July 14, 2025 — Police Oversight Panel Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] Right. Welcome everybody. Hopefully you can hear us. Welcome to those in the room and online. Um we will start as always by calling the meeting to order and then start with our land acknowledgement. Uh we acknowledge the Arapjo Ute and Cheyenne tribes, the traditional custodians of the land east oversight panel and Boulder Police Department operate and we pay our respects to their elders past and present. We want to welcome our any members of the public or any press that we may have with us tonight. Thanks so much for joining us. Um you can use the Q&A if you'd like to ask questions. will answer small questions in the chat. Um or please hold any longer questions or comments for the public comment section. We'll get to that hopefully about halfway through the meeting. Um also wanted to thank our panel members

[1:00] for being here and acknowledge I'm sure it's been a busy week. We're all dealing with all sorts of things. We appreciate you guys taking this time to be here with us. Uh all right. Um, also want to remind any members of the public that you can always submit complaints um or contact the panel for any reason at any time on our website. Um, you can submit complaints by going to bouldercol.govservices oversight. Um, and you can email us anytime with complaints or just for any other reason. If you want to contact the panel, ask questions, get in touch with us for any reason. Um, you can email us at police oversight panel bouldercol.gov. Um, as a last reminder, all of our meetings are public recorded and posted to our website. So, you can watch this meeting and any of our past meetings on our website as well. And with that, we will go to roll call. Roll call or cherry. I do that every

[2:02] time. Sorry. Go ahead. Um Jason >> uh present. >> Chico >> present. >> Um Bill is absent. Alan >> who's having computer issues. Oh, he's back. St. >> um AB notified us she's going to miss. Turner >> present. >> Solidad >> present. and Milan present present and Kristen. All right. Um with that we'll go over our well let's do the agenda review. um on the agenda today. Do you want to uh try to display it? I'll read through it, but we

[3:00] will start with our usual community outreach um and engagement committee update. We don't have Bill, our committee chair today, so it'll probably be brief. Looks like we have one announcement. Um and Solidad and I are just going to briefly address some community engagement related stuff. Um, then we'll go to the independent police monitor report. We'll go to panel updates and ad hoc items. Sounds like we're going to hear from Chris Reynolds about sealed cases. We'll talk about upcoming Nicole conference. Um, and check in on ride alongs and debrief our meeting with the chief. That was two weeks ago. Um, then we'll go to public comments and go into our usual business. We'll have a close session if needed. um and then get to our case review voting and assignments. Then we will adjourn. Um so do we have a motion to approve the agenda or any items we want to add?

[4:02] >> I'll make the motion to approve. Second. Great. Um all in favor of approving. Anyone opposed? Great. Oh, opposed. Go ahead, Solidad. Oh, >> approved. >> So, do you want to just let us know which for the record what your vote was? >> So, sorry. I've noticed that we have a delay. I'm approving the >> perfect. Great. Thank you. Um, all right. Next up, do we have a motion to approve our minutes from last month? or any suggestions or feedback on the minutes to approve. >> I will move to approve the minutes. >> Great. Um, all in favor of approving the

[5:00] minutes at time. Perfect. Anyone opposed? Great. Minutes are approved. All right. So, with that, we'll go to usually uh Bill to our community outreach and engagement update. Sounds like we have one item on here. CU tableabling. Is that a Sherry item? Go ahead. >> Yeah, I just wanted to say that either last I think it just came up last week. Um I got an invitation to join um CU Serves, which is the afternoon of August 27th. Um I I applied and I've been told that we're on the wait list for that. um but that there's also a CU student job fair uh August 26 that's also in the afternoon and I um also registered for that but there's there's some things that need to be done to like get approved within the these two systems talking to each other. So I

[6:01] will keep people updated uh because I would love to have some some support at one or both those minutes if possible. >> Great. Did you say the dates and times? Um, oh, I have a student job fair, which is the probably more likely one that we'll be able to go to, is August 26. And um, I know that that was in the afternoon. I'm sorry, it's not on my calendar yet. It's already approved. And then the other one is uh, CU SERs, which would be August 27th. And I have that from 1 to 6 on my calendar, but I think that includes set up breakdown time. Cherry, you have a question. Um, or I guess just for everybody. Does everybody know what CU serves is? Sherry, do you mind your description? >> Um, I don't. All that I know is that it

[7:01] is most of the attendees it's in um, is that the correct name? And it's mostly for CU entities where there's uh like ways for students to get involved with volunteer opportunities with CU entities and then they have a limited number of spots for not forprofits and external a or entities external to CU. So that's what we're on the wait list for. Great. Any other thoughts or questions on that? Is that a hand? Is that us? >> Oh, they've changed their graphics. That was improvement. Um, okay. Uh the only other thing we wanted to mention um was just to sort of address the confusion, frustration, unfortunate um issue

[8:00] recently with the potential event we tried to put together for Junth that some of our panel members worked really hard on. Um we just want to acknowledge that that situation was really unfortunate and I'm sure super frustrating for folks who put time and effort into making it happen and it it didn't happen. Um, we want to apologize really to Curtis and to Meen for um, not making that happen. Um, and that you didn't really get enough support from the panel to proactively get that off the ground and and up and running. Um, we want to say for the record, too, that it really does appear you guys did everything you reasonably could have to make the event a success. Um, and in the future, we're committed to being more supportive and proactive with helping make those events happen and come to fruition um, with panel involvement. Um, so to that end, the community engagement committee, um, it sounds like he's working on some like guideline

[9:01] documents, um, not necessarily specifically in response to this, but to help make sure that folks know exactly how to bring uh, events forward and we know what we need to do to move events forward to be supported. Um, so it sounds like I think Curtis is working on a document and Bill is also working on a document. So, next month we'll have an agenda item to talk that through, have panel ideas, feedback, and get something kind of on paper to hopefully give us some some guidelines moving forward for how best we can help make these events successful. So, really sorry you guys, that was really unfortunate and a really big missed opportunity for the panel. So, thank you for the work that you put into it and I'm sorry that this is how it is. >> Thank you. I appreciate the uh the apology. >> Oh, can I add something? Yeah, for the record like >> I I find it sad that we have to work on

