Complaint
Investigation
Review
2025
Table of Contents
Letter from the Director................................................................. Pg 2 Executive Summary........................................................................ Pg 3 About the OPO................................................................................ Pg 4 Internal Affairs Process.................................................................. Pg 5 Complaint Process.......................................................................... Pg 6 Measuring Points............................................................................ Pg 7 Timeliness........................................................................................ Pg 8 Thoroughness................................................................................. Pg 9 Allegations....................................................................................... Pg 10 Dispositions...................................................................................... Pg 11 Body Worn Camera......................................................................... Pg 12 Recommendations........................................................................... Pg 13 1 Letter from the Director
Dear Long Beach Community Members,
On behalf of the Office of Police Oversight (OPO), I am proud to present this Complaint Investigation Review report. Our mission is rooted in a simple but important principle: public trust in policing depends on accountability, transparency, and fairness. This report reflects OPO’s independent review of 100 complaint investigations completed by the Long Beach Police Department’s (LBPD) Internal Affairs (IA).
We know that each complaint represents a voice in our community, and each investigation is an opportunity to strengthen relationships. In this report, you will find our evaluation of cases’ timeliness, thoroughness, whether all allegations were addressed, and whether evidence— like Body Worn Camera (BWC) footage could have been used to resolve the complaint sooner. We also highlight key findings, identify areas for improvement, and provide recommendations aimed at ensuring investigations meet the highest standards of integrity and professionalism.
Oversight is not a matter of finding fault; it encompasses building systems that work better for the community and for officers. By sharing this report, we hope to continue building public confidence, strengthening accountability, and supporting police practices that are fair, impartial, and build trust through transparency.
I would also be remised if I did not thank Chief Hebeish, LBPD Command staff, the hard working investigators of IA, as well as the LBPD Police Officer’s Association for their continued cooperation and collaboration with the OPO.
Thank you for taking the time to read this report and for your role in shaping a better Long Beach.
Sincerely,
Francine Kerridge
Director, Office of Police Oversight
2 Executive Summary
Law Enforcement Officers are given a high level of authority which can include the ability to take away the life and liberty of our community members. Laws require officers to only exercise that authority when circumstances warrant it and the LBPD creates policies that support those laws.
When a member of the community believes an officer has violated the law and/or Department policy, one recourse is filing a complaint. That starts the process of an administrative investigation. Not only does the complaint process give the LBPD insight into an individual officer's behavior, it also can provide insight into training, communication, and community interactions. Throughout history and across the nation, there have been incidents that have caused members of the community to question the integrity of the law enforcement profession, as well as the police department’s ability to police its own. Civilian Oversight agencies like the OPO have access to functions of the police department, such as its administrative investigation process, that may not be accessible to the general public.
A primary goal of the OPO is to ensure the community’s interests and perspectives are properly considered in the development of LBPD’s policies, trainings and practices. The OPO also considers the LBPD police officers as an important stakeholder. We believe when properly trained and supported in a positive work environment, officers provide safer engagement to the community they serve and have a more satisfying experience of serving the community.
The OPO reviewed 100 closed administrative investigations performed by the LBPD Internal Affairs. These 100 cases encompassed 799 alleged policy violations, to include 51 alleging excessive use of force (UOF-26 investigations). Each investigation could have several allegations and multiple officers accused of violating policies.
The OPO made 12 recommendations(pg 13)to the LBPD Chief of Police, for review and consideration. Adopted recommendations will be updated to the OPO’swebpage.
In summary, this report will show, of the 100 closed complaint investigations:
92%were thorough - UOF88%thorough
The average time it took to close an investigation was295.7 days The OPO agreed with89%of the findings
The reviews determined an initial investigation could have resolved the case55%of the time
3 About the OPO
The OPO is committed to ensuring transparency, accountability, and building public trust in the handling of complaints investigated by the LBPD. This Complaint Investigation Review report summarizes 100 cases reviewed by the OPO, outlining our assessment of investigative findings and to recommend improvements to the LBPD complaint investigation process.
