Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 12:34 am
Time: 12:34 am
Results for citizen complaints
9 results foundAuthor: De Angelis, Joseph Title: Assessing the Impact of the Office of the Independent Monitor on Complainant and Officer Satisfaction Summary: This report presents the final results of a multi-year research project that uses anonymous mailed surveys to examine how the implementation of Denver’s Office of the Independent Monitor (OIM) affects satisfaction among complainants and police officers. The first stage, called the baseline survey, was an anonymous mailed survey sent in fall 2005 to all Denver police officers and to community members who filed police complaints PRIOR to the implementation of the OIM. In order to gauge how the implementation of the OIM has affected levels of satisfaction, post-implementation survey were administered to Denver police officers in September 2006 and again in November 2007. Community members who filed complaints after the implementation of the OIM have received surveys on a quarterly basis, as their complaints have been resolved. In this report, we compare the levels of satisfaction between the baseline and post-implementation periods for both officers and citizen complainants. Specifically, we compare levels of officer and complainant satisfaction with the previous complaint process to officer and complainant satisfaction with the new complaint process. The report is divided into four main sections: • Executive Summary: In this section we highlight the central findings of the baseline and post-implementation surveys; • Methodology: This section outlines survey methodology used in the research; • Research Findings: In this section we report the findings of the research; and • Appendix: This appendix contains copies of the survey instruments and respondent demographics. Details: Denver, CO: Office of the Independent Monitor, 2008. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 8, 2011 at: https://www.denvergov.org/Portals/374/documents/2008OfficerandComplainantSatisfactionSurveyFinal.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: https://www.denvergov.org/Portals/374/documents/2008OfficerandComplainantSatisfactionSurveyFinal.pdf Shelf Number: 120894 Keywords: Citizen ComplaintsPolice AccountabilityPolice Misconduct (Denver) |
Author: District of Columbia. Police Complaints Board Title: Enhancing Police Accountability through an Effective On-Body Camera Program for MPD Officers Summary: Over the past few years, police departments across the country have begun equipping their officers with body-worn cameras. The Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) has recently announced its plans to implement a body-worn camera program, citing it as one of the Department's "top five priorities." The footage that these cameras capture can be used to resolve citizen complaints and train officers on proper procedures, and even as evidence in criminal and civil litigation. In addition to these benefits, a recent study shows that the mere presence of body-worn cameras may even serve to prevent negative interactions by changing officer and citizen behavior. As a result, the use of these devices can lead to enhanced police accountability as well as improved police-community relations. While body-worn cameras have many possible benefits, their use also implicates some concerns for members of the public, government agencies, civil liberties advocates, and even the officers who wear the devices. In order to maximize the many advantages that the cameras can provide, it will be crucial for MPD to develop and implement clear policies governing video creation, access, usage, and retention. Police union representatives, policy experts, and civil liberties experts nationwide have expressed concern that deploying body-worn cameras with no official policy in place could undermine public confidence in the program, as well as jeopardize the privacy of officers and the public. Having a suitable policy in place is so critical to the deployment of a body-worn camera program that the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), with support from the Justice Department's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), is currently working on guidelines to help formulate model policies. At a recent PERF Town Hall Meeting in Philadelphia, law enforcement executives from across the nation agreed that policies and procedures involve multi-faceted and complex issues. According to PERF President Charles Ramsey, who also serves as the commissioner of Philadelphia's Police Department and was previously MPD’s chief of police, "If you don't have a policy in place, eventually you're going to have a problem," noting that such policies should also exist to cover officers who might use their own cameras. To ensure the most effective policy, the needs and concerns of the many stakeholders throughout the District should be assessed and incorporated to the maximum extent possible. This kind of participation will also build public support and buy-in for the camera program, which should help ensure successful implementation. Therefore, the Police Complaints Board (PCB) recommends that MPD establish an advisory panel of District of Columbia stakeholders to assist in the development of a policy to govern a body-worn camera pilot program in