Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 10

Greensboro Police Press


Investigative Process

17, 2016, Immediate supervisory notification

Included both the field supervisor and watch commander
responding to the scene
Determined severity based on injury and actions as known at
that time as is protocol
In this case there was no serious injury to Mr. Yourse
No use of weapon such as taser, asp, or firearm
Initial description and actions indicated a strike that is
approved by the NC Criminal Justice Education and Training
Standards commission
June 18, 2016, Notification was made via the 24 hour
summary as is protocol
June 18, 2016, Watch Commander notified the Command
Staff in the daily summary
June 18, 2016, the investigation remained at the Chain of
Command Level

Investigative Process

June 17, 2016, Patrol Supervisor begins

interviews and investigation
June 24, 2016, Lead SCAT Instructor reviews
video after reading 24-hour summary
July 20, 2016, An unidentified woman contacts
Professional Standards on behalf of Mr. Yourse.
She is advised to have Mr. Yourse contact PSD.
July 20, 2016, Mr. Yourse contacts PSD and
speaks with an Admin Assistant.

Investigative Process

July 20-21, 2016, Members of Professional

Standards Division review the video and the
status of the case to ensure that it is currently
being investigated by the Chain of Command.
July 20-21, 2016, Once it was determined the
Chain of Command investigation was in
progress, PSD followed normal protocol and
allowed the investigation to continue.

Investigative Process

July 21, 2016, Professional Standards Sergeant leaves a

detailed message notifying Mr. Yourse his complaint is
being investigated by the Chain of Command, which is a
process that, by protocol, can take up to 45 days.

(Yourse never returned any call to PSD.)

July 29, 2016, Patrol Supervisor completes first-line

investigation. (42 days.) Forwards to Patrol Sergeant for
July 29, 2016, Patrol Sergeant forwards the investigation
to Patrol Lieutenant for review.
August 4, 2016, Patrol Lieutenant forwards the
investigation to Patrol Captain for final determination of
compliance with Departmental policy.
August 8, 2016, Patrol Captain returned the investigation
to Patrol Lieutenant for clarification on Coles statement.

Investigative Process

August 9, 2016, Patrol Captain receives the

completed investigation and meets with Patrol
Bureau Deputy Chief and PSD to review the video.
Patrol Captain does not deem the force reasonable
and justified based on the facts of the investigation.
August 9, 2016, Chief Scott is briefed by Deputy
Chief via Telephone on the investigation and places
Cole on administrative duty.
August 10, 2016, GPD Senior Command Staff
reviews video and investigation together with the
August 10, 2016, Chief Scott orders PSD to take
over the internal investigation, and CID to begin a
criminal investigation.

Investigative Process

August 10, 2016, District Attorneys Office is provided, by

GPD, all of the video of the incident involving Mr. Yourse
and all of the written documentation generated to date.
August 10, 2016, District Attorneys Office is also
informed of the pending charges against Mr. Yourse
stemming from the June 17, 2016 incident. GPD
requested a continuance on the charges until its
investigation is complete.
August 15, 2016, CID attempts to locate Mr. Yourse. In
the process, CID interviews Mr. Yourses mother.
August 15, 2016, Mr. Yourse verbally agrees to meet with
CID on August 16, 2016.
August 16, 2016, Mr. Yourse fails to appear for his
scheduled interview and does not respond to telephone

Investigative Process

August 16, 2016, an Attorney informs CID of his

representation of Mr. Cole.
August 18, 2016, PSD attempts to contact Mr.
Yourse again. Phone message was left.
August 18, 2016, CID is notified by Attorney that
Officer Cole was declining to be interviewed.
August 18, 2016, PSD schedules interview with
Officer Cole for August 19, 2016.
August 19, 2016, Officer Cole resigns prior to
meeting with PSD. This act ended any right of
GPD to require Officer Cole to cooperate in the

Investigative Process

August 22, 2016, District Attorneys Office determines

criminal charges against former Officer Cole would not
be appropriate. CID closes its investigation.
August 29, 2016, Resource Management Division
sends the Affidavit of Separation of former Officer
Cole to the Criminal Justice Education and Training
Standards Commission advising former Officer Cole
had resigned while under investigation.
August 30, 2016, Patrol Bureau conducts the Bureau
Level Hearing and sustains four violations against
former Officer Cole.
As of this date all GPD employee actions related to
this incident have been fully investigated and where
appropriate performance corrective actions have been

GPD Going Forward

Evaluate overall length of internal investigative


Prior to current system the average time was 90-100

In 2011 the requirement was lowered to 60 days
In 2013 the requirement was changed to 45 days
This average has been trending down each year since
Current average is 34 days for all investigations

Supervisory Quick Review of Video

Additional layer of review

Administrative Sergeant or Lieutenant review (May
require additional resources)
Without compromising integrity of the investigation
Creates an additional avenue for communication