[10:02] additional rules because of this when nothing was done wrong. >> And so I just want to I just want to state that adding rules is constraining to the imagination of the panel what's possible. And while I am looking forward to discussing that, I'm also feeling that had nothing happened, rules were not going to be added and changed and constraining. So um just wanting to state my position uh on that. Thank you. >> Yeah, I think that's a really great point. I really don't want these to please So that brought this point up last week as well. We don't want these to feel like rules or constraints. Um, frankly, it feels like what happened was you all put a lot of work into a great event and you proposed it and put it forward and like nobody else kind of knew how to pick it up and run with it and what steps needed to be taken at the city and what steps did we need to take

[11:00] as as co-chairs of it just sort of felt like we didn't have a a list of steps to take and as a result things sort of um didn't happen when they should have and the support that you guys should have gotten you didn't get. So, I'm viewing it more as like just kind of our our protocols for how we make events successful and carry them through. What checkpoints do we need with the city? Who do we need to involve and when? That kind of thing. So, absolutely not in any response to what you guys did or didn't do. I think you guys again did everything right. Um, we just sort of dropped the ball. So, hopefully this can be like a resource document more so than any sort of rules that's more comfortable. And let's talk on that at length next time for sure as we like actually come up with what should be in there. >> Anything you want to add, Soladad? >> Um, yeah, sure. So, just want to emphasize a couple of things. One, um, I'm I

[12:00] personally am not a good friend of making rules out of one of them. Like that's not good policy. Um, so that that's one thing. And the second that I really want to emphasize that this statement uh if you want to put it that way, but we we wanted to address this and I and and I think the important thing or or what I would love for for Cortis and Milan to hear is our sincere apologies. Um we you know I think we failed and we failed in several steps and in the way that you know we heard about it. So, I mean, there's there's plenty of things that looking back we can say, "Oh, wow. We should have done this, or it would have been great if you we you know, we didn't." And and and I'm really sorry. I'm really sorry. I'm really sorry, Curtis, that that um being a panel, new panel, um student panel member, you didn't find uh the support

[13:01] that your event deserved. I'm really sorry, Milan, that that it was so much work um for you, too. I'm super proud and grateful that you put the event either way and you moved it forward. It was so important for the community to have that event in place. Sorry for the panel that we were not there, but we are committed to do better. So basically I guess I what Lizzie and I really wanted to convey is what that you know sincere apologies for for the missteps. Uh and also the commitment that as a panel we want our panelists to be able to put forward any type of community engagement and we should be supportive and also we're committed to make things happen. So what do we need to make things happen and not you know these are all the hoops you need to jump in order to get something done time this you know every day is not one more day it's one day

[14:00] less so um since that from that perspective I guess um you know we want to ensure that everyone feels that they can come forward with whatever type of community engagement they want to see forward and you know we should be supportive even find ways to make things happen and not the other way around. So um yeah, so that that I think it's it's where the emphasis of this particular point should be. So thank you all and again so sorry that this happened this way. >> Thank you. >> Thank you so appreciate the uh the apology from the co-chairs. Really that means a lot. Thank you. >> All right. Oh, can I say something else? Just a little correction that I think Curtis put a lot more work than I did on this event. >> So, thank you. But

[15:02] >> thank you. >> I stand corrected. Well, if you don't have any other thoughts on that, we can move to our IP report. Oh, go ahead, Chico. >> I may be a a bit late here on um I wanted to add something to the to this item on community engagement or it can be another agenda item. uh we are according to my records we should be coming to the fifth year when the panel was set up

[16:01] and that's a big milestone. So what what I'm thinking is with your zint and comments this is something that we should com commemorate and be proud of ourselves. So part of community engagement in my mind what we are thinking is we blow our horns for lack of a better term and um celebrate the milestone. Invite past past and present uh comm community um panel members that have saved that are currently saving and just have an event where we can engage the community and say this is where we are we started from and this is where we at. So, I wait to hear feedback from you all. >> I love it, Jacob. >> Yeah, me too. Sounds like a great idea.

[17:01] >> Lots of support in a room. I don't know if you can hear us all, but that sounds great. Maybe something we can talk about the next engagement meeting, community engagement meetings. It's this Thursday. >> Thursday is Is that when is it the upcoming one? >> Um I think there's one on the calendar. Um >> yes, it's >> No, it's not this Thursday. >> It's not until the seventh. >> Yeah, it's but I know that people wanted uh Chris to be able to attend. So, since there's more of a meeting to work around to find out when Chris can attend the the meeting. So, even though it's there's one technically on the calendar, I expect that it's probably open to rescheduling, but normally the the first Monday of the or the first Thursday of the month is where it says >> being

[18:00] so I was going to add one more thing. I think it's best we table it as a main panel. Then if there's anything that needs to be done by the community engagement committee, they come back to us, the main full panel, with ideas of how we're going to pull it off. >> Can I add something to that? is that everybody on this panel is invited to join the next engagement committee so that we can talk about this. I think that would be great to marry that. Would that be a plan you're comfortable with, Chico? I think the I totally agree with the sentiment that it should be something we all work on together. Um, I think the community engagement meeting just gives us more time to really dig into it, but ideally all of us would be at those meetings. So

[19:00] hopefully we can all all join the next one that we're using. >> Yeah, >> go ahead. >> Um, I have a quick kind of uh question that I would love clarification on. So did I hear correctly that we are expecting that Chris ads the community engagement committee and that that we we're are scheduling around that. Is that what I heard? >> Yes. >> We're probably going to do an extra one. >> Right. >> Oh, okay. And and can I can I also get clarification on on why do we have the the not that I don't like you Chris, why the city attorney needs to attend our community engagement committee meeting. talk about process and the the ordinance uh language about panel's community engagement uh process. >> Is that a request from the committee?

