gender Chart 12A 42 Table 11A 54
Officer Ethnicity Chart 12A 42 Table 11B 54
Officer Age Chart 12A 42 Table 11C 54
Officer Years on Force Chart 12B 42 Table 11D 55
Officer Rank Chart 12B 42 Table 11E 55
Complaints from All CPD Districts Chart 13A 43 Table 12A 55
Central Business Section Complaints Chart 13B 43 Table 12B 56
District 1 Complaints by Neighborhood Chart 13C 43 Table 12C 56
District 2 Complaints by Neighborhood Chart 13D 44 Table 12D 56
District 3 Complaints by Neighborhood Chart 13E 44 Table 12E 57
District 4 Complaints by Neighborhood Chart 13F 45 Table 12F 57
District 5 Complaints by Neighborhood Chart 13G 45 Table 12G 58
All Other Complaints Chart 13H 46 Table 12H 58

72
805 Central Avenue

Suite 222
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: 513-352-1600
Facsimile: 513-352-3158
Email: cca@cincinnati-oh.gov
Website: https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/ccia/
Facebook: @citizencomplaintauthority
Twitter: @ccauthority

CCA 2020 Annual Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CCA 2020 Annual Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CCA 2020 Annual Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Citizen Complaint Authority

Citizen Complaint Authority Annual Report 2020

Citizen Complaint Authority Annual Report 2020

Mark ‘Zeek’ Childers

Citizen Complaint Authority Annual Report 2020

2020: A YEAR TO REMEMBER…

Photo by Tim Bayer*

Photo by Zachary Ghaderi*

Taft Museum of Art, Central Business District

Citizen Complaint Authority Annual Report 2020

Citizen Complaint Authority Annual Report 2020

In April 2002, the Citizen Complaint Authority (CCA) was created as an

CCA was created with investigative and administrative authority to review

Before assuming office and prior to beginning their duties, each

1) Confirm completeness of CCA investigation; and

Board Meetings and Procedures

Citizen Complaint Authority Annual Report 2020

Executive Director and Staff

Investigator Investigator Investigator Administrative

Citizen Complaint Authority Annual Report 2020

In order to ensure that citizens are assisted in a timely, efficient and

Complaints may be filed with CCA or CPD by telephone, facsimile, online,

Assignment and Investigation

Citizen Complaint Authority Annual Report 2020

City Manager’s Final Disposition

There are a few complaints that cannot be investigated

CPD Citizen Complaint Resolution Process

Citizen Complaint Authority Annual Report 2020

CCA investigates: All complaints received by CCA are

Process followed for all

Within 48 hours of receipt, the complaint Investigator contacts Complainant and

Based upon all available evidence, the

Investigator drafts investigative report.

Citizen Complaint Authority Annual Report 2020

CCA works tirelessly to ensure accountability through its

Citizen Complaint Authority Annual Report 2020

Category FY 2020 FY 2021

Citizen Complaint Authority Annual Report 2020

CCA and CPD Relationship

Citizen Complaint Authority Annual Report 2020

SERIOUS POLICE INTERVENTION INCIDENTS

Serious Incidents Received

1. 20030 (February): The investigation of Death in Custody is pending.

Table 1A: Serious Incidents Received

Incidents Victims Fatalities Officers

Table 1B: District Where Incident Occurred

D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 CBD1 OCL2 Unk3

1 “CBD” denotes Central Business District

Citizen Complaint Authority Annual Report 2020

Use of Force/Excessive Force Incidents Received

Table 2A: Use of Force Allegations Received

Use of Force Allegations

Table 2B: Excessive Force Allegations Received

Excessive Force Allegations

Citizen Complaint Authority Annual Report 2020

Chart 1A: District Where Use of Force/Excessive Force Incident Occurred

Chart 1B: Demographics of Involved Persons

Citizen Complaint Authority Annual Report 2020