Our review involved an independent and thorough evaluation of each case to determine whether investigations were complete, objective, and consistent with Department policies.
This report highlights key observations, identifies areas of strength and concern, and provides recommendations aimed at improving investigative quality, enhancing community trust, and supporting fair and impartial policing.
Under the City Charter, the Police Oversight Director—has the authority to audit completed investigations, review the intake of complaints, and, when warranted, independently investigate critical incidents such as officer-involved shootings, in-custody deaths, and complaints against the Chief or Command Staff, at the request of the City Manager. The Director also reviews completed investigations of major UOF incidents that result in death or great bodily injury, and she responds to critical incident scenes and observes the investigative process. She also analyzes policing trends, and makes recommendations to improve police policies, procedures, and training. This authority ensures the OPO’s work is both independent and aligned with the Charter, while fully protecting the privacy and confidentiality of police personnel and records, as required by law. 4 Internal Affairs
Complaint Process
*The timeframes above are averages of the 100 cases reviewed by OPO 5 Complaint Process
The LBPD place their complaints in one of two categories: Citizen or Administrative.
Citizen complaints arise when members of the public report concerns associated with incidents involving a LBPD officer. These complaints can be submitted through variou s channels, includingemail, phone, mail, or in person.
Administrative complaints are filed by an LBPD employee, against a fellow employee. Th e complainant can be an accuser, witness, or supervisor of the subject employee. Thes e complaints follow the samepath as civilian complaints,minus the “Intake” step. 5 Complaint Received:
A preliminary assessment is made to determine if the officer’s alleged action falls outside of LBPD policy. The IA investigator prepares the investigation by gathering evidence, performs interviews, and organizes the investigation to be presented to the Executive Team at the “Intake” stage.
Intake Presentation:
During “Intake” the Executive Team (minus the Chief of Police) is given a summary presentation of the investigation by the lieutenant of IA. If it is determined the investigation does not show policies were violated, the case is given a disposition -Not Sustained, Unfounded, Exonerated, Other (see disposition definitions on pg. 11). Cases that can not be resolved at “Intake” are returned to IA for a formal investigation to be presented at the “Final” stage.
Final Presentation:
Administrative investigations go directly to “Final” as well as Citizen complaints that clearly show policy violations that could yield a formal disciplinary finding. Based on the facts presented, a final disposition is given by the Chief of Police, with input from the Executive Team. If there is a Sustained finding, discipline given could be a documented or verbal counseling, a letter of reprimand, a disciplinary transfer, suspension (days off with no pay) or termination.
6 Measuring
Points
The OPO Director has been reviewing and
evaluating police administrative investigations for
close to 20 years. Through her prior experience, as
well as speaking with other agencies of similar
size, the OPO created “points in time” to assist the
evaluation of each investigation to assess if they
were timely or excessively delayed, thorough,
addressed all concerns present, could have been
resolved with a preliminary investigation, and if the
OPO was in agreement with the findings of each
closed investigation.
The case was handled without
unnecessary delay (timeliness).1
All investigative steps were completed
with care and objectivity
(thoroughness).
2 All allegations raised by the
complainant or discovered during the
investigation were fully addressed and
properly classified (dispositions).
3 Whether review of BWC footage or a
preliminary investigation could have
resolved the case without the need to
go through the entire investigation
process.
4 The system created by the OPO provides a
consistent framework for evaluating complaint
investigations. By applying them across cases,
the OPO can identify strengths and areas
needing improvement within the LBPD
administrative investigation process.