[20:02] >> It wasn't from the committee. It was from Bill last time requested. >> Okay. >> Um I think he needed help around or like I guess guidance around the working documents. had asked Chris to kind of step in and help with those logistics. That's based on the notes. So I don't know any other >> but I think since we I don't know it might be a little bit early since we have now two documents to look through. Um so and I'm not sure those documents have anything to do with the ordinance necessarily as process not they're not to be set in stone the ordinance is my thing is that yours too or >> yeah mine references the ordinance as the ordinance as a um a checking point of community engagement as far as far as process is concerned to refer back to

[21:04] more like an informal guiding document, >> right? >> Yeah. >> It's more flexible than that from the questions I asked Bill the last time. It's like, well, what about this? You know, it's like it's just a guideline. It's not like something that's going to be added to the ordinance necessarily. So, I'm just wondering if that's necessary. Well, I think it was to make sure that it didn't like run up like that there was no conflict with the audience. They didn't that then that both kind of smoothly work together um instead of having a document that is processed that somehow violates the order. >> But what it says about the community engagement is pretty open right now. So I I mean sure, but I'm just wondering if we should wait table that until we have one document that the committee agrees on. Bill had had shared. I think I do feel like maybe the original request was

[22:00] more about like the questions we had originally about what was in scope. Maybe is that when the and maybe we've sort of put that discussion to rest a bit because the focus is now on the documents. Bill had suggested having you all review the documents before we finalize rather than the opposite way around. I think there's an argument I can make for either of those. Um, but that's maybe review them and then come to the meeting to discuss, I suppose. Um, maybe we check with Bill to see more specifically what he was thinking and hoping for with that request. Then we can go from there. Does that feel comfortable to folks? And if people have opinions on when we get your review and when we come together to kind of look at the two documents and reconcile and discuss definitely open to that all those thoughts. Mhm. Um, sorry, just just it it

[23:01] um if if any of those documents were to be adopted, the the place that they should go is in the bylaws. It has nothing to do with the ordinance. Uh if we want to change the ordinance, that's an entire different thing. And that is not coming from this panel as far as I know. So I'm a little bit confused. uh and I don't want like uh which is which is and maybe again we there there's I think there's disconnect somewhere uh because this the hope for a document in the community engagement committee I guess I'm guessing again is to establish a a procedure to make events happen and you you know send a request six weeks in advance blah blah blah is very operational So, I don't know. It sounds to me like I don't want to bring things so far like

[24:00] far away in our minds like we need a intervention of an attorney to set up a procedure to to run an event like it it seems like a lot. So maybe I I there are things that I'm not aware of that are happening uh or this is kind of being uh managed a little bit of out of proportions I think. So I don't know uh further clarification would be great and what we're expecting would be great and also I would expect that if at any point we're asking uh the city attorney to come to our meetings that we are all uh aware and and we can all join it. It's kind of um my ask I guess this point. Well, I can give individual I can meet with individual panel members upon request. So because sometimes the nature of legal advice has to be given. >> So I would not be able to commit to only giving legal advice in a group setting >> of course but but if it's an individual

[25:00] request then you should be meeting with Bill individually right >> perhaps. >> If it's a committee request then that's a different thing. Right. >> So, I'm just I just I didn't I mean I'm Yeah, I I I I insist. I think we we need more information. That's what I'm saying. It's surprising that that we we're you know, we're we're talking about the ordinance and and the bylaws and and trying to establish a procedure for setting up events. It's kind of I don't know. just >> I think it's possible that we're conflating two topics right now. The previous questions that were about interpretation of the ordinance and what it has to say about scope of possible community engagement events. I think that was our previous discussion. That's maybe where mention of the ordinance came through with the discussion with

[26:00] the city attorney. I think what we're talking about now is more it seems like a good due diligence step. This is I'm paraphrasing Bill. I'm not trying to speak for him, but I believe this is what he was saying to have the city attorney's office have eyes on our document to see if there was any advice or anything they might note or have an opinion on or let us know about. I don't know that it was meant to elevate that document to something that would have anything to do with the ordinance. Uh that was my understanding. >> My understanding was so that something like this doesn't happen again >> once this document is in place just to have a look over it so that something like this won't happen again. That's my understanding. Is that fair? >> Yeah. But again that this never was wrong. >> No. Exact. No. Exactly. But it it came from kind of a I think a miscommunication or there was

[27:01] something missing if that not that anything that was done was wrong but that there came up a questions about ordinance and so that so that just there's no problem ever again to get on top of things. >> Yeah. I I >> not that anything was done wrong but procedure got things got held up and the event didn't go as planned. sort of make sure that in the future when events are planned they get to be realized >> but then then we have good branches of everything say oh something you know and so that's that's where I'm hitting like a little bit of disagreement is that if we want something to fail then that's what we do we put a wrench in next and then like oh let's re look at the bylaws or let's reassess this or let's re and then nothing happen it's event. So

[28:00] that's why I'm just like procedures, procedures. Yeah, that's great. I would like the next meeting to be focused on on Chico's project of celebrating our fifth year as an engagement committee and as a panel um more than procedures personally and I think maybe the procedure part should be a subcommittee and not hinder the process of engagement that we are involved in. I think the confusion maybe that you were talking about had to do with in my perspective information that we got back from the city side that seemed to indicate that the event was out of scope when it sounds like that was maybe a misinterpretation or a difference in opinion of the reading of the ordinance like I don't think I think I understand what you're saying some there was there was a misunderstanding between someone I don't know that it was you all didn't

[29:00] put out do anything that would necessarily need to be done differently, but there was confusion somewhere that resulted in us getting a no to the event that should have been able to happen. Right? So, I think that's what we're trying to address with questions to the city's city attorney's office is what should our understanding be exactly of the ordinance or what what guidance could we set out for ourselves to make sure that we don't get information back from you all that causes that misunderstanding. I suppose maybe it's just a way we communicate about events. I don't know. It feels like there's some communication we can have here that would be helpful for us, not put up more friction for future events, but I understand the the nuance. We want to be careful to not be setting up some sort of gauntlet we have to run to get an event done, right? So, we'll need to be careful about that. >> Go ahead, Alan.

[30:00] Well, if um we're going to set up a working committee or a little group to kind of parse through this, I'd be willing to be on that. >> Great. That's super helpful. I think best next steps will be the next community engagement meeting and then the following um all panel meeting where we have like a full panel discussion. Um but I guess to sort of wrap this up unless we have if we have any more comments please go for it. But maybe next steps for everyone that everyone will be comfortable with is check in with Bill, get his thoughts, maybe sold out or I can do that. Um, and then figure out what we want to do about this potential pending request for you to join a meeting. Does that sound okay?

