Austin Nolen

The Declaration

PO Box 29476
Philadelphia. PA 19125

linulen a 

October 5th, 2017

First Deputy Brian Abernathy
Philadelphia Managing Direcmr's Office
1401 John F. Kennedy Blvd. . 14th Fl.
Philadelphia. PA 19102-1683

Dear Mr. Abernathy.

Philadelphia Executive Order 5.17 directs that. in order to promote police accountability.
the Police Department shall post online data about complaints against police, including

 

nformation determined by the Commissioner or his designee to be appropriate."

In order to assist the City in distributing appropriate data, I offer the following categories of
data which are necessary to enable the public to make meaningful use of this initiative.

These categories are derived from my experience with Philadelphia's process gathered as a
journalist reporting on Internal Alfairs cases:

If

no

Administrative information; the dates complaints were filed, the dates complaints
were resolved, the dates of any Police Board oflnquiry hearings, the dates that PBI
determinations were made, the dates final decisions were made by the
Commissioner and the complaint and FBI numbers attached to each complaint

These data allow the public to meaningfully track the progress and speed of
Complaint Against Police investigations. They also permit the public to be informed
in advance about upcoming PBI hearings A transparent PBI docket is a necessary
ingredient of public access to the which is affirmed in a separate part of
Executive Order 5.17.

Causes for delay; the City aims to process CAPs in a limited time period, but for
various reasons often is not able to do so. The Executive Order mandates that
investigating officers provide a narrative description of the cause of any delay. This
information must be included in the data so that the public can understand the
challenges faced in CAP investigations

III.

 
IV.

 
V.

 

 
VI.

 

Internal​ ​investigation​ ​transfers:​ ​Section​ ​1.b​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Executive​ ​Order​ ​creates​ ​a​ ​process 
to​ ​transfer​ ​CAPs​ ​into​ ​internal​ ​investigations,​ ​which​ ​are​ ​not​ ​subject​ ​to​ ​public​ ​access. 
In​ ​order​ ​to​ ​provide​ ​avoid​ ​abuse​ ​of​ ​this​ ​process,​ ​when​ ​a​ ​CAP​ ​is​ ​transferred​ ​in​ ​this 
manner,​ ​the​ ​data​ ​should​ ​note​ ​that​ ​outcome​ ​and​ ​the​ ​reasons​ ​for​ ​the​ ​transfer. 
Narratives:​ ​the​ ​data​ ​should​ ​include​ ​both​ ​narratives​ ​of​ ​complaints​ ​and​ ​investigation 
narratives.​ ​The​ ​closing​ ​summaries​ ​of​ ​CAP​ ​investigations​ ​include​ ​a​ ​description​ ​of​ ​the 
investigative​ ​steps​ ​taken​ ​by​ ​investigators.​ ​These​ ​steps​ ​should​ ​be​ ​disclosed​ ​to​ ​the 
public​ ​in​ ​the​ ​data​ ​so​ ​that​ ​the​ ​public​ ​can​ ​understand​ ​and​ ​assess​ ​CAP​ ​investigation 
practices​ ​against​ ​best​ ​practices. 
Outcomes:​ ​the​ ​data​ ​should​ ​include​ ​the​ ​specific​ ​findings​ ​per​ ​officer​ ​per​ ​allegation,​ ​as 
some​ ​CAPs​ ​result​ ​in​ ​multiple​ ​overlapping​ ​allegations​ ​against​ ​different​ ​officers.​ ​Each 
officer​ ​should​ ​be​ ​identified​ ​by​ ​name​ ​in​ ​relation​ ​to​ ​all​ ​of​ ​the​ ​separate​ ​allegations 
against​ ​him​ ​or​ ​her​ ​in​ ​a​ ​complaint.1​ ​If​ ​the​ ​City​ ​declines​ ​to​ ​upload​ ​data​ ​with​ ​full 
names​ ​at​ ​this​ ​time,​ ​it​ ​should​ ​create​ ​a​ ​second​ ​dataset​ ​which​ ​contains​ ​the​ ​full​ ​names, 
otherwise​ ​identical​ ​to​ ​the​ ​one​ ​to​ ​be​ ​uploaded​ ​shortly,​ ​so​ ​that​ ​it​ ​does​ ​not​ ​have​ ​to 
duplicate​ ​its​ ​work​ ​in​ ​the​ ​future. 
The​ ​data​ ​should​ ​list,​ ​per​ ​officer​ ​and​ ​per​ ​allegation,​ ​the​ ​findings​ ​of​ ​investigations​ ​(i.e. 
unfounded,​ ​exonerated,​ ​not​ ​sustained,​ ​sustained)​ ​and​ ​the​ ​reasons​ ​for​ ​those​ ​findings. 
The​ ​same​ ​data​ ​should​ ​be​ ​available​ ​for​ ​PBI​ ​hearings​ ​and​ ​for​ ​the​ ​Commissioner’s 
decisions.​ ​This​ ​permits​ ​the​ ​public​ ​to​ ​judge​ ​whether​ ​CAP​ ​findings,​ ​as​ ​well​ ​as​ ​the 
decisions​ ​of​ ​the​ ​PBI​ ​and​ ​the​ ​Commissioner​ ​make​ ​sense​ ​in​ ​light​ ​of​ ​the​ ​evidence.  
Complainant​ ​demographics:​ ​complainants’​ ​years​ ​of​ ​birth​ ​(not​ ​specific​ ​dates,​ ​in​ ​order 
to​ ​preserve​ ​privacy),​ ​race​ ​and​ ​sex.​ ​In​ ​a​ ​racially​ ​diverse​ ​city​ ​such​ ​as​ ​Philadelphia, 
where​ ​racial​ ​bias​ ​is​ ​a​ ​common​ ​allegation​ ​against​ ​the​ ​police,​ ​it​ ​is​ ​necessary​ ​that​ ​the 
public​ ​have​ ​demographic​ ​information​ ​about​ ​complainants.​ ​Much​ ​as​ ​the​ ​public​ ​is 
better​ ​able​ ​to​ ​understand​ ​the​ ​debate​ ​over​ ​stop​ ​and​ ​frisk​ ​in​ ​the​ ​City​ ​because​ ​of 
statistical​ ​reports​ ​filed​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Bailey​ ​litigation,​ ​the​ ​availability​ ​of​ ​these​ ​demographic 
data​ ​about​ ​complainants​ ​will​ ​allow​ ​the​ ​public​ ​to​ ​analyze​ ​the​ ​significance​ ​of​ ​race​ ​and 
other​ ​factors​ ​in​ ​complaints​ ​against​ ​police. 