7 Timeliness
Timeliness of an investigation is a critical component to maintain the effectiveness of the process and ensure stakeholder confidence. Delays in opening, conducting, or closing an investigation can undermine community confidence, accountability, and officer morale. The OPO reviewed how quickly investigations moved through the process by benchmarking specific points in time of the investigation. Examples include: opening of the complaint to the “Intake” stage, complaint open to resolution, efforts to contact complainants, and time lapse to begin investigative steps. On average, the OPO noted that IA investigators could complete all investigative steps within 2-4 months, if there were no delays in the investigation. Due to a backlog of cases to be presented at the “Intake” stage, cases are often set aside to allow presentations on ones due to expire soon. Reasonable delays and case complexities are considered, but overall timeliness remains essential to ensuring fairness for both community members and accused officers. The mean time LBPD IA took to complete the investigations reviewed was295.7 days.
Per the Peace Officers Bill of Rights (POBR) (California Penal Code 832.5), a public agency cannot take punitive action against a Peace Officer unless the investigation into the alleged act of misconduct is completed and the officer is notified of the proposed discipline within one year of the agencies discovery of misconduct.*
Not Timely
83 Timely
17 *Does not include appropriate tollingduringthatperiod. 8 Thoroughness
A thorough investigation is the foundation of accountability. The OPO assessed whether each case included all necessary investigative steps, whether both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence was considered, and whether all relevant witnesses and evidence (including BWC, reports, and statements) were reviewed.
The goal was to ensure investigations were objective and complete to allow an informed decision to be made by Department leadership.
Thoroughness is critical in
administrative investigations,
given that an external group,
not intimately familiar with
the investigation is making a
determination of the findings.
When investigators pursue all
relevant evidence, the
presentation given can allow
decisions to be made
without bias, complete, and
grounded in facts.
The OPO found92%of the LBPD administrative
investigations to be thorough. The OPO could not
determine whether the remaining 8% were thorough
because the work was not done or not provided to
the OPO.
Of the26UOF investigations reviewed, the OPO
found88%to be thorough.
9 Allegations
CS Article VII 84 (1)
CS Article VII 84 (4)
CS Article VII 84 (6)
LBPD Manual Section 3.1
LBPD Manual Section 3.2
LBPD Manual Section 3.3
LBPD Manual Section 3.4
LBPD Manual Section 3.6
LBPD Manual Section 3.7
LBPD Manual Section 7.1.3
LBPD Manual Section 7.8
LBPD Manual Section 10.3
Common Allegations used byLBPD
Each administrative investigation could include multiple allegations against multiple officers.
At the end of each investigation, each allegation is given a finding. One allegation may have multiple possible violations of policy. Each allegation listed is given a disposition or finding at the conclusion of the investigation.
Allegations describe the specific behavior of possible misconduct taken by an officer, and are the focus of an investigation. The OPO evaluated whether all allegations were fully investigated, resolved, and whether the final dispositions are supported by the evidence gathered during the investigation.
Breaking down allegations by outcome (e.g., Sustained, Not Sustained, Exonerated, Unfounded, or Other) allows the OPO to track trends, identify problem areas, and highlight strengths in complaint handling. The LBPD currently uses broad policy violations in place of specific allegations for their administrative investigations. Although the OPO monitors and tracks this information, providing this data publicly would not show true trends of complaints.
This concern was mentioned in the OPO’s 2024 Annual Report as a recommendation for improvement.
Of the100investigations reviewed, there were799policy violations, to include26 investigations with51allegations of excessive UOF.
Below is a list of common policy violations seen in LBPD administrative investigations.
Violation of Any Rule
Neglect of duty – inexcusable
Dishonesty
Professional Conduct & Responsibilities
General Responsibilities
Truthfulness
Conduct Towards Public
Personal Conduct
Standard of Conduct
Arrests – Force
Body Worn Camera
Use of Force – General
10 Dispositions
Unfounded: The investigation clearly
established that the allegation is not true, per
CPC § 13012(a)(5)(B)(iv).
Exonerated: The investigation clearly
established that the actions of the personnel
that formed the basis of the complaint are
not a violation of law or agency policy, per
CPC § 13012(a)(5)(B)(i1).