[31:03] >> Thank you. Shoot, we talked too long. My computer was sleep. I had to do six steps of authentication, but I think we were on the IPM report out. And I think we're still okay on time. Yes, we should be. Okay. The July 2025 Boulder Police Oversight Panel Independent Police Monitors report. So looking at our uh case file review data for June 2025, um we completed one full case file review. Uh there are zero currently pending BK disposition. Uh there were

[32:04] there are 13 files that are currently waiting for review and I've been told to expect several of them in the next few weeks. So they're moving through the redaction process at looking at our completed cases. We have MI2024-083. BPD Sergeant 1 responded to a civil assist request by a residential property manager. The building was conducting an annual fire inspection and a resident refused to allow access to her unit. When Sergeant one attempted to speak with residents, she refused to open her door for either the sergeant or the inspectors. resident made comments about being ACP, which the investigation revealed was the Colorado address confidentiality program. Sergeant one left without having any contact besides the conversation through the door. Sergeant one shared complainant's name with

[33:00] dispatch when closed the incident. Um the monitor originally recommended that this case be closed unfounded in accordance with general order 120 based on preliminary investigation. Allegations against Sergeant One was a rule two conformance with laws um the address confidentiality program law misuse complainants confidential information. The panel recommended that this allegation be unfounded with coaching for the sergeant on ACP. The department also determined that this would be unfounded. Um and a second allegation rule five police authority and public trust violated complaintant's rights. The panel recommended that this be unfounded and that was the department's final determination. Also, uh the panel made an additional recommendation uh that BPD members received training on the address confidentiality program and during the uh Q2 meeting with the chief Red u notified the panel of the plan to

[34:00] deliver training to officers on this address confidentiality program and that is expected to occur to occur in Q3. MI2025-017. Three BPD officers responded to a disturbance call between neighbors. Complainant followed his neighbor several blocks away to where BPD responded. Officers spoke with complainant neighbor and both of their girlfriends. They issued complainant a summon for harassment and menacing. He pled guilty to the former and the latter charge was dropped. complainant and his girlfriend alleged additional violations by BPD that were disproven by either body warn camera, contradicted by their previous statements to BPD or did not constitute misconduct. The monitor did not classify those additional complaints as foreign litigations. The allegation uh we had was against officer one rule one um violation of general order 203 investigative responsibility and

[35:01] assignment failed to complete a sufficient investigation. The monitor recommended that this closed unfounded in accordance with one order 120 and department brief. MI2025-019 anonymous complainant alleged she was pulled over without justification. Officers informed her that they conducted the traffic stop because her tail lights were not working. Video footage captured that her tail lights were not illuminated. allegation against officer one five police authority and public trust conducted a traffic stop without justification. Monitor recommended that this allegation be unfounded in accordance with general order 120 and the department agreed. I made an additional recommendation. Uh both myself and uh PSU noted that neither officer provided complaintant with their business card. Um the monitor recommended that both officers receive coaching on general orders 303.

[36:02] Looking at some case statistics in June, the monitor classified 16 complaints. Eight of those were misconduct. Uh zero serious misconduct. One was classified as a community inquiry. Four were classified as community feedbacks. Three were unspecified incidents. Zero were referred to conflict facilitation process. I observed two interviews. There were zero critical incident scene responses and I determined that three investigations were thorough and complete and BPD closed the three cases we just heard about. And as of July 8th, the open docket between uh the monitor, the panel and PSU um is 41 cases. Of those, 27 are classified. Two were pending monitor classification and 12 of them were in preliminary investigation stage with the

[37:00] professional standards. Sharing information about the pieces that were classified in 2024 that are still open. There are five total. Uh SM2024-00003, those statements have been completed. MI2024-065 I've been told is being prepped for panel review. Um MI2024-076, the panel actually reviewed that last week and we are working on our final uh final draft to send over to BPD with recommendations. Um, MI2024-078 should also be being prepped for panel review and MI2024-082 is in chain of command. MI2024-083 was closed in June and MI2024-084 was closed but in July. So you'll hear about that next.

[38:01] Um providing some information on some um engagement events that I attended. Uh it was Pride Month, so several uh events with Rocket Rocky Mountain Equality, uh an event queerness in communities of color, Boulder Pride Fest, City of Boulder Junth celebration, a BPB promotion ceremony, bike and walk to work day, a community cycles, and um I'm on Jimmy Joseph's uh uh public safety committee, and she also had a public safety Does anyone have any questions before I close down the power? Oh, >> thanks Sher for that. I was just thinking the 41 cases that are open and 27 classified. That sounds like

[39:02] a lot. Are you able to offer more color on where they're at? Because if we are reviewing one or two cases a month, 27 sounds like a lot of cases. So where are we at with these that that have been classified? >> A lot of those are actually relatively new, newly classified cases. Um, for cases that were um, yeah, I think all of the all of the cases that were classified in quarter one. It's I'm just making sure I'm not missing something. Oh, no. There's one one from March was classified on March

[40:02] 31st. So the last day of quarter one um that's the only case that is is currently open uh from quarter 1 and then the the rest of that were either those 2024 cases that you had information about their status where all of them are in their pretty close to finalized stages um and the rest of them were classified in just the um you know since April. So, some of those looking at my particular uh my spreadsheet, some of those are already in chain of command preview. But remember, the 27 cases does not mean that the panel voted to take all of those cases. So the cases the the the cadence of panel review uh is not the same thing as the the like the panel is not reviewing all of those cases all 27 only the ones that they voted upon which uh it looks like there's 13 left.

[41:02] So the panel doing review for one or two cases a month is keeping up with that case load. But I do know that there were several large cases at BPD that did slow down their the the people who do the reductions. But like like I said, I've been told that the whatever it was that was slowing down that process seems to be have moved along and that there are several panel cases that are on deck to get redacted. And then after that, the next step is case review. The good news is this is fewer cases than last year. Any other thoughts, questions, comments?