the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). This panel should, at a minimum, include representatives from: MPD; the Office of Police Complaints (OPC); the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP); the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia (USAO); the District's Office of the Attorney General (OAG); the criminal defense bar; the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU); and the Fair and Inclusive Policing Task Force. The panel should also include members of MPD's Citizen Advisory Councils as well as representatives of groups from around the District who could provide insight into how a camera program would affect various segments of the public, including, among others, immigrants, non-English speakers, crime victims, and the LGBTQ population. PCB further recommends that the District provide MPD with the necessary funding to conduct a pilot program. Once a pilot program has been conducted, the advisory panel should review the program's efficacy, identify any concerns about processes or policies, and suggest changes and improvements. If the program is determined to be beneficial, the District government should then provide funding for wider implementation across MPD. In the event that MPD decides to launch a pilot program prior to convening the recommended panel, it should be allowed to do so, but should permit OPC to provide real-time input and feedback to MPD as the expedited pilot program takes shape and is implemented. Adopting this approach would allow MPD to avail itself of OPC's ties with community groups and District stakeholders, thereby incorporating useful external feedback until the panel could be established. As for the proposed panel, it should be convened as soon as practicable to help develop a final policy based on an assessment of the ongoing pilot program. Details: Washington, DC: Police Complaints Board, 2014. 14p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 17, 2016 at: http://policecomplaints.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/office%20of%20police%20complaints/publication/attachments/Final%20policy%20rec%20body%20camera.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://policecomplaints.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/office%20of%20police%20complaints/publication/attachments/Final%20policy%20rec%20body%20camera.pdf Shelf Number: 145083 Keywords: Body-Worn CamerasCamera SurveillanceCitizen ComplaintsPolice AccountabilityPolice BehaviorPolice Misconduct |
Author: Zimmerman, Benjamin L. Title: Educational Level of Law Enforcement Officers and Frequency of Citizen Complaints: A Systematic Review Summary: The belief that a law enforcement officer who holds a college degree will be a better officer has been the foundation for many policies in support of higher education for officers. However, there is a lack of overwhelming empirical evidence to support such a claim. Past literature has examined police performance in general as it relates to a number of different background characteristics, which include educational level. Citizen complaints are one type of measurement tool that arguably addresses the sensitive relationship between a law enforcement organisation and the community it serves. This systematic review identified 14 studies meeting inclusion and exclusion criteria, resulting in a total of 5359 subjects. By using meta-analytic procedures, this review attempted to identify and quantify the relationship between higher education and citizen complaints. The results provided a comprehensive picture of the overall relationship between education and citizen complaints, which produced a small statistically significant effect size. The effect was negative, indicating that education was predictive of fewer citizen complaints. Additional analyses were conducted to examine differences between large organisations and small to medium organisations as well as published studies compared to unpublished studies. Meta-analysis of the studies using large organisations and published studies revealed even greater effect sizes than the overall results while meta-analysis of small to medium sized organisations and unpublished works resulted in statistically insignificant smaller effect sizes. Police implications and suggestions for future research are discussed. Details: Cambridge, UK: Wolfson College , 2011. 84p. Source: Internet Resource: Thesis: Accessed April 10, 2017 at: http://www.crim.cam.ac.uk/alumni/theses/Zimmerman,%20B.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.crim.cam.ac.uk/alumni/theses/Zimmerman,%20B.pdf Shelf Number: 144770 Keywords: Citizen ComplaintsPolice BehaviorPolice Education and TrainingPolice LegitimacyPolice-Citizen Interactions |
