Armando Flores has a seat on San Diego’s Commission on Police Practices.
In his year as a commissioner, working on his own initiative, Flores said he has found serious flaws that both the San Diego Police Department and city of San Diego have long overlooked in how the department handles complaints from citizens about their dealings with SDPD personnel.
They include, the commission said in a June 5 report to the public, “several deficiencies … regarding functionality and accessibility” that disproportionately affect San Diegans who don’t have access to a desktop, don’t speak English or have sensory, mobility and cognitive impairments.
Flores, after completing his research, concluded that the “portal dissuades residents daily, especially those who are mobile‑only, deaf, blind or limited‑English‑proficient.”
The department’s complaint portal also does not provide the same services that may be found on other city websites.
The portal data Flores reviewed revealed the time it takes to process a case, what resources the police have and how long it takes for those resources to be activated.
Analysis of the SDPD Online Complaint PortalDownloadHe found the police portal limited the amount of information the public could provide for the department to consider action against an officer. The “evidence of submission limits” was revealed in an analysis provided to commissioners at their June 5 meeting.
For example, there is a 250-megabyte photo/video threshold on complaint submissions that restricts how much a citizen can share with the department in their complaint from a desktop computer.
The ability to add evidence is not available at all from a mobile device as the attachment icon is missing.
As far as video, the portal limits both the quantity and quality of footage that can be loaded into the system. There also is a 1500-character limit or 250 words. Additionally, complaints in Spanish or other languages “on average translate into 15-30% more words, which adds further limitation,” says Flores.
The portal, he fears, “stifles evidence at the front door, inflates investigative timelines and exposes the city to multimillion‑dollar liabilities.”
The audit is described by its author as a “professional, evidence‑based critique aimed solely at identifying and fixing practical accessibility gaps, not at assigning blame or casting aspersions.” In fact, he has ideas on how SDPD and the city can fix the flaws.
The department was asked to respond to Flores’ findings. “We take this matter seriously,” said Lt. Daniel Meyer, “and it is currently being evaluated by our IT team.”
Leveraging his skills
The current police commission was created after years of community efforts to improve and strengthen police oversight. This commission has more power and resources than previous boards.
Flores, 35, who is up for re-appointment Tuesday, was chosen by Councilmember Sean Elo-Rivera to sit on the commission.
Armando Flores. (Photo courtesy of Flores)Flores, like other commissioners, reviews police cases and offers policy recommendations when issues have arisen over officer conduct.
But he also wanted to leverage his expertise as a professional in the software engineering field and his experience in the nonprofit sector to do more. For instance, he has interacted with those who have accessibility needs, like sight or hearing impairments.
“In the past decade,” he says, “I’ve taught people how to use those accessibility tools on their Mac, Windows system, on their Android device, on their iOS device.”
Flores, who grew up in Southeast San Diego and never has had to use the SDPD complaint portal, was curious about it, as it’s often the first – and possibly only – contact a citizen may have with the department.
He says, “Personally, I’ve never had a horrible interaction” with SDPD, but “there’s these incidents that our community tells us about that they have with the police.”
History of concerns
SDPD complaints are classified primarily based on the type of allegation; serious ones involve the use of excessive force, criminal conduct or unlawful searches.
Other allegations deal with the quality of the service; for example the officer was rude or slow to respond to a call. These less serious complaints are usually handled by the officer’s supervisor.
The more serious charges immediately launch an Internal Affairs investigation.
In California, there is a one-year statute of limitations for filing criminal charges for most misdemeanor police misconduct and three years for most felonies.
The complaints provide the commission details on IA decision-making processes and are used to review evidence against the officers from the beginning to the end of an investigation.
Flores says he was careful with the information eventually reported in his research findings. He explains it came from “publicly accessible sources or my own testing; I’m careful not to disclose closed-session information or draft documents still under review.”
Last year, the commission found SDPD Internal Affairs would run the clock down on an investigation, so when the commissioners began reviewing a case, they were on a short leash to complete their work.
The timeliness issue was one of several concerns raised in a report done by an independent auditor and attorney, Jerry Threet.
This has been the case in prior years as well, as sources who were members of the prior police board confirmed to Times of San Diego. And as Flores found, it’s an ongoing problem.
But his research also showed that the delays SDPD has in reaching outcomes on complaint cases are “not deliberate foot-dragging.” He says, “Extended case timelines appear tied to design flaws and evidence submission limits, which in turn strain IA resources and overtime.”
In addition, the commissioner contacted representatives from nonprofits focused on supporting a variety of accessibility needs as well as advocates from both the deaf/hard of hearing and blind communities.
They validated his findings, some of which are related to concerns raised in a 2008 letter in which the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, said the SDPD needed a better understanding of the “language assistance needs of its service population.” The department was not in compliance and needed to “establish reliable systems.”
How to make the portal more effective
Flores has some suggestions to solve the problems he found.
He believes the department’s IT team has access to the technology to upgrade the portal, if not from current police support staff, then from other city departments with graphic designers, programmers and other resources.
As an example, Flores points to the popular city app “Get it Done.”
Everything has already been created for that app and would help SDPD upgrade their portal for the public. “The resources are there,” says Flores.
He also found that some basic information provided by SDPD was incorrect. The complaint form doesn’t list the current Commission on Police Practices’ address, but addresses for the prior board.
In addition, he noted that the welcoming page for citizens on the portal includes a legal requirement that those less knowledgeable about the police might find off-putting. It reads ”you have a right to make a complaint,” but if you “make a complaint against an office you know is false, you can be prosecuted.”
On the same page, instructions are listed for “What’s Next,” but aren’t much help. The image shows links and information, but they are not navigable.
Flores believes other language on the page implies that complaints can be turned into “any” police station, which again, for some, might be a deterrent.
But portal upgrades, he concluded, will go a long way to assuring “the communities impacted by policies and procedures that the SDPD is working towards transparency.“
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Commissioner: Flaws in SDPD complaint portal hinder those with accessibility, language issues )
Also on site :