[42:03] Thanks, Sherry. All right, we are ahead of schedule. Amazing. Um, so at this point we will go to our updates. I think we'll go to Chris Reynolds, our CEO for seed case discussion. >> Thank you. So sometimes uh criminal justice reform efforts uh conflict with one another and what I'm talking about is civilian oversight of police departments and then on the other hand u state law that allows for sealing of criminal justice records. When a criminal justice record you think of like a case gets sealed that means that it becomes invisible to almost every sort of person and entity that exists. And it's really important for uh

[43:00] people who are interested in you know getting jobs in the future or uh going to grad school. they uh it's a benefit to them if they ever get a criminal case to have their record sealed because they can then pretend like it basically never existed and so they don't have to like report it to schools or employers and it becomes invisible on a criminal background check. And so that's what it means when a case gets sealed. Um, sometimes, uh, well, about 5 years ago or so, the state of Colorado passed, uh, a law that allowed for faster sealing of records. It expanded the types of cases that were eligible to be sealed and also um, made automatic sealing of records a thing. And so um like whenever I dismiss a case in the

[44:00] municipal court automatically gets seized and so the young person or whoever it's uh you know was the case was um involving can just pretend like it never existed. There are exceptions to who can see a sealed record. Uh but uh for our purposes, the law, the Colorado statute does not allow for a police oversight panel to see a sealed record. So the avenue uh it's not impossible but the avenue a complainant would have to take to get their um case reviewed by police oversight panel is they would have to petition the court in which the case was sealed to have it unsealed for the purpose of um a lease oversight panel review. And so I just wanted to update the panel on that because I know that that there have been perhaps some questions about that. But sealed records

[45:02] are just not going to be something that the police oversight panel is able to review. And and so if there are complaints involving sealed records, they're going to be reviewed by um the professional standards unit at uh BPD is the is kind of the the avenue routes for their review unless the defendant petitions the court to have the record unsealed. The reason why the PSU can look at it is because they're a law enforcement and there's an exception that law enforcement can see sealed records just like Yeah. So that's that's the the sealed record law update. >> Chico uh Chris thanks for thanks for the update. Um so so in that case are we going to is there going to be some some publicity advising the public

[46:00] or the community that if it's a sealed record u it's not going to be reviewed by the panel but the p because it has to be laid out it has to be clear now right >> well I'm not sure if there's going to be um publicity about it, but if someone wants to have their makes a complaint in the record is sealed, then it's communicated to them about what the process is to get it unsealed if they want the panel to review it. >> So, so that that's why I'm saying that is there somewhere where somebody can read and the community knows that this is the status quo. This is what happens. If there's such a case, >> I just >> then >> it goes straight to the PU. >> Um, it's a it's a good idea, Joe. And then um I think Sharon did put it in the newsletter as well that she put out the last one kind of highlighting this this

[47:01] specific issue. I would imagine that eventually they'll carve out an exception perhaps because you would you would think that um it might be a good idea to to have that exception in in the law, but the legislators when they were drafting the updated um ceiling record statute, I don't think we're thinking of police oversight when they updated it. >> But Chico, are are you suggesting that we we add some information like on the police oversight website that that identifies that in this specific circumstance that we will not have the ability to do that. >> Correct. >> You're full of good ideas tonight. >> If someone really wanted to dish to have it unsealed so that we could review, is that something that can be unsealed like just for our purpose? >> Yeah. >> And what does that process look like? Is

[48:00] it like a three-month process or is that actually achievable? >> The the uh the our municipal court judge um has done it in the past, not for police oversight, but for other reasons. And they at least the way that our judge does it is he'll say something like the record can be unsealed for this specific purpose. And once that purpose is completed, then then the case is to be stol. I I think if the if there would be a legislative fix, I think that the phrases like it would it would carve out police oversight for inspection of the of the records. I think that's the that's it would be tailored. It wouldn't be the whole case is open to anyone to see because >> right >> if that's unsealed for a limited purpose >> could we add maybe even like I like the idea of making that information proactively available to everyone but also if we get a complaint from someone who we find there the record of the case was sealed and we then have a step that we always take where we respond back to them and say hey thank you for

[49:01] submitting this complaint. PSU will review it, but just so you know, the panel won't be able to review this because it's sealed. If you want them that to be an option, here are the steps you would take. We also do that when it's actually a factor. Um, we can do that. I should I should ask PSU. I know that or my understanding is that they reach out to people and say like if you want this because we're technically not even supposed to know that the records are sealed. Okay, we're not supposed to know that. PSU can know that. So PSU would have to do the >> but I can I don't know what the language is that they when they if you want it reviewed by civilian oversight you have to >> or petition the court be agreed to confirm. >> I would imagine the process would be a lot longer um going through county or district court than it would be the municipal court just by imagine it would be like once a couple weeks potentially through media courts. So just keep that in mind as well. Yes.

[50:02] And then is it worth the panel talking to legislators to help get legislation itself? >> So I I elevated this to um Judy Joseph and her chief of staff. I wasn't able to attend the last the last meetings but I definitely provided her with a significant about significant amount of information about that as she's looking to craft her. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Sorry. Okay. >> And currently the city of Boulder is hiring a uh their intergovernmental affairs person who handles the legislation. Uh the so we don't have a person but that's as soon as that person is announced I'm going to put a meeting between me and them on their >> still hiring >> it because the hiring race they did interviews a few weeks ago. Okay.