Author: New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board Title: A Mutated Rule: Lack of Enforcement in the Face of Persistent Chokehold Incidents in New York City Summary: For more than 20 years, the NYPD Patrol Guide has prohibited the use of chokeholds, relying on a Police Department rule that unequivocally forbids any pressure to the neck, throat or windpipe that may inhibit breathing. This rule was plainly intended to prohibit all chokeholds. As defined, chokeholds, though not illegal, are unambiguously prohibited by Department policy. This report reveals that officers have continued to perform chokeholds and, based on the complaints the CCRB received from the public, the use of chokeholds appears to be increasing despite the Patrol Guide prohibition. It also reveals that this crystal clear prohibition has been degraded over the course of the last decade. Put simply, during the last decade, the NYPD disciplinary decisions in NYPD administrative trials of chokehold allegations failed to enforce the clear mandate of the Patrol Guide chokehold rule. In response to these decisions which failed to hold offending officers accountable, the CCRB and NYPD Department Advocate's Office failed to charge officers with chokehold violations pursuant to the mandate of the Patrol Guide chokehold rule. In essence, in their respective charging decisions, the CCRB and the Department Advocate redefined a "chokehold" to require force to the neck during which an officer actually and substantially interfered with a complainant's breathing rather than "pressure" to the neck which "may" interfere with breathing. In this respect the chokehold rule "mutated" to adapt to the NYPD disciplinary process, rather than the disciplinary process following the NYPD rule. This pragmatic redefinition of the rule in response to the NYPD's systematic refusal to impose discipline in all but the most severe chokehold cases, evolved into an unwritten, much less protective definition: actual and sustained interference with breathing was substituted for the Patrol Guide's clear and unequivocal prohibition of any pressure to the neck which "may" inhibit breathing. In essence, inadequate disciplinary practices transplanted the heart of the chokehold rule during a period in which, as the number of chokehold complaints suggests, chokehold incidents were increasing. The NYPD's blanket prohibition of chokeholds should be restored and uniformly enforced. Details: New York: The Civilian Complaint Review Board, 2014. 155p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 24, 2018 at: Lack of Enforcement in the Face of Persistent Chokehold Incidents in New York City Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: Lack of Enforcement in the Face of Persistent Chokehold Incidents in New York City Shelf Number: 150359 Keywords: ChokeholdsCitizen ComplaintsPolice AccountabilityPolice BrutalityPolice DiscliplinePolice Use of Force |
Author: New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board Title: Tasers: An Evaluation of Taser-Related Complaints from January 2014 Through December 2015 Summary: Across the United States, conducted energy devices, commonly known as "Tasers," are increasingly becoming a policing tool. 1 The New York City Police Department ("NYPD") has historically distributed Tasers on a limited basis, but as of early 2016, hundreds of new Tasers have been issued throughout the Department. As a result, the Civilian Complaint Review Board ("CCRB") can now begin to monitor the NYPD's Taser practices, including how officers are trained, the relevant contents of the NYPD Patrol Guide, and the patterns of police Taser conduct drawn from CCRB complaint data. When used properly, the Taser can be an effective weapon. Some reports on past experiences in New York City and across the country suggest that Tasers may pose health concerns and may be vulnerable to overuse. There has been limited discussion of the NYPD's guidance on when to use the weapon. Until 2015, few NYPD officers carried Tasers, and those who did were either senior officers or part of specialized commands. The NYPD has adopted and is implementing practices for Taser use. This issue brief seeks to share two years of CCRB complaint data, current NYPD guidance and practices as a baseline for tracking Taser use as it relates to CCRB complaints. The scope of the Report includes how Tasers are being used by the NYPD in Taser-related CCRB complaints from 2014 through 2015. Part I of the issue brief provides a short overview of the Taser, including its history, gradual adoption by the NYPD, and the NYPD's Taser policies and trainings. 2 Part II summarizes CCRB complaint data on Taser-related complaints from 2014 and 2015. Part III outlines current NYPD Guidance and identifies best practices. Part IV highlights next steps important for tracking and monitoring Taser use among NYPD officers. Details: New York: The Civilian Complaint Board, 2016. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 24, 2018 at: http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/ccrb/downloads/pdf/policy_pdf/issue_based/20161023_taser-report.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/ccrb/downloads/pdf/policy_pdf/issue_based/20161023_taser-report.pdf Shelf Number: 150362 Keywords: Citizen ComplaintsConducted Energy DevicesPolice MisconductPolice-Citizen InteractionsStun GunsTasers |
