Community Police Review Board
Regular MeetingAlbany, NY · December 12, 2024
Minutes
CITY OF ALBANY
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
PUBLIC MONTHLY MEETING
MEETING MINUTES
December 12, 2024, at 6:00 p.m.
Albany Community Police Review Board Minutes Thursday, December 12, 2024
I. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL (N. Vives)
CPRB Chair Nairobi Vives called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM.
CPRB Members present: Chair Nairobi Vives, Vice Chair Dr. Veneilya Harden, Secretary
Paul Collins-Hackett (via videoconference), Rev. Dr. Victor Collier, John Levendosky,
Victor Person, and Antoinette Santos.
II. APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 12, 2024 AGENDA (N. Vives)
Chair Vives moved to approve the meeting agenda. The motion was seconded. Five
members (Vives, Levendosky, Person, Collier, and Santos) voted affirmatively.
III. REPORT FROM THE GOVERNMENT LAW CENTER AT ALBANY LAW
SCHOOL (C. Miller)
Government Law Center (GLC) Program Director Chel Miller provided an update
concerning the Board’s transition: Effective January 1, 2025, the Board’s day-to-day
operations will be integrated within the City of Albany. GLC staff are working closely with
Board members and City staff to ensure as smooth of a transition as possible. Miller noted
that communications may be delayed between December 20 and early January.
Miller provided information about the CPRB’s new location and contact information:
• The CPRB’s new mailing address and physical location is 175 Central Avenue, 5th
Floor, Albany, NY 12206.
• The next CPRB Public Monthly Meeting on January 9, 2025, will take place in City
Hall, located at 24 Eagle St, Albany, NY 12207.
• The new email address for the CPRB is cprb@albanyny.gov, which is being monitored
by the City Clerk and Common Council staff.
• The new phone number to contact the CPRB will also be announced shortly.
To receive notifications about future CPRB meetings and activities, community members
may subscribe to the CPRB’s Notify Me® list on the City of Albany’s Agenda Center:
https://www.albanyny.gov/list.aspx#agendaCenter.
Miller provided remarks on behalf of the Government Law Center: The Government Law
Center has provided administrative support to the CPRB since 2000 – twenty-four years of
service to the Board and the communities we serve. The CPRB has more authority—and
responsibility—than it did when this journey began. Government Law Center leadership
and staff—from the program managers over the last two decades, including Michele Andre
who is now in Dallas, to Tamar Reiner and Chel Miller—have taken this responsibility to
heart. The Government Law Center thanks the CPRB and the diverse communities of
Albany for entrusting it with this responsibility. The Government Law Center hopes that
the Common Council of the City of Albany recognizes the essential nature of this Board
and that it supports Board Members and future staff as the CPRB evolves into a more
sustainable model for independent police oversight.
IV. REPORT FROM THE OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS (Lt./Det. J.
Rittie)
Lieutenant Detective John Rittie provided an update about CC2021-025, which was
discussed at the November 14, 2024, Public Monthly Meeting. Lt./Det. Rittie reported that
the complainant was able to obtain funds that had placed into evidence by APD upon the
complainant’s arrest. Lt./Det. Rittie reported that OPS is attempting to make contact with
the complainant to address the remaining issues raised at the November 14 meeting.
V. PUBLIC COMMENT (Three (3) minutes Per Person) (N. Vives)
None.
VI. CASE REVIEW
CC2022-042 P. Collins-Hackett & Monitor A. Lawrence
Allegation(s): Conduct Standards (2cts)
The incident occurred on November 20, 2022. The complainant alleged that when she
called APD to report a violation of an Order of Protection which took place in the City of
Albany while she was on her way to Hudson, NY, Officer James Kittleman told her to
contact the Hudson Police Department. The complainant stated that, when she called back
to file a complaint, the officer yelled at her and hung up on her. The complainant alleged
that when she demanded to speak with the officer’s supervisor, he was disrespectful. The
complainant stated that she threatened to report him to “the commissioner,” to which the
officer replied, “I’ve been here for 16 years. Tell the commissioner I said ‘hi.’ He doesn’t
care.” When the complainant arrived at South Station, an incident report was filed in
relation to the violation of the Order of Protection.
CPRB Monitor Al Lawrence reviewed the investigation completed by OPS Detective
Christopher Stiles. Det. William Pierce was originally assigned to the investigation, which
was reassigned to Det. Stiles on September 21, 2023. The CPRB Monitor reviewed the
following materials: call ticket and incident report dated November 20, 2022, notes from
Det. Pierce’s interview with Officer Kittleman, written statements from Sergeant Matthew
Haker, and Det. Stiles’ case report.
The CPRB Monitor noted that recordings from the phone calls from the complainant to
Officer Kittleman and Det. Pierce’s interview with Officer Kittleman are not available.
Det. Stiles’ case report cited a malfunction in the hard drive of Det. Pierce’s computer.
In a final report dated September 5, 2024, Det. Stiles concluded that the complaint could
not be sustained because the computer problems prevent access to any recordings of the
conversations between Officer Kittleman and the complainant and therefore the demeanor
of the officer could not be determined.
The CPRB Monitor concurred that, based on the evidence available from OPS, it cannot
be determined whether the officer yelled at her, that he was disrespectful, or that his
superior wouldn’t care about the complainant’s report of her treatment. However, the
CPRB Monitor noted that Officer Kittleman verified that he had been on the force for 16
years during his interview with Det. Pierce, giving credence to one of the complainant’s
allegations. The CPRB Monitor noted that Officer Kittleman may have believed that the
incident that the complainant attempted to report had taken place in Hudson. The CPRB
Monitor further note that it was unclear why Officer Kittleman did not take the complaint
when requested. Based on his review of the OPS investigation and the evidence available,
the CPRB Monitor recommended a finding of Not Sustained.