[51:03] >> I I hope it goes through >> but yes it's a legislative challenge so the fix is legislative. Yeah. >> Yeah. I have a a quick question. Uh Chris, you you said that um eventually we can I mean no we but it could be petitioned to to be able to see these records, right? the defendant could petition the court in which the case was sealed to have it on sentence. >> Okay. So, is the and and is this something that could be done in cases of serious misconduct that we we uh could I'm not I'm not thinking about every single case, but in cases of serious misconduct, I think it will be worth

[52:00] kind of going through with with a a petition like that. So would do we as a panel would would we have stands to file? No. Right. It should be the defendant. >> Not not the way the current law exists. You would not have standing to ask to spun the record. >> Okay. And it's only the defendant. >> Yes. >> And we shouldn't we wouldn't know. So we couldn't let them know that they could petition to let us see a case. Right. That's unfortunate. If if somebody who has a sealed record files a complaint, then they're they're informed that there's a process for unsuing the right. >> Okay. And is this something that that will go let's say we're in a serious misconduct case there the defendant in the case wants this case to be reviewed by the panel. We have to can we pro can we I

[53:01] mean the city provide with support to to file that petition or will have to be the defendant by himself filing a petition like that for us to be able to review a case? >> Well, like Sherry said, only only u we're not even supposed to acknowledge the record exists. So like whenever I'm asked about a case that's sealed, I say I don't have any record of that. Um can't acknowledge that there even is a case. >> Um so it would be the responsibility of the defendant whose uh record was sealed to petition the court to get it unsealed. >> Okay. Okay. Um and police over I mean civilian police oversight is in Denver and Boulder only right in the state. Are there only any other cities that

[54:00] have civilian police oversight? >> It's always something being talked about in Aurora under their consent but I don't know that it's materialized. >> Okay. So kind of hard to set up. Yeah. Legislative change for two cities which pretty uphill battle. Okay. So then I think I agree with Chico. We have to go with marketing. Let everyone know that this this is a possibility. So okay, thank you. Thank you for the the response. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Is it um is it guaranteed that if somebody goes through the process, the defendant goes through the process that it will be unsealed? Are there any uh reasons that a person may be denied this? >> Not not that I'm aware of. Not that >> I would imagine it'd be up to that specific judge. >> Yeah. >> Like if a judge is familiar with the case and doesn't want them to doesn't think that it would be worthwhile to

[55:00] have it looked at by civilian oversight, then I can imagine that that's their perview to say no for any other reason, I guess. So just really up to the judge. >> Thank you. I mean, at the same time, the records are sealed for the benefit of the defendant. So, if the defendant wants it narrowly incapacity >> Oh, that's a good point. Yeah. >> Wait, was it >> if they have some kind of incapacity where the judge feels like they do? >> Yeah. >> But again, it's not unsealing it to Yeah. the employers and other entities. It would just be for the inspection by the oversight. Any thoughts or comments, questions for Chris or Sherry?

[56:00] Uh, next topic is Napole. And thank you, Chris, for providing that. That's helpful. >> Yeah. So Napole which is the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement of which we all are members of Napole uh they just opened up their registration for their their annual training which is October 26th through the 30th. Um we have um two spots budgeted for panel members to attend. Um, Soladad and I will be presenting. So, Soladad has one spot. Um, so we're looking for someone, we're looking for people who are interested to let us know if they're interested and they could commit to that to that week. It's in Minneapolis. Um, and obviously because of budget constraints, we all want to get like the early birds and the early flights and the early hotels. So, I'm hoping to be

[57:01] able to have this figured out and uh decided in both like in two weeks. So, if you're interested and you have that capacity, please let me know. Um and both um Soladad and Milan have gone to the conference. So, if you have questions about what you can expect um if it was worth it, please reach out to them. Millet especially because last year they had the your sun the Sunday programming for you. >> Wasn't there programming? I don't know like so I've been going to this conference for several years and it's much more towards the it a lot of it is geared towards people you know who it's their full-time job whether they're investigator, auditor or monitor type of of entity. Um but last year they started having on Sunday a full day of programming for people who are the

[58:00] community voice on the different boards or commissions. Uh so that was really interesting because it allowed us to meet each other and to realize you know what are people doing in their with their oversightes in different cities and how they make it work for themselves and what they have the the power they have and or not. But you know so it was a it was a a good way to learn of possibilities of what oversight can look like and it was also nice to connect with people and especially with the Denver Denver groups or the the groups in uh there was a group from Aurora but yeah I don't know that they they were interested. Um, so it was great to talk about this and to meet other people from Colorado, but also from elsewhere and just uh

[59:00] see what they were doing. So I would like to go uh but I've been there twice. So uh I understand that I'll be the last one and rightly so. So please I would recommend that uh if you can do go uh it's worth it. It's a great great learning and a great place to feel empowered in what we do here. You can also reach out to me with questions, not just >> Yeah, I was happy to answer questions. >> Uh that's all that I had to say about um but the the next topic is actually really timely. Um I just reached out. It's it's ride alongs and everyone needs to according to the ordinance do a ride along once a year. Um ride alongs are nicer in warm weather than in winter. And I reached out because I realized I hadn't done a ride along in a while. So

[60:00] that and I was told that from the beginning of August they're going to have a lot of um pe a lot of officers coming out of training who are going to be riding with field training officers. So basically between now and early August is a really good time because there's going to be more capacity. Uh so I strongly recommend reaching out to Bethany if you have not done a ride along in the last uh six months probably because once once winter comes and we'll start and things like that it gets it gets harder to do. Um and just in general um the the requirement is 4 hours normally it starts with briefing and briefing is you don't you don't technically have to go to briefing but I would highly recommend briefing. Um that's what in a lot of other departments they would call roll call when they come together at the beginning of their watch. Uh sometimes

[61:01] they're talking about feedback from how an event went the day before. Uh, a lot of times they're passing on information from from the the previous watches or information that they've they've obtained, you know, in the last day about missing people or like stolen vehicles. But I I think that that roll call or sorry, that briefings is is a very helpful and interesting to to attend. Um, when you do your ride alongs also, you know, you can you can really be proactive and ask them, can you show me your equipment? Can you, you know, what did you just do on that computer? What, you know, what's happening? Um, and really try to absorb as much information as as possible so that when you're reviewing cases later on, um, the things that you're reading about, the way that they the officers work on the radio, it makes sense to you and you understand the the work that they're doing.