Author: New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board Title: Worth a Thousand Words: Examining Officer Interference in Civilian Recordings of Police Summary: Today, the New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB), the nation's largest independent police oversight entity, released a new report revealing insights into officer interference with civilian recordings of police interactions. The report, - Worth a Thousand Words: Examining Officer Interference with Civilian Recordings of Police,‖ reviews complaints filed against members of the New York City Police Department (NYPD), and is among the first analyses in the country of this type of misconduct. - Technology has greatly increased civilians' ability to record and share video of police encounters-as is their First Amendment right. This has increased transparency and debate about safe and fair policing. As these recordings become more prevalent, our police force must be prepared for the profound ways that video will shape police practices,‖ said CCRB Chair Maya D. Wiley. -This report is a step in that direction. It shows how New York City Police Department officers have interfered with civilian recordings of police activity and provides important recommendations for Patrol Guide revisions and improved officer training to help officers better understand and respect this First Amendment right. The report is a quantitative and qualitative analysis of three years of CCRB complaints in which civilians reported that officers had interfered with their ability to record police activity. Over this period, 257 complaints-less than two percent of the 15,006 CCRB complaints closed over three years-included allegations of officer interference with civilian recordings. These 257 complaints included 347 allegations that directly addressed officer interference with civilian recordings of police activity. That interference included verbal interference like directing civilians to stop recording; physical interference like knocking a recording device out of a civilian's hands; blocking recordings like physically obstructing a civilian's camera view of a scene; and intimidation like threatening to arrest or detain a civilian for recording an interaction. Verbal interference accounted for 24 percent of these complaints, while physical interference accounted for 46 percent of the complaints. Thirty percent of these complaints included allegations of both verbal and physical interference. In issuing its dispositions on allegations of recording interference during the past three years, the CCRB found in: - Twenty-eight percent of the allegations that the misconduct occurred (substantiated); - Forty-two percent of the allegations that not enough evidence was available to determine whether misconduct occurred (unsubstantiated); - Eleven percent of the allegations that the conduct occurred but was lawful (exonerated); and - Six percent of the allegations that the misconduct did not occur (unfounded). CCRB Executive Director Jonathan Darche said, -Interference in civilians' recordings of police activity impedes the Board's ability to make fact-based determinations about alleged misconduct and is a disservice to all involved in an investigation-officers and civilians alike. More video from more sources improves the Board's ability to determine if an allegation of misconduct happened, didn't happen, or happened but was lawful under the circumstances. In addition to urging the NYPD to more fully engage with community organizations on this issue, the Board recommends adding a new section to the NYPD Patrol Guide with more comprehensive language that better outlines the obligations of officers and civilians. This guidance should do the following: - State that members of the public are permitted to record officer activity in public and private settings, provided that the recording party has a legal right to be present; - More clearly define what constitutes -interference with a civilian's right to record and explain what types of prohibited conduct hinder a civilian's ability to record; - Reiterate that civilians are not permitted to record if doing so interferes with police activity or jeopardizes the safety of officers or members of the public; - Instruct officers to redirect recording civilians, when necessary, to a position that will not interfere with police activity, rather than tell civilians to stop recording; and - Emphasize that members of service are, under most circumstances, not permitted to search or seize recording devices without a warrant and are prohibited from ever deleting recordings or destroying or damaging the devices themselves. This report underscores a need for members of the public to be aware of their First Amendment right to record police activity, which is only limited by a specific set of conditions. At the same time, analysis of police interference highlights the need for clearer guidance for NYPD officers on how they respond to civilian recordings of interactions so that police respect civilians' First Amendment liberties while ensuring the safety of the officers and civilians involved in an interaction. Details: New York: The Complaint Review Board, 2017. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 24, 2018 at: http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/ccrb/downloads/pdf/20172806_report_recordinginterference.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/ccrb/downloads/pdf/20172806_report_recordinginterference.pdf Shelf Number: 150363 Keywords: Citizen ComplaintsPolice AccountabilityPolice MisconductPolice-Citizen InteractionsVideo Recordings |
