- Complaints conducted by the Detroit Police Department
- DPD Complaints
- Citizen Complaints
- All Citizen Complaints
- Complaints Filed in Detroit
- Detroit Police Complaints
- Citizen Filing the Complaint
- Misconduct Against DPD
Detroit Citizen Complaints
This dataset reflects all citizen complaints received by the Detroit Police Department (DPD) and the Board of Police Commissioners since January 1, 2016.
Get The Data
- ResearchNon-Commercial, Share-Alike, Attribution Free Forever
- CommercialCommercial Use, Remix & Adapt, White Label Log in to download
The data are provided by the Office of the Chief Investigator (OCI), under the direction of the Board of Police Commissioners. The OCI receives, investigates, and resolves complaints regarding non-criminal allegations of misconduct against the DPD and its personnel.
This dataset contains information about the nature of individual complaints, demographics for both the citizen filing the complaint and the officer against which the complaint is filed and the resulting finding from the OCI investigation. In order to protect the privacy of both the officer and the citizen filing the complaint, no personally-identifiable information is displayed. Each case is allotted 90 days to complete an investigation.
The Detroit Police Department is not responsible for the content of any off-site pages that are referenced by or that reference this web page other than an official City of Detroit or Detroit Police Department web page.
The following are areas of concern/allegations as set forth in a citizen complaint and investigated by OCI :
– Arrest: A seizure of greater scope or duration than an investigatory or Terry Stop. An arrest is lawful when supported by probable cause.
– Demeanor: A gesture, language or other action which can be interpreted as offensive or of doubtful social propriety or gives the appearance of conflict of interest, misuse of influence or lack of jurisdiction or authority.
– Entry: The use of improper and/or excessive force to gain entry into a building or onto a property.
– Harassment: The method of police action was improperly selective and was predicated upon factors irrelevant, under the circumstances, to good law enforcement decision making, such as race, attire, sex, age, etc.
– Force: The use or threatened use of force against an individual was improper and/or excessive and/or inconsistent with Department’s Directives. Force includes any of the following actions by an officer: any physical strike or instrumental contact with a person; any intentional attempted physical strike or instrumental contact that does not take effect; or any significant physical contact that restricts the movement of a person. The term also includes the discharge of firearms; the use of chemical spray, choke holds or hard hands; the taking of a subject to the ground; or the deployment of a canine. The term specifically excludes escorting or handcuffing a person, with no or minimal resistance. Use of force is lawful if it is objectively reasonable under the circumstances and the minimum amount of force necessary to effect an arrest or protect the officer or another person.
– Procedure: The actions taken were in violation of the Department rules, regulations, procedures or policies, or the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics.
– Property: Personal property was lost or damaged while in police custody or confiscated through police action.
– Search: The search of a person or his/her property was improper, unjustified or in violation of established police procedure.
– Service: Complaint regarding the lack, tardiness or inadequacy of police service.
These are the dispositions of a citizen complaint after investigation. Findings are based on the preponderance of the evidence standard and include at least one of the following:-
– Sustained: A preponderance of the evidence showed that the alleged conduct did occur, and that the actions of the officer violated the law, DPD policy, procedure or training.
– Not Sustained: There were insufficient facts to decide whether the alleged misconduct occurred.
– Exonerated: A preponderance of the evidence showed that the alleged conduct did occur, but did not violate the law, DPD policy, procedure or training.
– Unfounded: The investigation revealed no facts to support that the incident complained of actually occurred.
About this Dataset
2016 to 2020
City of Detroit
John Snow Labs; Detroit Police Department;
|Source License URL|
|Source License Requirements||
Citizen Complaints, All Citizen Complaints, Complaints Filed in Detroit, Detroit Police Complaints, Citizen Filing the Complaint, Misconduct Against DPD
Complaints conducted by the Detroit Police Department, DPD Complaints
|Board_of_Police_Commissioners_ID||A unique identifier issued by the BPC to each case in numerical order after the case has been assigned to an Investigator, used for internal tracking purposes||string||-|
|Citizen_Complaint_Report_Number||The unique identifier automatically assigned to the case via the data management system||integer||level : Nominal|
|Report_Date||Date when the complaint was filed||date||-|
|Mode_of_Entry||Mode of entry for the complaint by the citizen||string||-|
|Age_of_Citizen||Age of the citizen filing the complaint||string||-|
|Citizen_Race||Race of the citizen filing the complaint||string||-|
|Citizen_Gender||Sex of the citizen filing the complaint||string||-|
|Closed_Date||Date when the investigation was completed by OCI||date||-|
|Commanding_Unit||Commanding unit of the officer against which the complaint was filed||string||-|
|Allegation||A claim as set forth by the citizen complaint||string||-|
|Finding||The disposition of a citizen complaint after investigation||string||-|
|Officer_Race||Race of the officer against which the complaint was filed||string||-|
|Officer_Gender||Sex of the officer against which the complaint was filed||string||-|
|Board of Police Commissioners ID||Citizen Complaint Report Number||Report Date||Mode of Entry||Age of Citizen||Citizen Race||Citizen Gender||Closed Date||Commanding Unit||Administrative Closure||Allegation||Finding||Officer Race||Officer Gender|
|19-1035||71684||2019-11-13||Walk In||56.0||Black||Female||2020-02-11||COMMAND||Admin.close/Inadequate Service||Service|
|19-1036||71685||2019-11-13||Walk In||46.0||Black||Female||2020-02-28||2ND PRECINCT||Procedure||Unfounded||Asian||M|
|19-1036||71685||2019-11-13||Walk In||46.0||Black||Female||2020-02-28||2ND PRECINCT||Service||Asian||M|
|19-1040||71689||2019-11-15||Telephone(or TDD)||52.0||Female||2020-02-28||2ND PRECINCT||Procedure||B||M|
|19-1040||71689||2019-11-15||Telephone(or TDD)||52.0||Female||2020-02-28||2ND PRECINCT||Demeanor||Sustained||B||M|