The flowchart provides the main steps involved in the complaint process after a person contacts either the Independent Police Auditor's office or the Internal Affairs Unit to file a complaint.

Members of the public can file complaints against SJPD officers with either IA or the IPA. Complaints can be filed in person, on the telephone, or in writing via regular mail or email. Complaints may even be filed anonymously. Although the IPA and IA are separate offices, case information is entered in a shared database that ensures coordination between the two offices and accurate case documentation. All contacts from the public are documented as cases.

After a case is received, Internal Affairs determines whether or not an investigation is necessary. IA will classify the case as either a “Formal,” “Command Review1,” “Policy2” or “Procedural3” complaint. A complaint is defined as “an act of expressed dissatisfaction, which relates to department operations, personnel conduct, or unlawful acts.4” The IPA reviews the classification to ensure the complaint receives the appropriate level of review. Cases not requiring investigation because they are resolved before they become a complaint are classified as an “Inquiry5.” “Citizen Contact” cases are informational or do not pertain to a SJPD officer.

IA conducts administrative investigations that can, if sustained by the department, result in discipline being imposed on the subject officer. In certain cases, a criminal investigation could be conducted by the SJPD prior to or at the same time as the IA investigation. Generally, IA investigates most allegations involving officer misconduct. Since IA investigators are fact finders only, they do not sustain complaints nor do they recommend discipline.

In cases where the IA investigator concludes that the investigation may support sustainable allegations, the investigation is sent to the subject officer's chain of command for findings and recommendations. The commanding officer reviews the investigation completed by the IA investigator and may conduct further investigation to determine if the complaint should be sustained or not. In cases involving significant misconduct, the case may be sent to the Disciplinary Review Panel to assist the Chief of Police in determining the appropriate level of discipline.

To ensure that investigations of misconduct complaints against San José police officers are done thoroughly, objectively and fairly, the IPA monitors and reviews all stages of the complaint process from intake through final disposition of the complaint. One of the most critical stages of the investigation of Formal complaints is to ensure that officers accused of misconduct are interviewed objectively and thoroughly. The IPA participates directly in many of the officer interviews to ensure that this goal is achieved. By agreement with IA, the IPA is notified of all officer interviews in Formal complaints involving an allegation of unnecessary force, Formal complaints that were initiated at the IPA and other Formal complaints requested by the IPA.

Once an investigation is completed, a copy of the investigation report is sent to the IPA for auditing. The IPA then has two weeks to review the investigation report and determine either that it agrees with the IA findings or that there are areas of concern, in which case, the IA commander is notified and the two-week time line is stayed. Notifications and/or closing letters are held until the area of concern is satisfied, or the case is reopened for further investigation. If the IPA makes no request during the two-week period, IA proceeds with sending the closing letters/notices to the complainant and subject officer.

Gathering data, monitoring, and auditing investigations to ensure the highest level of quality are of great importance. With this in mind, the IPA developed and employs a checklist for the collection of data and a process for evaluating the quality of the investigations to insure that the data was captured consistently. The objective is to maximize the availability of data entered and secured in the IPA's computer databases.

This process allows for consistency between auditors and provides a database that can be manipulated and randomly searched for critical trends and patterns. The database is designed to highlight the critical elements, actions, and aspects of an investigation, providing the IPA with the capability to capture the trends and patterns. The database was also designed to capture the nature of the complaint, which is a significant capability, by using different auditing criteria for the different complaint classifications: Formal, Procedural, No Boland, Command Review, Policy, and Inquiry. While every complaint is important, this section provides a synopsis of the Formal complaint audits only because of their heightened severity.

After a complaint investigation is audited, the IPA determines whether it agrees or disagrees with the findings of the SJPD. If the IPA raises an issue of disagreement, the issue is discussed first with the IA Commander. Many disagreements are often worked out informally at this point. If the IPA and IA are unable to resolve their differences the IPA presents the issue to the Chief of Police in a formal memorandum. If the IPA is still unable to resolve its disagreement with the Chief, the matter is submitted to the City Manager for final resolution.

Even though the IPA may disagree with a complaint resolution for a number of reasons, in most cases where there has been a disagreement with the SJPD, weight given to the credibility of witnesses appears to have been the difference.