Author: Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Title: Audit of complaints investigated by Professional Standards Command, Victoria Police Summary: As part of our work to determine how effectively Victoria Police handles complaints against police officers, IBAC audited how PSC handled a sample of complaint files, consisting of 59 investigations out of the 221 investigations finalised by PSC in 2015/16. The 59 files selected for audit by IBAC covered complaint investigations that concerned more serious allegations made about Victoria Police officers. These matters included allegations of assault, improper criminal associations, drug use or possession offences, sexual offences, handling stolen goods, threats to kill, interference in investigations, and misuse of information. The audit identified a number of concerns regarding PSC's complaint handling that require improvement. Practices that require improvement include: Poor management of conflicts of interest: The vast majority of files audited (95 per cent) did not explicitly identify or address actual, perceived or potential conflicts of interest between investigators and subject officers. Failure to consistently consult with the Office of Public Prosecutions: Victoria Police did not consistently consult with the Office of Public Prosecutions in relation to reportable offences as required under section 127(2) of the Victoria Police Act 2013. Inadequate recommended actions: IBAC auditors disagreed with the action Victoria Police recommended in 15 per cent of files. This included two matters where it appeared the Assistant Commissioner of PSC downgraded the recommended disciplinary action without providing clear reasons. Probity concerns: The audit identified some PSC investigators had complaint histories that raised issues of concern and could adversely affect community confidence in the outcome of investigations. Inappropriate file classification: The way complaint files are classified by PSC determines how they are managed. Issues were identified with the way the work file classification (known as a C1-0 file) is used. The audit found the approach adopted by PSC means this classification is being used well beyond its stated purpose of undertaking preliminary inquiries. For example, the work file classification was used for complaints that contained clear allegations of criminality off-duty (C3-3 file) or corruption (C3-4 file). The practice of reclassifying a matter as a work file after an investigation had been completed, on the basis that the file contained 'intelligence only', was also considered inappropriate. One of the risks in allowing files to be reclassified as work files on closure is that complaint investigations can be closed prematurely. Failure to recommend broader organisational improvements: PSC investigators identified a range of possible policy and procedural improvements in 27 per cent of files. However, no files formally recommended 'action on any identified deficiency in Victoria Police premises, equipment, policies, practices or procedures' as is recommended in the Victoria Police Manual. This is despite the fact that some of the recommendations made by PSC investigators identified opportunities for broader application of findings and improvements across the organisation. Details: Melbourne: The Commission, 2018. 78p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 22, 2018 at: http://apo.org.au/system/files/179431/apo-nid179431-874266.pdf Year: 2018 Country: Australia URL: http://apo.org.au/system/files/179431/apo-nid179431-874266.pdf Shelf Number: 150637 Keywords: Citizen ComplaintsComplaints Against the PolicePolice AccountabilityPolice CorruptionPolice Misconduct |
Author: Creedon, Mick Title: Operation Trinity: Report 2: Allegations of Peter Francis Summary: Executive Summary Allegation - Sexual relationships between SDS Undercover Officers and activists On 14 March 2010, The Observer newspaper published a series of articles regarding the role of 'Officer A' within the SDS. It claimed that he had slept with two (2) members of his target group. It was alleged that whilst this was not sanctioned, such activity among SDS officers - both male and female - was tacitly accepted and in many cases was vital in maintaining an undercover role. On 22 January 2011, The Guardian newspaper published an article that undercover police officers routinely adopted a tactic of promiscuity with the 'blessing' of senior commanders. The same article alleged that sex was used as a tool to help officers blend in, and was widely used as a technique to glean intelligence. The source stated that they knew of an undercover officer who married an activist he was supposed to be spying upon. On 24 June 2013, Channel 4 broadcast the programme 'Dispatches - The Police's Dirty Secret'. In it a Mr Peter Francis said: 'that it was part of his persona, that he was the sort of person who had 'casual sex'. He stated that he did not see any circumstance that long term relationships, especially the fathering of children can be condoned or allowed. He stated that he believed that 'the use of casual sex by undercover police maybe warranted in very exceptional circumstances.' There are currently a number of civil actions lodged against the MPS by females alleging intimate relationships with undercover officers. Three (3) children are alleged to have been born as a result of these relationships. Operation Herne has contacted the solicitors concerned in order to speak to the claimants. Only one (1) evidential account has been provided. At this time the other remaining claimants have not engaged with Operation Herne. No contact or complaint has been received from any individual claiming to have had a sexual relationship with Peter Francis. Independent legal advice has been sought in respect of what offences, if any, have been committed in these circumstances. No offences contrary to the Sexual Offences Act are deemed to be complete although the behaviour could amount to Misconduct in a Public Office. There is no evidence at this time to suggest sexual relationships between undercover officers and activists were ever officially sanctioned by the SDS management. This remains an ongoing criminal investigation and an advice file has been submitted to the CPS. A case disposal decision is yet to be made. This will be the subject of further detailed public reporting once the various judicial proceedings have been completed. Details: Ashbourne, UK: Derbyshire Constabulary, 2014. 