[62:00] Just me plugging right alongs. If you end up doing it in the bowels of of December in the holiday season, that's you were warned. I just want to say I just uh did my ride along with uh Sterling just a few weeks ago. Couples ago. And so you can ask for Sterling and it was that was super nice. So thank you again. No. >> Day and time did you do it? And was it >> I think it's there at 6 a.m. >> Yeah. So Friday. >> Yeah. So Friday 6 a.m. till 10. >> And I did attend the briefing. >> Oh yeah. Thank you. Um so 6 a.m. are briefings and then 2 p.m. and then 900 p.m. >> And I have to say that I missed the previous one. Like I totally slept through the >> I yeah, it was not on my schedule. It was on my city schedule and didn't make it. So BPD has stood me up recently also. So

[63:01] we really invested >> 6 a.m. and then 10 p.m. the same day. >> We made it up. We did it. >> I did a ride along that I believe was close to four hours. Okay. >> Is that is that is that good? Is there a list? >> I I don't think anyone's with the stopwatch. >> Okay, cool. Just want to make sure like there was a list of people who hadn't done it or hadn't done it. >> How are they being recorded? I guess is >> Yeah. Yeah. >> That's a nice I think Bethany records it because people don't necessarily tell me when they've done violence. So, I think Bethany randomly is being the Well, >> I I was told to to go through her. So, >> yeah. Yeah, that's what I did. We still have the document where we took down like yes, no, has everyone done it with dates and that was helpful. >> That would be really helpful. So maybe we can spin that back up. Maybe collaborate with Bethany. >> Yeah, >> Bethany just kind of updates it. >> She hasn't updated us in a while since we've panelist. So I don't

[64:04] >> Yeah. Um, one thing also that people could do, so the you can do a 4-hour ride along or you can do um, I believe a two-hour walk along with foot patrol officers and like if you you were feeling like, oh, that wasn't quite four hours, you could also ask to like sit and dispatch, which can be really interesting to see how that works. >> So, I mean, you can have multiple bites at the apple. Oh, does like the sitting in dis dispatch count towards the hours you need? >> Yeah. And it's very I unfortunately when I sat in dispatch I got way laid so I didn't get to sit there for a full hour. Uh but watching how how much they manage and if you ask them it's very integrated with some of the other law enforcement agencies dispatch in the area. So they can patch into each other's systems pretty easily to provide mutual support when needed. We'll

[65:06] check back with everyone about what's available for tracking and any information we can provide. It's like I I'm pretty sure I did my last August, but I would love a doc that could for me because who knows? So cool. Just remember, does your life get easier or harder when the school year starts? [Music] Think about that. It's not raw. >> All good on that topic. Yeah. >> All right. Next is meeting with the chief debrief. Um we had a good meeting with the chief two weeks ago. Um we had a couple members of our theert team and sort of management team there to talk to us which was great. Um we've also requested already that the homeless outreach team hot team be in attendance next time. So I know we have some outstanding questions and topics for

[66:00] them but thoughts, comments, feedback on that session. >> I know the homeless discussion was very enlightening. You know what you always hear out there, at least I do, what are they doing or what's the city doing about people who are out on the streets? And well, it turns out quite a bit. And um it's just kind of just very frustrating to know what a moving uh target it really is and how difficult it is to keep up. I got a great appreciation for that >> else. >> Yeah. I also thought it was um interesting how cert and BPD have a like how they explain they have a learning relationship with each other and being

[67:01] able to bounce ideas off each other dealing with people with mental health issues I thought was really positive thing to see. >> Yeah. When I wrote along great last is you could tell that some of the officers had like um like a lot of historical knowledge of some of the unhoused people that the street and are able to like use that knowledge to deescalate things rather than escalate them. So I have to say that we actually when we when I was on the ride along we came here to the on the other side of the creek to observe and um Sterling participated in something with with uh someone from out of town was disturbing the piece of the unhoused people. It was really interesting to uh observe the interactions with the police officers

[68:01] and the seemingly like the trust that they had in them to to support the challenge that they were faced with. So that was that was really interesting. It's very well done as well. Um, and I did uh send an email last week reminding Alistister that people want the hot team, the hopeless outreach team at the at the next meeting and confirmed the date. So, it's definitely on their radar. I think this was a great demonstration of how helpful it can be to have like other folks in those meetings as well. like that was maybe the first time I think we've had totally different team represented. That was really added a lot. So maybe we can start brainstorming who else need my thought in future meetings too. And just in case you weren't going to ask, then the Q3 meeting with the chief

[69:00] is scheduled for Monday, September 22nd. 30. Oh, now we're over time. I just noticed that change. Okay. Um, anything else? Otherwise, we will go to public comment and then take our break. >> All right. Um, so typically we would go into public comment. I don't believe we have any members of the public with us currently, so we will skip it. For any members of the public who watch this later, please join us. Happy to have you anytime. Everybody's welcome to come and listen in and speak or don't. It's also totally okay to come join and not comment direct public comment. So, we hope to see you at a future meeting. All right, let's take our break. We usually do 10 minutes, five minutes. Usually do five minutes. All right. Should we stay back at 750?

[70:07] six minutes. [Music] >> Yeah, I think some people in just a moment. >> Yeah. >> All right, I think we're back. Um, next order of business is we have time for close session. If folks are interested in discussing cases, do we have any motions to enter close session? Oh, I almost did it again. Sorry, everyone. Okay. Most important order of business today that I neglected to mention at the top of the meeting was we have a new panel member with us today. Super exciting. Um, this is Land. She's our newest student panel member. Uh our

[71:02] previous student panel member, Donnie Austin, is no longer on the panel. We thank her for her time with us and wish her well. Um and Turner Land will now be our new student panel member. So welcome. Do you want to just tell us a little bit about yourself? >> Yeah, I'm a student CU studying language international affairs. Uh I've been in Boulder since 2021. I think I have here from Southeast Louisiana and happy to be working with you all. >> Great. Thanks for being here. Welcome. >> All right. Thank you, Sherry. Gosh, if it's not on the agenda, I just like black out. Okay. Can I try lifting you up? >> Yes. >> I forgot to >> uh I'm gonna just interject. Uh welcome, Turner. So happy you're here. Uh and uh just so we set the record for because this is a public meeting so the public know that Turner had done all the training with all the new panelists. So

[72:02] um I think that you're able to vote if I'm not wrong but I just want to make sure that we we said that uh on the record and clearly hopefully Sherry right he is Okay, so all trained and ready to vote. Thank you for joining us, Jenner. >> Thank you for calling that out, Soladad. >> All right, with that, we will now move into if folks choose close session. Do we have a motion? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor of going into close session. Anyone opposed? All right, we will go into close session for maximum 20 minutes. So, we will

