Three years after the passage of Issue 24 and the creation of a powerful Cleveland Community Police Commission, the commission has approved policies that will overhaul the way officer discipline is administered and pave the way for the department to start using drones.
The two new policies are likely the final actions of the commission as it is currently constituted. Mayor Justin Bibb has announced the majority of members will be replaced starting next year.
The policy on officer discipline removes some of the discretion that the chief and public safety director had over suspending or firing officers.
鈥淭he officers were involved in overhauling this because they have come to us for years and said the discipline system is not fair and consistent,鈥� said Jason Goodrick, the CPC鈥檚 administrative manager. 鈥淚t鈥檚 arbitrary. They get targeted. The outcome is different for two different officers who are being charged with the same thing. This corrects all of that.鈥�
The new discipline policy adds another level to guide severity of discipline, Group 4, for offenses like serious criminal convictions, excessive force, false reports or dishonesty. A matrix that guides the severity of discipline for each level requires termination for those found to have committed Group 4 offenses.
An officer can also now be fired for 鈥渇ailure to fully cooperate with Cleveland Community Police Commission in performing its duties.鈥�
The new policy also clarifies the matrix by setting exact lengths of suspension based on group level and the number of mitigating or aggravating circumstances. It also clarifies when multiple instances of misconduct lead to more severe discipline.
The CPC started working on the new discipline system under its previous iteration, before Issue 24 was passed. The commission consulted with former officers, members of the public and human resources experts, said Goodrick.
Retired Cleveland Police Sgt. Richard Jackson was one of the former officers who worked on the policy. He said it spells out very clearly the punishment for each type of misconduct.
鈥淭his policy was built so that it says in very simple terms, 鈥業f you have this and that, you get this. Period,鈥欌�� said Jackson. 鈥淭here鈥檚 no subjectiveness to it.鈥�
The policy lays out a new process for discipline in which a new Fairness and Consistency Committee will review all disciplinary decisions to assure they are consistent with the new policy, and make recommendations to the chief of police.
The committee will comprise officers appointed by the chief from three Cleveland Police associations 鈥� the , the and the Members of the Community Police Commission, the Civilian Police Review Board, and the city's human resources department also can join, as can the police inspector general.
鈥淭hat Fairness and Consistency Committee is a big change from the draft from the division (of police). There was a lot of conversation around that,鈥� Commissioner Piet van Lier said. 鈥淭he division pushed back, we felt it was important to keep that part in there.鈥�
At the same November meeting, the commission passed new rules on police drone usage.
Cleveland City Council approved the purchase of two drones for use by police in 2022. At the time, much of the discussion focused on using drones to help with vehicle pursuits, though that is not included in the new policy.
Federal Aviation Administration rules require that drone operators maintain visual contact with drones, unless they鈥檝e received a special, highly restricted license. The new policy only deals with what鈥檚 known as 鈥渧isual line of sight鈥� uses.
The policies allow for drone usage to search for missing persons, to investigate mass shootings or hostage situations, for rescue operations and prior to serving high-risk warrants.
The commission鈥檚 surveillance technology working group wrote the policy and drew heavily from Oakland, California鈥檚 drone policy.
鈥淥akland has strong oversight on their surveillance technology,鈥� said van Lier, chair of the commission鈥檚 policy committee. 鈥淎nd they drew a lot from that. We had conversations with the division and made some changes, but largely left it intact.鈥�
Commissioners removed a provision before passing the policy that would have allowed police to use drones to monitor protests.
Several members of the public and Commissioner Teri Wang, who was the sole 鈥渘o鈥� vote, spoke out against that particular provision before it was removed.
Drone monitoring of crowds is specifically prohibited in the policy. However, another section of the policy allows drones for 鈥渁dditional legitimate law enforcement uses that do not violate constitutional protections as guaranteed in the 4th Amendment鈥� if approved by the chief of police or the the chief's designee.
Police are prohibited from equipping drones with technology that enables facial recognition or , which uses technology to identify people by the way they walk. The policy also requires police to publicly post the date, time and flight path of any drone deployment within 48 hours of any flights.
Both the discipline and drone policies were forwarded to the U.S. Department of Justice and police consent decree monitor for review to ensure both comply with the consent decree the city entered into with the justice department in 2015.
