An independent police oversight group has found that the Eureka Police Department, despite dealing with a high number of complaints and large amounts of multitasking, is completing internal reviews of officer misconduct quickly and correctly.

That information comes from documents released ahead of the OIR Group’s quarterly  Community Oversight Police Practices meeting, which will be held Oct. 22 at 3:30 p.m. in Eureka City Council chambers and is open to the public. 

The OIR Group is a Los Angeles-based independent police auditor that reviews internal investigations about officer misconduct for cities across the country. The group praised EPD’s internal review system. 

“EPD’s command staff clearly remains committed to internal accountability: as exemplified by two cases involving supervisors, EPD is willing to formally hold all employees, regardless of rank or tenure, formally accountable for their actions,” reads the OIR Group’s quarterly report. “This commitment is not to be taken lightly in an agency of EPD’s size. Unlike larger agencies that have dedicated Internal Affairs staffing, EPD’s command staff and supervisors are tasked with a myriad of responsibilities yet take the requisite time to investigate complaints of possible misconduct with rigor.”

One of the incidents the OIR Group investigated was the Nov. 26, 2023 shooting of 31-year-old Cutten man Matthew Williams by EPD officers Jeremy Sollom and Nick Jones. The OIR Group criticized EPD for not interviewing Sollom and Jones the day of the shooting (EPD said it was difficult to do same-day interviews because their legal team is based in the Bay Area). They did commend them for having the EPD supervisor in charge of the investigation observe the interviews later. 

Overall, the OIR Group didn’t find too much to criticize EPD for this quarter, unlike last quarter when the OIR Group made several different suggestions on how the department handled the Cal Poly Humboldt occupation.

Some of the internal investigations the OIR Group looked at:

• A man parked in a place where camping isn’t allowed accused EPD officers of harassing and antagonizing him after they asked him to move. EPD decided the officers acted fairly after reviewing body cam footage.
• An EPD employee claimed their boss was often hostile and was creating a toxic work environment. Employee interviews showed that was true. EPD decided the supervisor had violated their code of conduct, but they did not create a toxic work environment.
• An officer called out sick, but another EPD employee saw them out walking their dog on a trail a while away from their residence later that day. The officer said he was sick, but had to exercise his dog away from people for their safety. He did say he understood that it wasn’t a good look. EPD decided the allegations were baseless.
• Two EPD officers arrested someone trespassing on private property and found some drugs on them. The arrestee later complained that they were treated poorly by the officers and also said they were forging documents. The EPD couldn’t find any evidence of either charge, nor could they find the complainer.

“This quarter’s review demonstrates that the Department continues to uphold its commitment to thoroughness, fairness, and accountability in its investigative processes,” the quarterly report reads. “The Department has actively sought our feedback and incorporated recommendations, a testament to its openness to external review and its continuous effort to refine internal practices.”