[73:00] 15. So, we will see you back here that Thanks. Christ. All right, we are back everyone. Apologies for the longer than planned executive session close session. We are back. All right. Go ahead. So, Mr. I was uh we were talking about officers receiving coaching in our close session. I was just like generally speaking. What does that mean? What forms can it take? And >> uh it's it could be pretty broad depend on case obviously. So it can be something as simple as just like verbal counseling um kind of uh going over um having them like read review policy or law. Um it could be or something more like doing scenario based trainings um

[74:01] or be kind of a you know present a scenario and have them kind of work their way through it. So it's it can be a range of different things. And how do you keep track of behaviors change following coaching that? >> Uh basically through their annual evals. >> Yeah. Anybody else question? >> All right. Hearing none go into voting. We have 10 cases I believe to vote on. We will start with MI 2025-026 um one allegation rule one compliance with values rules and general ord. >> Jason

[75:00] >> no. Uh, Curtis, >> no. >> Chico, >> no. >> Uh, Alan, >> no. >> Uh, Turner, >> no. >> Solidad. >> No. >> Elen, no. Lizzy, no. >> Kristen, no. All right. Next case. MI2025-027. Um, officer one rule five allegation police authority and public trust. >> Jason, >> no. >> Curtis, >> no. >> Chico, >> no. Allan,

[76:01] >> no. >> Turner, >> no. >> Solidad, >> no. >> Milan, no. Lizzy, no. And Kristen, no. >> Great. It's MI2025-028. Um, there's two officers. Officer one has one rule one violation or allegation clients with values rules general orders. Officer two also rule one clients with values rules and general orders. Jason >> no >> Curtis. >> No >> Chico. >> No >> Allan. >> No >> Turner. >> No >> Solidad. >> No. Milen, >> no. Lizzy, no. Kristen, no.

[77:01] All right. Next case. MI2025-029. Two involved officers. Officer one, role four, respect for others. Officer two, also role four, respect for others. >> Jason, >> no. >> Curtis, >> no. Chico, >> no. >> Allan, >> no. >> Turner, >> no. >> Solidad, >> no. >> Elen, >> no. >> And Lizzy, >> no. And Kristen, >> no. >> Next case, MI2025-030. Uh, crash investigation specialist one. Uh, two allegations. One, rule four, respect for others. One, rule one, compliance with values, rules, and general orders. >> Jason, >> no.

[78:01] >> Curtis, >> no. >> Chico, >> no. >> Alan, >> no. >> No. >> Solidad. >> No. >> Ven, >> no. >> Lizzy, >> no. and Kristen. No. Okay. Next case. MI2025-031. Uh, one officer involved. Rule four, respect for others. >> Jason, >> no. >> Curtis, >> no. >> Chico, >> no. >> Alan, no. Is that a no, Alan? >> No. Yes. Was a no s. >> Got it. Got it. Thank you. >> Turner. >> No. >> Silad. >> Yes.

[79:01] >> Uh Milan. >> Yes. >> Uh Lizzy. >> Yes. >> And Kristen. >> Yes. Next case, MI2025-032 uh four involved officers officer one of rule one compliance with values rules and general orders rule two conformance with laws and a second rule two uh two rule four respect for others Second officer role two conformance with laws. We have three role two allegations in our role four respect for others. Officer four just one for allegation respect for others. >> Jason, >> no.

[80:00] >> Curtis, >> yes. >> Chico, >> yes. Uh Alan, >> so you so this is the one where we discussed that there could be >> there could be >> we're not in close session. Yeah. Careful to discuss any case details that aren't in >> all right. Okay. So that uh there is possibility that there's additional information that will come forth. Is this the one where you I don't know if it vote >> for for now I'll vote no >> I'm thinking maybe it'll pass but I'm I'm a no right now >> I think 033 was the one where you had the note about requesting two I think okay So maybe it's allowed

[81:03] to let them know that Alan I think what you're thinking of was in 033 if that sounds right to everybody. Yeah. No. Okay. So 032 did not have that note. Do are you still a no? >> I'm still a no. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Uh Turner. >> Yes. >> Solidad. >> Yes. >> Miland. >> Yes. >> Lizzy. Yes, Kristen. >> Yes. >> All right. We will review that case. Uh, next up, MI2025-033. Two involved officers. Officer one, role one, compliance with values, rules, and general orders. Officer two, role six, use of force. Jason, >> no.

[82:00] Curtis, >> no. >> Uh, Chico, >> yes. >> And Allan, >> no. >> And Turner, >> yes. >> And Solidad, >> yes. >> And Milan. >> Yes. >> And Lizzy. >> Yes. >> And Kristen. Yes, >> we will also review this case. MI2025-034. We are not voting on that next month. We'll skip that. MI2025-035 officer one two rule one allegations compliance with values rules general orders. Roll four, respect for others. >> Jason, >> no.

[83:02] >> Curtis, >> um, >> no. >> Uh, Chico, >> no. >> Allan, >> no. >> Uh, Turner, >> no. >> Solidad, >> no. Elen, no. Lizzy, no. Kristen, no. >> Great. That concludes our case voting. We have two cases to return to to assign. All right. First up, we have 0325-32. Do we have volunteers to review this case?

[84:03] Like we have Chico, Solidad, Ven, and Curtis here. All right. Next case is MI2025-33. Do we have volunteers for this case? She has no idea what we >> Oh, I can review this one. Mhm. >> I love the idea of there being four people. So, one person who schedule doesn't judge. >> If you're interested in So, you probably need to shadow, right? >> So, yeah, any of these are good shadow >> opportunities. Could I do uh 32

[85:08] That concludes um we have four for 30. I have Melanad and Kristen and Lizzie for 33. >> All right. Any final thoughts, questions? All right, I think that concludes our business and we will adjourn. Or do we have a do we need a motion to adjurnn? Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. All right. All in favor of adjourning. Anyone against? All right. Thank you all. We're adjourned. Have a good night everybody. Bye. Good night everyone. Bye.