In February 2011, two Denver sheriff’s deputies stood nose to nose inside a courthouse as they argued over escorting an inmate.
One cursed and berated the other. The other “stepped in his face,” was pushed, and “stepped in his face again.” At least one attorney saw the fight.
An investigation into the fight would determine the deputies were out of line. Workplace violence is not tolerated, the deputies’ disciplinary letters said.
However, it would be 13 months before the deputies were suspended without pay.
That isn’t the only case in which discipline came slowly for sheriff’s deputies.
A Denver Post analysis found it takes an average of more than 10 months for the Denver Sheriff Department to discipline one of its deputies. In many cases, it takes well over a year whether a deputy left work early, released the wrong inmate or used excessive force, The Post’s analysis of disciplinary records from January 2012 to July 2014 found.
DATA: See Post analysis of sheriff’s disciplinary delays.
As city officials search for answers to reform the sheriff’s department, the timeliness of internal investigations has been identified as a problem. Long delays in discipline lead to credibility problems and public questions over whether the department can regulate itself.
“By the time discipline has been imposed, who cares?” said Joseph Sandoval, a criminal just ice professor at Metropolitan State University of Denver and a member of a disciplinary task force studying the sheriff’s department. “By that time, what’s the point? What’s the purpose?
“Justice delayed is justice denied. That’s the old adage. It applies here.”
Stephanie O’Malley, Denver’s safety manager, acknowledges the problem.
“It’s taking too long,” she said. “The public deserves better. So do those involved in the allegations.”
One problem is the sheer number of open cases in the department’s internal affairs bureau — 156. Almost a third of those were added late last year after Nicholas Mitchell, Denver’s independent monitor, identified 45 cases where inmate grievances had not been investigated.
O’Malley told The Post she is seeking immediate assistance to help deal with the pending cases.
She plans to create a pool of on-call investigators who temporarily can join the internal affairs bureau. Those investigators would work with the seven permanent investigators.
“That’s a solution we want to get to right now,” O’Malley said.
Meanwhile, a task force organized to address the department’s handling of disciplinary procedures is ongoing. And any outside consulting firm hired to review the department is certain to critique the disciplinary procedures.
Denver is not the only city struggling with lengthy investigations into law enforcement wrongdoing.
“It’s one of the problems plaguing local jail systems all over the country,” said Martin Horn, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York and a former commissioner of New York City’s corrections department.
This summer, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan reviewed excessive force cases against juveniles incarcerated on New York City’s Rikers Island.
A report revealed multiple problems, including months-long delays in resolving internal investigations into officers who abuse the inmates.
“This undue delay diminishes the quality of the investigations because, as time passes, witness memories fade and evidence becomes less available,” the report said.
The Denver Sheriff Department has received warnings about its lengthy disciplinary process even before its operations became a crisis. This summer, a string of excessive force cases embarrassed the department, including one that led to a $3.25 million settlement with a former inmate, Jamal Hunter.
In 2012, Mitchell expressed concern over a growing delay in solving cases, saying the issue could erode public confidence in the department’s ability to police itself.
“Allowing administrative investigations to languish may prevent a department from acting to quickly correct or deter deputy misconduct, may lower morale and tends to undermine public and department trust in the process,” his report said.
Last week, three of four task forces reviewing sheriff’s department operations released recommendations, but the disciplinary task force is not finished. O’Malley and Sandoval said the solution will be multi-layered.
At the sheriff’s department, disciplinary cases go through a 10-step process from the time a complaint is filed to a punishment is decided, O’Malley said.
“It’s a very cumbersome process,” she said. “How do you collapse this time frame and still afford due process?”
O’Malley expects any reform to include changes to the sheriff’s internal affairs bureau.
The bureau’s seven investigators each average 23 open investigations, compared to seven per investigator at the police department, she said. The sheriff’s cases move slowly because deputies have little investigative experience, O’Malley said.
At the police department, officers learn investigative skills from the beginning, she said.
“Even the most petty crimes require that they ask questions,” O’Malley said. “In the sheriff’s department, there’s nothing that dictates that type of investigatory experience to happen.
“They’re there for the safety and security of inmates. But you have people in internal affairs investigating problems.”
Better training will be one solution, she said.
Four years ago, the Denver Police Department faced a similar challenge in the timeliness of officer discipline.
Chief Robert White made changes that eliminated a backlog and reduced the average number of days to discipline an officer. In 2013, the department took 52 days to resolve a disciplinary case compared to 198 days in 2010.
White’s changes have been held up as an example for the sheriff’s department to follow, and he has been appointed to the mayor’s executive steering committee that is overseeing sheriff’s department reform.
To address the police department’s lengthy disciplinary process, White overhauled the internal affairs bureau. He replaced every officer in the bureau and instructed them to only collect facts rather than offer opinions on discipline.
“I’m not interested in what their recommendation is, period,” White said. “In the past, internal affairs had an opinion about guilt or innocence. That’s not their jobs.”
He also eliminated three layers of departmental reviews and consolidated decision-making under a conduct review office, where staff attorneys review facts and recommend punishment.
“I’m not even reading investigations anymore,” White said. “I’m getting executive summaries.”
Before a punishment is handed down, the chief meets with interested parties, including the officer’s commanders, the independent monitor and the safety manager, before making a decision.
Still, simply changing the disciplinary process won’t fix all of the sheriff’s department’s problems, White said.
“You’ve got to have a holistic approach,” he said. “Where are we as an agency and where are we going?
“We had some credibility issues, but I think we overcame them. They have a credibility problem. It’s damaged.”
Staff writer Zahira Torres contributed to this report.
Noelle Phillips: 303-954-1661, nphillips@denverpost.com or twitter.com/Noelle_Phillips
