The group GSO Operation Transparency is demanding the Greensboro City Council release all written and electronic documents -- from elected officials, police officers, city staff, the DA and police association - regarding the investigation of Officer Travis Cole.
The group GSO Operation Transparency is demanding the Greensboro City Council release all written and electronic documents -- from elected officials, police officers, city staff, the DA and police association - regarding the investigation of Officer Travis Cole.
The group GSO Operation Transparency is demanding the Greensboro City Council release all written and electronic documents -- from elected officials, police officers, city staff, the DA and police association - regarding the investigation of Officer Travis Cole.
Included both the field supervisor and watch commander responding to the scene Determined severity based on injury and actions as known at that time as is protocol In this case there was no serious injury to Mr. Yourse No use of weapon such as taser, asp, or firearm Initial description and actions indicated a strike that is approved by the NC Criminal Justice Education and Training Standards commission June 18, 2016, Notification was made via the 24 hour summary as is protocol June 18, 2016, Watch Commander notified the Command Staff in the daily summary June 18, 2016, the investigation remained at the Chain of Command Level
Investigative Process
June 17, 2016, Patrol Supervisor begins
interviews and investigation June 24, 2016, Lead SCAT Instructor reviews video after reading 24-hour summary July 20, 2016, An unidentified woman contacts Professional Standards on behalf of Mr. Yourse. She is advised to have Mr. Yourse contact PSD. July 20, 2016, Mr. Yourse contacts PSD and speaks with an Admin Assistant.
Investigative Process
July 20-21, 2016, Members of Professional
Standards Division review the video and the status of the case to ensure that it is currently being investigated by the Chain of Command. July 20-21, 2016, Once it was determined the Chain of Command investigation was in progress, PSD followed normal protocol and allowed the investigation to continue.
Investigative Process
July 21, 2016, Professional Standards Sergeant leaves a
detailed message notifying Mr. Yourse his complaint is being investigated by the Chain of Command, which is a process that, by protocol, can take up to 45 days.
(Yourse never returned any call to PSD.)
July 29, 2016, Patrol Supervisor completes first-line
investigation. (42 days.) Forwards to Patrol Sergeant for review. July 29, 2016, Patrol Sergeant forwards the investigation to Patrol Lieutenant for review. August 4, 2016, Patrol Lieutenant forwards the investigation to Patrol Captain for final determination of compliance with Departmental policy. August 8, 2016, Patrol Captain returned the investigation to Patrol Lieutenant for clarification on Coles statement.
Investigative Process
August 9, 2016, Patrol Captain receives the
completed investigation and meets with Patrol Bureau Deputy Chief and PSD to review the video. Patrol Captain does not deem the force reasonable and justified based on the facts of the investigation. August 9, 2016, Chief Scott is briefed by Deputy Chief via Telephone on the investigation and places Cole on administrative duty. August 10, 2016, GPD Senior Command Staff reviews video and investigation together with the reports. August 10, 2016, Chief Scott orders PSD to take over the internal investigation, and CID to begin a criminal investigation.
Investigative Process
August 10, 2016, District Attorneys Office is provided, by
GPD, all of the video of the incident involving Mr. Yourse and all of the written documentation generated to date. August 10, 2016, District Attorneys Office is also informed of the pending charges against Mr. Yourse stemming from the June 17, 2016 incident. GPD requested a continuance on the charges until its investigation is complete. August 15, 2016, CID attempts to locate Mr. Yourse. In the process, CID interviews Mr. Yourses mother. August 15, 2016, Mr. Yourse verbally agrees to meet with CID on August 16, 2016. August 16, 2016, Mr. Yourse fails to appear for his scheduled interview and does not respond to telephone calls.
Investigative Process
August 16, 2016, an Attorney informs CID of his
representation of Mr. Cole. August 18, 2016, PSD attempts to contact Mr. Yourse again. Phone message was left. August 18, 2016, CID is notified by Attorney that Officer Cole was declining to be interviewed. August 18, 2016, PSD schedules interview with Officer Cole for August 19, 2016. August 19, 2016, Officer Cole resigns prior to meeting with PSD. This act ended any right of GPD to require Officer Cole to cooperate in the investigation.
Investigative Process
August 22, 2016, District Attorneys Office determines
criminal charges against former Officer Cole would not be appropriate. CID closes its investigation. August 29, 2016, Resource Management Division sends the Affidavit of Separation of former Officer Cole to the Criminal Justice Education and Training Standards Commission advising former Officer Cole had resigned while under investigation. August 30, 2016, Patrol Bureau conducts the Bureau Level Hearing and sustains four violations against former Officer Cole. As of this date all GPD employee actions related to this incident have been fully investigated and where appropriate performance corrective actions have been taken.
GPD Going Forward
Evaluate overall length of internal investigative
process
Prior to current system the average time was 90-100
days In 2011 the requirement was lowered to 60 days In 2013 the requirement was changed to 45 days This average has been trending down each year since 2011 Current average is 34 days for all investigations
Supervisory Quick Review of Video
Additional layer of review
Administrative Sergeant or Lieutenant review (May require additional resources) Without compromising integrity of the investigation Creates an additional avenue for communication