1
​ ​In​ ​a​ ​recent​ ​filing,​ ​the​ ​City​ ​took​ ​the​ ​position​ ​that​ ​no​ ​part​ ​of​ ​the​ ​collective​ ​bargaining​ ​agreement​ ​with​ ​the​ ​Fraternal 
Order​ ​of​ ​Police​ ​restricted​ ​the​ ​release​ ​of​ ​officer​ ​names​ ​and​ ​represented​ ​that​ ​the​ ​FOP​ ​took​ ​the​ ​same​ ​position.​ ​City​ ​of 
Philadelphia’s​ ​Memorandum​ ​of​ ​Law​ ​in​ ​Opposition​ ​to​ ​Michael​ ​G.​ ​Lutz​ ​Lodge​ ​No.​ ​5​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Fraternal​ ​Order​ ​of​ ​Police’s 
Application​ ​for​ ​Relief​ ​Seeking​ ​a​ ​Preliminary​ ​Injunction,​ ​12-13,​ ​Michael​ ​G.​ ​Lutz​ ​Lodge​ ​No.​ ​5​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Fraternal​ ​Order​ ​of​ ​Police​ ​v. 
City​ ​of​ ​Philadelphia​,​ ​CA​ ​No.​ ​170802516​ ​(Phila.​ ​C.P.​ ​Sept.​ ​8,​ ​2017).​ ​In​ ​the​ ​same​ ​litigation,​ ​Judge​ ​Daniel​ ​J.​ ​Anders​ ​denied​ ​the 
FOP’s​ ​request​ ​for​ ​a​ ​preliminary​ ​injunction,​ ​partially​ ​on​ ​the​ ​basis​ ​that​ ​they​ ​were​ ​unlikely​ ​to​ ​be​ ​able​ ​to​ ​show​ ​that​ ​the​ ​City​ ​must 
bargain​ ​over​ ​the​ ​release​ ​of​ ​names.​ ​ ​Moreover,​ ​to​ ​my​ ​knowledge,​ ​the​ ​FOP​ ​has​ ​never​ ​contested​ ​the​ ​release​ ​of​ ​officer​ ​names 
under​ ​previous​ ​Executive​ ​Orders​ ​dating​ ​back​ ​to​ ​1980​ ​requiring​ ​their​ ​release​ ​as​ ​part​ ​of​ ​CAP​ ​disclosures,​ ​namely​ ​1-80​ ​(Mayor 
Green),​ ​9-93​ ​(Mayor​ ​Rendell)​ ​and​ ​7-11​ ​(Mayor​ ​Nutter).​ ​Therefore,​ ​FOP​ ​has​ ​no​ ​right​ ​to​ ​contest​ ​the​ ​release​ ​of​ ​names​ ​in​ ​CAP 
disclosure.​ ​As​ ​a​ ​result,​ ​the​ ​City​ ​should​ ​continue​ ​its​ ​decades-long​ ​practice​ ​of​ ​releasing​ ​the​ ​names​ ​of​ ​officers​ ​against​ ​whom 
complaints​ ​are​ ​filed. 

 
3 

 VII.

Annual​ ​statistics:​ ​the​ ​Department​ ​should​ ​prepare​ ​and​ ​release​ ​statistical​ ​reports 
each​ ​year​ ​about​ ​these​ ​data​ ​points,​ ​as​ ​well​ ​as​ ​others​ ​that​ ​the​ ​City​ ​may​ ​wish​ ​to 
provide​ ​only​ ​in​ ​an​ ​anonymized​ ​version,​ ​for​ ​public​ ​release. 

 
 
 
Thank​ ​you, 
 
Austin​ ​Nolen 
 

 
3