Not-Sustained: The investigation failed to
disclose sufficient evidence to clearly prove
or disprove the allegation in the complaint,
per CPC § 13012(a)(5)(B)(iii). §
Sustained: The investigation disclosed
sufficient evidence to prove the truth of the
allegation in the complaint by preponderance
of the evidence, per CPC 13012(a)(5)(B)(i).
Other: The investigation reveals that the
alleged act was not misconduct, service;
employee was a witness only, or other
statement by the Chief of Police.
At the conclusion of each investigation, a disposition is given, which is the outcome of the investigation. The OPO reviewed dispositions to confirm they aligned with the evidence of the investigation. Dispositions are defined below. Of the799alleged policy violations included in the100investigations reviewed, the OPO agreed with 89%of the final dispositions given. The OPO was not in total disagreement of the remaining11%, but felt the department did not address every concern presented in the cases.
Sustained - 415
51.9%
Unfounded - 207
25.9%
Other - 94
11.8%
Not Sustained - 74
9.3%
Exonerated - 9
1.1%
Dispositions
11 Body Worn Camera
Police BWC’s are an excellent resource and should be utilized for resolving complaints and addressing allegations of misconduct quickly. By providing an objective, real-time record of interactions between officers and the public, BWC footage ensures incidents can be reviewed with accuracy and transparency. Immediate access to video evidence could allow complaints to be resolved quickly, reducing the need for lengthy investigations and minimizing the strain on both community members and Department resources.
The presence of BWCs enhances accountability but also protects officers and the public alike.
For officers, the footage can disprove false or exaggerated claims, while for community members, it allows the entire incident to be documented when there are no independent witnesses available. The knowledge that interactions are being recorded has also been shown to promote more professional conduct, de-escalate potentially tense encounters, and reinforce public trust in the complaint review process.
Most departments use an informal complaint process to investigate frivolous, service concerns, or alleged misconduct that would not result in formal discipline. By doing so, this allows investigators to focus their attention on complaints alleging more serious misconduct.
A streamlined process within Internal Affairs will give the community resolutions for investigations more expeditiously.
Of the100investigations reviewed, the OPO found that55%of the investigations could have been resolved through a preliminary investigation or a review of BWC footage. 12 The OPO’s review of the LBPD’s closed complaint investigations is done in part to provide recommendations for improvement, where warranted. It is not our desire to point out every concern, but to identify patterns and provide insight from the community’s perspective, with the hopes of revealing opportunities for potential improvement of practices with the goal of enhancing community trust in the Department.
The OPO recognizes there is no perfect investigation, nor is there an expectation everyone will have a positive experience when dealing with the police. There is an expectation that community members will be treated fairly and in a professional manner, on every occasion.
The LBPD sets standards and policy requirements that align with that direction and expectation of professionalism for its officers. As such, the recommendations mentioned in this report reflect the existing expectations set by the Department. The OPO recommendations are aimed at increasing the efficiency of the complaint process in order to bring continuous improvement, encourage best practices, and strengthen trust between the community and the LBPD.
These recommendations are provided based on one or more observations of an officer(s) interaction during an incident that resulted in a complaint. Some complaints were initiated by the community member or a concerned observer, while others were proactively initiated by a member of the LBPD. Our review of these investigations took a uniform approach, regardless of how the complaint was initiated.
The recommendations listed are based on instances where the identified behavior appears to be associated with potential patterns seen in other complaint investigations. Considering that not all community concerns may rise to the level of a formal complaint, it is imperative that the OPO mention these potential patterns.
While the LBPD has no obligation to implement, nor respond to these recommendations, we do hope they will receive, review, respond and implement where there is shared agreement on opportunities for improvement. The OPO appreciates the ongoing level of collaboration the LBPD executive management has shown thus far and looks forward to the continued strengthening of this professional relationship.
