By the numbers: San Jose police auditor’s 2024 report
San Jose’s independent police auditor, Eddie Aubrey, recently published his office’s annual police audit report covering 2024.
RELATED: San Jose spurns watchdog’s plea for more access to police shootings, force cases
The nuts and bolts of the annual IPA report show that 373 formal police conduct complaints were filed in San Jose, a slight increase from the 367 complaints received in 2023, which itself was a small rise from the 358 recorded in 2022. There were 333 complaints received in 2021, and an outlier total of 2,271 complaints were tallied in 2020, largely generated by outrage over violent police tactics used against George Floyd protesters that summer. In 2024, 17% of complaint allegations submitted, which may include more than one allegation within a single complaint, were fully vetted by year’s end and deemed sustained, or validated by the IPA’s office. Those mostly involved procedure and conduct violations, and varying degrees of discrimination claims. The report found that 55% of sustained complaints involved newer officers who had between two and four years with the police department.
Aubrey’s report also highlighted instances where his office’s oversight changed the outcome of a complaint. Officers who were initially exonerated for using inappropriate language and tactics, or failing to properly activate their body-worn cameras, ended up with sustained allegations after the IPA staff’s intervention. The report pointed out a complaint about officers arresting the wrong person after a domestic violence call, which initially was closed with no violation found, that after an IPA challenge ended with multiple misconduct findings that included failing to interview a direct witness.
Another highlighted case involved an officer who during a training session made a joke about a Black role player using a knife to cut watermelon, to the discomfort of other attendees. A department finding that there was insufficient evidence of a policy violation was revisited, again at the IPA’s behest, and changed to a supervisory referral, “acknowledging the need for corrective guidance,” the audit report states.