84p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 16, 2019 at: https://www.met.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/foi-media/metropolitan-police/priorities_and_how_we_are_doing/corporate/operation-herne---report-2-allegations-of-peter-francis-operation-trinity Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2014/mar/uk-operation-herne-report-2-Allegations-of-Peter-Francis.pdf Shelf Number: 154218 Keywords: Citizen ComplaintsOperation HerneOperation TrinityPolice MisconductSexual RelationshipsUndercover InvestigationsUndercover Policing |
Author: Creedon, Mick Title: Operation Herne: Report 1: Use of Covert Identities Summary: Executive Summary History The Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) was an undercover unit formed by the Metropolitan Police's Special Branch. It operated between 1968 and 2008, during which time it infiltrated and reported on groups concerned in violent protest. Operation Herne -- Operation Herne (formerly Soisson) was formed in October 2011 in response to allegations made by the Guardian newspaper about alleged misconduct and criminality engaged in by members of the SDS. Similar matters had been previously aired as early as 2002 in a BBC documentary. Operation Riverwood -- On 4th February 2013 the Metropolitan Police received a public complaint from the family of Rod Richardson, a young boy who had died in the 1970s. It is alleged that an undercover officer working for the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU) had used this child's details as his covert identity. This matter was referred to the IPCC. The matter was returned to the force and is currently subject of a 'local investigation'. National Public Order Intelligence Unit The NPOIU was formed within the MPS in 1999 to gather and coordinate intelligence. In 2006 the governance responsibility for NPOIU was moved to the Association of Chief Police Officers, after a decision was taken that the forces where the majority of activity was taking place should be responsible for authorising future deployments. In January 2011 the NPOIU was subsumed within other units under the National Domestic Extremism Units within the MPS. In January 1995 large numbers of police from London, Kent and Hampshire were drafted to the West Sussex harbour of Shoreham in response to protests surrounding the export of live animals to Europe. The Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and another animal extremist group named 'Justice Department' had a strong base in the community there. This led to a number of protests and in October 1995 there was a further demonstration in Brightlingsea, Essex. This resulted in a record number of police being deployed to prevent widespread public disorder. Ad-hoc protest groups emerged and the need for first hand high quality intelligence was evident. This led to undercover operatives being required to infiltrate these animal extremist organisations. The purpose of the NPOIU was: 1 To provide the police service with the ability to develop a national threat assessment and profile for domestic extremism. 2 Support the police service to reduce crime and disorder from domestic extremism. 3 Support a proportionate police response to protest activity. 4 Help the police service manage concerns of communities and businesses to minimise conflict and disorder. Control of the NPOIU moved to ACPO in 2006 under the direction of the ACPO National Co-ordinator for Domestic Extremism, Assistant Chief Constable Anton Setchell. He was replaced by Detective Chief Superintendent Adrian Tudway in 2010. The NPOIU worked with the National Extremism Tactical Co-ordination Unit (NETCU) and the National Domestic Extremism Team (NDET). The NPOIU now exists as part of the National Domestic Extremism Unit (NDEU) under the Metropolitan Police Service Specialist Operations and is run by Detective Chief Superintendent Chris Greaney. Details: Ashbourne, UK: Derbyshire Constabulary, 2013. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 16, 2019 at: https://www.met.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/foi-media/metropolitan-police/priorities_and_how_we_are_doing/corporate/operation-herne---report-1---use-of-covert-identities Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2013/jul/uk-creedon-report-on-use-of-dead-childrens-names-by-undercover-unit.pdf Shelf Number: 154217 Keywords: Citizen ComplaintsCovert IdentitiesCovert OperationsNational Public Order Intelligence UnitOperation HerneOperation RiverwoodPolice MisconductPolice OfficersPublic DisorderSpecial Demonstration SquadUndercover Police |