Recommendations
13 Recommendation 1: Domestic Violence / Assault Investigations The OPO has noted instances during its case reviews where, in response to complex assault or domestic violence calls, officers were faced with conflicting accounts from involved parties. In some of these cases, it appeared that additional investigative steps could have helped clarify the circumstances and better determine culpability before making an arrest decision. Encouraging officers to take the time to assess available evidence and statements thoroughly in these situations could help ensure that the most accurate determinations are made in the field and reinforce community trust in the investigative process.
Recommendation 2: Efficient Use of Officers at Calls
During the review of BWC footage associated with complaint investigations, the OPO observed concerning patterns of multiple officers being passive observers, as opposed to active participants, at the location of an incident. While there may be a need to have multiple officers at the scene in the beginning of a call for safety reasons, the OPO noted a number of cases where additional officers remained at incident scenes without actively participating on the call or otherwise appearing to serve a useful purpose.
When placing a call to request a police response, the community may be warned there are limited resources to address their problem in a reasonable amount of time, and that the wait could be lengthy. Observing multiple officers standing around may give the community the perception of inefficiency. While ensuring safety and support at a scene is critical, having more officers present than necessary can limit the Department’s ability to respond quickly to other community needs.
The OPO recommends the LBPD set clear guidance on how long officers should remain on a call after safety is under control and the officer has no responsibilities as a part of the investigation. Supervisors should encourage officers to clear from incidents when their presence is no longer required so that other calls for service can be handled. This will help ensure that resources are used efficiently, officers are available when and where they are most needed, and the community receives timely service. 14 Recommendation 3: Jail Inmate Protocol
The OPO recommends the LBPD requires inmates held in their detention facility to have a responsibility within the space where they are held. This could include making their bed in the morning, a verbal acknowledgement at every count during waking hours (daylight to lights out), etc. This would allow jail staff to better assess the health of inmates that may appear to be sleeping but may actually be in medical distress.
Recommendation 4: Jail Critical Incident Evidence Collection The OPO recommends the LBPD immediately collect and store all video footage, BWC footage (and all other potential evidence that may be lost with the passing of time) at the outset of an investigation of a critical incident occurring in the jail.
Recommendation 5: Proper Tolling of Cases
The OPO recommends the LBPD utilize experienced counsel that is well-versed in the nuances of the Peace Officer Bill of Rights (POBR) prior to placing a complaint investigation into suspense (tolling). The OPO has noticed tolling practices that do not appear to comply with the law.
Proper tolling practices prevent officers’ investigation timelines from extending beyond what is necessary and ensure the right to timely adjudication. Due to the workload of the Internal Affairs investigators, it appears cases are placed in suspense at every given opportunity, not because the officer needing to be interviewed was unavailable or for some other compelling reason. There have been instances where cases have been retroactively tolled, where the investigator learned that the accused officer was previously out from work and that number of days were added to the investigative timeline. Tolling on this basis should only be employed when the employee involved is incapacitated or otherwise unavailable for an interview. If no attempts were made to interview the employee, additional time should not be added to the investigation after the discovery of time off by the employee. 15 Recommendation 6: Improper Citing / Use of Case Laws by Officers During the OPO’s review, we noted several occasions where officers would justify actions towards community members based on the officer’s interpretation of certain case laws. Two examples are the use of a “Rutherford Warning” and Pennsylvania v. Mimms.
The “Rutherford warning” stems from case law, specifically Deorle v. Rutherford, which established that, whenever feasible, officers should give a clear verbal warning before using significant force. The intent of this legal standard is to provide individuals with an opportunity to comply before force becomes necessary. While the Department did address some of these concerns during their investigations, the OPO noted there were additional issues in the investigation beyond the words used by the officer being inappropriate.
