For the first time, Cleveland’s Community Police Commission will use its power to hold a hearing to review a police discipline decision.
In what’s being called an “evidentiary hearing,” the commission on Monday will review discipline decisions against a Cleveland police officer and consider whether the officer received the appropriate punishment.
The hearing involves a Cleveland police officer who was suspended for six days after an investigation by the division’s Internal Affairs Unit found he had misled officers in Medina County who were investigating menacing and stalking reports filed by his wife at the time in 2023.
The hearing is scheduled to happen from 6 to 8:30 p.m. at the commission’s office on the fourth floor of 3631 Perkins Ave.
When Cleveland voters approved Issue 24 in 2021, it gave the citizen commission final say over the discipline of police officers. But it had yet to exercise that authority.
Last year, the commission drafted procedures to review discipline cases but failed to finalize them due to “chaos” within the commission and delays in replacing commissioners whose terms had expired, co-chair John Adams told Signal Cleveland.
Revised procedures were finalized this summer and adopted in August.
The CPC does not investigate resident complaints about officer behavior. That isthe role of the Office of Professional Standards. The Office of Professional Standards (known as OPS) reports to the Civilian Police Review Board (CPRB), which decides punishments for misconduct.
Citizens or police officers who are unsatisfied with a discipline decision can ask the commission to review it. The commission also gets copies of officer discipline letters and can take up a case on its own. Commissioners can vote to increase penalties or to discipline officers if the CPRB or city safety officials did not.
The commission doesn’t have to act when citizens appeal discipline decisions. Previously, commissioners voted not to take up a case, involving a citizen’s report related to the execution of a search warrant. The accountability committee reviewed the evidence and agreed with CPRB’s decision not to discipline the detectives involved.
How will the Community Police Commission hearings work?
CPC’s evidentiary hearings will, in some ways, resemble a trial. But there are important differences. For example, there is no prosecutor, and in cases that the commission takes up on its own, without a citizen request, there won’t be a complainant.
Commissioner Shandra Moriera-Benito explained the hearing process at a recent meeting:
The commission will hear a summary of the case it will consider and then opening statements from complainants and officers or their representatives. Each party can present evidence, including witnesses. Witnesses can be questioned by the other party and the commissioners. The parties then can make closing statements for the commission to consider.
After hearing evidence, the commissioners will deliberate, usually in private, Commissioner Tera Coleman said. Discussion of discipline of a public employee is one of the exceptions to the Ohio law requiring open meetings.
The commissioners will vote on their final decision in public.
“What we will be voting on each time will change based on the case,” Moriera-Benito said. The commission can increase discipline; impose a punishment if none was handed down; or reduce a punishment if the commissioners determine that it was in retaliation for whistle-blowing.
The accountability committee will prepare a “voting sheet” outlining the options for every hearing, Moriera-Benito said.
“I think it’s going to make a lot more sense once we do it the first time,” she said.
The vote will be followed by a public comment period.
Next on the agenda: A case involving Antoine Tolbert’s wrongful arrest
In the near future, the CPC plans to review the discipline issued to the Cleveland Division of Police sergeant responsible for a 2022 arrest of Antoine Tolbert, also known as Chairman Fahiem, a leader of New Era Cleveland. The city settled Tolbert’s lawsuit over the arrest for $85,000 in 2023.
The city’s civilian police review board previously determined that Sgt. Lance Henderson had committed four violations — improper stop, improper arrest, improper procedure and improper tow (of Tolbert’s car). Tolbert was legally carrying a shotgun and handgun. Details of the incident are available in the CPC assessment and this Ideastream report.
The city’s assistant safety director dismissed the improper stop and tow charges. Henderson received a “Non-Disciplinary Letter of Reinstruction” and 13-day suspension for the other two charges. The possible punishment for all four violations ranged from a 21-day suspension to termination.
CPRB protested but did not overrule the assistant safety director’s decisions. Tolbert asked the CPC to review the case in February 2024.
CPC will schedule the hearing when it finds a venue big enough to accommodate the expected high community turnout, said interim executive director Alix Nourredine.