The South Bend Community Police Review Board failed to reach a consensus on an officer’s treatment of a 14-year-old girl outside the downtown McDonald’s back in August, but members did raise some concerns.
Video footage showed patrolman Sam Chaput holding the girl to the ground on the side of the road, after getting complaints about her behavior from the restaurant’s workers.
The police department later exonerated Chaput. Four community police review board members voted to disagree Thursday, but that wasn’t enough to make up a majority of its total members.
In a written report to her fellow board members, Dé Bryant said she didn’t think the response was proportional, especially considering the officer’s weight, height and physical training. She also felt he “was confrontational from the moment the interaction began” and showed “a glaring tone-deafness regarding interactions with communities of color.” But Bryant felt the officer made a good decision by not using handcuffs and took lengths to find the girl’s parents.
Cheryl Ashe was the only board member to agree with the department’s exoneration, but before the vote, she wanted to clarify what exactly led up to the incident. “Did she just say, ‘Blankety-blank’ – these are cuss words, my blank – ‘Blankety-blank cuss word. I’m gonna get you,’ or did she say, ‘Blankety-blankety cuss word. I’m gonna get some people to come to get you’?" Ashe asked. "I mean, that’s really important.”
Another two members abstained from voting.
The board didn’t recommend any changes to the police department’s deescalation policies, even though a discussion was listed on Thursday’s agenda. Instead, board members were encouraged to write down their ideas for future discussion.
The decision follows months of delays, after the board lacked a quorum in November and December. And when the vote finally came Thursday, it wasn’t without some confusion.
“We’re agreeing or disagreeing to vote?” Ashe asked.
“No, no. You’re agreeing or disagreeing with the conclusion that the officer was exonerated,” responded board attorney Bob Masters.
“O.K. So it’s either ‘sustained’ or ‘exonerated,’” Ashe continued.
“No, no, no, no, no,” Masters repeated.
One member tried to vote “sustained,” anyway.
The board is required to make its decision within 60 working days of the conclusion of the review office director’s investigation. Masters believed the investigation didn’t technically end until Thursday’s meeting, since members previously requested more information.