In the other complaint, an officer required the complainant to exit their car, citing Pennsylvania v. Mimms. While Mimms considers requiring drivers to exit their car to be a minor intrusion, the request should be based on safety concerns by the officer. In the complaint the officer said they were having the driver exit the car because they were being “weird”. The OPO did not observe any weird behavior from the driver other than them asking the officer the reason for the stop and the investigation did not establish what, if any, safety concern might have justified the officer’s action.
When cited case law is applied too broadly or incorrectly, it can result in actions that may be unduly intrusive and/or potentially illegal. The OPO recommends the Department survey officers to determine what case laws are being routinely relied upon to support decision- making and in what contexts and that it ensures officers are provided with sufficient guidance and training on the proper application of such legal standards.
Recommendation 7: Internal Affairs Manual
The OPO recommends the LBPD create an Internal Affairs manual to guide investigative practices, set standards for investigation steps and requirements, as well as to serve as a resource for newly assigned staff. The creation of an Internal Affairs manual would provide consistent, fair, and transparent investigation requirements. The manual also lets the public and officer know what to expect during an administrative investigation. 16 Recommendation 8: Notification of Audio Recorded Interviews The OPO recommends the LBPD Internal Affairs investigators inform complainants that their conversation with the investigator is audio recorded at the start of the interview. Although the law does not require consent to record investigative interviews, as there is no expectation of privacy, notification would only add a layer of transparency and community awareness.
Recommendation 9: Avoid Adding Blanket Policy Violations for Non-Involved Officers The OPO recommends that policy violations tentatively identified during a complaint investigation only be applied to officers whose conduct was relevant to the complaint.
Assigning blanket violations to non-involved officers can create confusion about accountability, reduce clarity in investigative findings, and potentially diminish the fairness of outcomes. By ensuring that violations are applied with precision and tied directly to individual actions, the Department can maintain both fairness for officers and credibility in the eyes of the community. This approach strengthens accountability while also upholding the principle that responsibility should be clearly and appropriately assigned. Often, a preliminary review of BWC footage can resolve questions regarding involvement. The POBR allows additional officers as well as allegations to be added at a later date, if necessary, and the investigation completion date is based on the date of discovery.
Recommendation 10: Defining Dispositions in Closing Letters The OPO recommends the LBPD adds the definition of the disposition to the closing letters it provides to the complainants. Terms such as “sustained,” “unfounded,” or “exonerated” may not be familiar to community members, and without definitions, complainants could be uncertain of the outcome of their case. By providing straightforward explanations of each disposition, the Department can make closing letters more meaningful, ensuring that outcomes are understood.
17 Recommendation 11: Complainant Contact and Opening Letters The OPO recommends IA to make it a standing practice to contact all complainants by phone to acknowledge the receipt of their complaint. Early communication helps ensure that complainants feel acknowledged and provides an opportunity to clarify details, confirm accuracy, and address any initial questions about the process. A proactive call also demonstrates the LBPD’s commitment to accountability and prioritizing community concerns.
In addition, in most cases IA sends an opening letter to acknowledge the receipt of new complaints; however, they do not send this letter when the complaint is taken directly by an investigator during an IA callout. An opening letter serves as an official acknowledgment that the complaint has been recorded, outlines the general steps of the investigative process, and provides complainants with important contact information for follow-up. Establishing this practice for all complaints would not only ensure procedural thoroughness but also strengthen public confidence that each complaint is taken seriously and handled with professionalism from the outset.
Recommendation 12: Internal Affairs Obtaining Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Releases for Use of Force Complaints For complaints alleging use of force, the OPO recommends a HIPAA release is requested at the outset of the complaint intake. Access to relevant medical information is often critical to fully understanding the nature and extent of any injuries, as well as the overall impact of the incident. Obtaining this information early allows for more complete investigations, ensures accuracy in findings, and demonstrates the Department’s commitment to conducting fair and thorough reviews of force-related complaints.
18 562-570-6891
[email protected]
longbeach.gov/policeoversight