Just as people of the public that officers serve, they must enforce the law without committing crimes or performing misactions. Every department has written protocols defining how an officer must act in circumstances created by evidence that became available to them while on duty. To identify missteps, compare officer actions to department protocols and other documents available online: the code of ethics, standards of conduct, legal requirements in state statutes, the bill of rights and constitutions they’ve sworn to uphold in an oath of office.
Officers are required to remain within bounds of department protocols, laws and ethics while performing as a law enforcer. If an officer committed misaction, submit a complaint to superiors within the department via a grievance complaint. To legitimize a complaint of misconduct submitted within a department, first collect validating evidence. Also identify and outline any violated laws, ethics or position guidelines in the complaint.
Federal law holds all people granted lawful authority accountable for dismissing people’s rights without first collecting evidence that validates such dismissal.
Grievance System Described/Internal Accountability
Wisconsin departments incorporate a grievance system enabling citizens to confront law enforcers for wrongdoing. Contestable actions of officers include acting unreasonably, deliberate misuse of power, violating specific statutes or constitutional rights, abuse of discretion, lack of evidence, being overbearing and many others.
To submit a grievance complaint within a department contact department staff for information or search the department website for forms. Complaints should be submitted quickly after an event or prior to an upcoming initial court hearing. Keep in mind the function of complaints and court hearings serve different purposes and complaints do not dismiss hearings.
Department protocol documents, such as “policy and procedures” or “general orders and directives”, will contain a grievance system for citizens to file complaints of officer misconduct. Procedures for on-duty officers are also within protocols for comparing officer actions. Such complaints are reviewed by department superiors or a board within a city.
Wis. Stat. § 66.0509 Civil service system; veterans preference
Requires local governmental units without existing civil service systems to establish a grievance system, including provisions for addressing employee terminations, discipline, and workplace safety.
Wis. Stat. § 62.13 Police and fire departments
Some municipalities utilize this statute to establish police discipline committees to review matters that could lead to officer suspension, reduction in rank, or removal. (board of police and fire commissioners)
File an informal or formal complaint at the department. To strengthen a complaint make clear and direct statements supported by evidence you collected that reveals what you experienced compared to officer responsibilities shared by department protocols and legislation. Request the incident report and body-cam footage from the officers’ department to refer to in the complaint and/or to present in a court of law.
If needed escalate the matter upward through department superiors, the mayor, and city council members who influence departments through discipline, hiring and replacement. Local review boards, civilian oversight boards, local or county judiciary and boards such as a Police & Fire Commission or Internal Affairs are able to address officer actions as well. Some government positions, boards and councils can exert pressure on a police department, especially if they receive enough constituent complaints.
Informal Complaint
Write a complaint that refers to collected evidence. Seek help at the department or an outside source. Often a non-notarized, complaint regarding minor misconduct, policy dissatisfaction, or service issues that is resolved quickly by a supervisor without a full internal affairs investigation. Search online for samples.
Formal Complaint
A structured, written allegation submitted by a citizen regarding officer misconduct, policy violations, or improper behavior, initiating an internal investigation.
Refusals to Correct Misconduct
Be prepared to approach multiple positions in government to determine if someone will handle the issue you’re dealing with. If none are helpful, bring the issue into a court of law where your questioning the officer will be recorded. The hearing transcript can be requested from the court to be presented to a party outside the matter, such as a city counsel, mayor, the media, or others. Electing future local candidates that will properly address the issue may also become necessary for success. Bringing the issue to outside authorities can also remedy what will not be addressed internally.
Administrative Procedure and Review
If an initial court hearing disregards contents of evidence (gives a response contrary to evidence) The Administrative Procedure and Review process in Chapter 227 gives citizens an ability to have actions of a judge, public servants, reviewed by a judge to determine if actions were within boundaries established by constitutions, laws, ethics, and others.
State Certification & Decertification
Refer to Wis. Stat. § 165.85(3)(cm) Law enforcement standards board, which lists requirements and consequences imposed on officers by the State of Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Legislature passed a law requiring law enforcement agencies to maintain these employment files and mandated that officers moving to new departments must allow the new department to review the previous department’s employment file. However, this law does not compel the new agency to take action based on the information or even require them to review it.
Concerns Exist about the Inconsistent Tracking of Police Officer Reliability
There are documented issues with the “Brady list” system in Wisconsin, which is meant to track officers with histories of dishonesty or other conduct that could impact their credibility in court. Prosecutors and defense attorneys are hence challenged to identify and address potentially unreliable testimony from officers.