Board Secretary Collins-Hackett inquired about whether there was a record of any new
efforts to contact the complainant after the case was assigned to Det. Stiles. The CPRB
Monitor did not find such activity noted in the materials provided by OPS.
Collins-Hackett moved to accept the Monitor’s findings. The complainant was present and
objected to the motion. Chair Vives moved to permit the complainant to provide comment.
The complainant stated that she lives in Albany and was on her way to Hudson when she
received a phone call in violation of an Order of Protection. The complainant stated that,
when she called APD, Officer Kittleman advised her that she needed to report to the police
department in Hudson. The complainant stated that she did go to the Hudson Police
Department as advised and that “they laughed [her] out.” The complainant stated that when
she called APD again, she briefly spoke with a female officer, but then Officer Kittleman
took the phone and told her not to call again. This is when the officer made the statements
at the core of the complaint. The complainant stated that when she arrived at South Station
in person, Officer Kittleman told other officers on duty not to speak with her.
The complainant stated that she recently had another encounter with Officer Kittleman, in
which she attempted to report her daughter as missing. The officer told the complainant
that a sergeant on duty would contact her. When the complainant called back later, the
sergeant had not been made aware of her report.
The complainant expressed disappointment that her complaint was not thoroughly
investigated and that she was not contacted by the detective who was reassigned the case.
The complainant stated that individuals who witnessed the incident would verify her
allegations.
Board Secretary Collins-Hackett amended his motion to table the vote until more
information can be obtained. Staff provided Collins-Hackett’s contact information to the
complainant.
Board Member Santos asked the complainant if she spoke with a sergeant the first time she
went to South Station that night. The complainant reported that she spoke with an officer
that night, who reluctantly took her report. The complainant reported that she went to
Family Court the next morning and then returned to South Station, where she spoke with a
sergeant.
Vice Chair Dr. Harden asked the Monitor to confirm that there were no recordings
available. The CPRB Monitor stated that if any recordings were obtained by Det. Pierce,
they are no longer available due to the malfunction of the hard drive on his computer. Dr.
Harden inquired about whether there was a record of OPS reaching out to the complainant.
The CPRB Monitor stated that there was no such record.
Chair Vives stated that she has further questions about the malfunctioning hard drive and
recordings that will be tabled for further discussion. Secretary Collins-Hackett will be in
contact with the complainant. Collins-Hackett and Complainant will be in contact.
VII. CASE UPDATE
CC2022-001 P. Collins-Hackett & Monitor J. Schwartz
Allegation(s): General Call Handling and Procedures (3cts) and Body-Worn Cameras (1ct)
The incident occurred on December 11, 2021. The complainant alleged that he called 911
to report two individuals stealing items from vehicles. The complainant alleged that the
officers who arrived at the scene failed to take action despite the complainant providing
them with information about the incident he witnessed. The complainant also alleges that
the first officers he interacted with (APD Officers Matthew Hopper and Justin Swan) stated
that they could contact the potential suspect and that they were dismissive. Officer Moran
responded to the location for a separate call two days later, on December 13, 2021.
CC2022-001 was initially presented at the October 10, 2024, CPRB Public Monthly
Meeting. The complaint findings were tabled until more information could be obtained.
Board Secretary Collins-Hackett stated that he has been in contact with the complainant.
Collins-Hackett stated that there are more items to discuss with the complainant, who is
presently outside of the country. Collins-Hackett made a motion to table further review of
the complaint for a future meeting.
CC2022-027 P. Collins-Hackett & Monitor A. Lawrence
Allegation(s): Call Handling (1ct)
The incident occurred on August 27, 2022. The complainant stated that she felt unsafe
while officers were trying to help her retrieve items from the property. According to the
complaint, the officers yelled at her and accused her of being difficult during the process,
calling her an “emotionally disturbed person.” The complainant believed that the officers'
behavior was inappropriate and did not adhere to proper police etiquette.
At the July 11, 2024, Public Monthly Meeting, the CPRB reached a finding of exonerated
with regards to 1 count of alleged improper Call Handling. Questions were raised at the
meeting about why the complainant was referred to as “emotionally disturbed” in the
investigation report and evidence related to the complaint, what factors lead to dispatchers
or APD officers to label an individual as “emotionally disturbed” (“EDP”), and whether it
was within APD policy for officers to transport an individual to another location. At the
meeting, CPRB members voted to add a discourtesy violation, which would be tabled until
the policy regarding transportation could be clarified.
At the September 12, 2024, Public Monthly Meeting, Secretary Collins-Hackett reported
that he had requested information from OPS about what criteria is used to designate an
individual as an “emotionally disturbed person.” OPS Detective Raven Dixon sent OPS’s
classifications. Chair Vives requested that Secretary Collins-Hackett follow up with OPS
about whether APD officers can provide transport in such circumstances.
Secretary Collins-Hackett requested clarification about the “emotionally disturbed person”
designation and what behaviors would lead an officer or call-taker to describe an individual
in this way. OPS Lieutenant Detective John Rittie explained that this designation may be
applied by an officer or call-taker if an individual exhibits signs of clinical mental illness
(e.g. schizophrenia), when an individual exhibits a heightened emotional state in which
their emotional reaction is interpreted as disproportionate to certain stimuli, whether they
are having a strong emotional reaction or if it is induced by drug or alcohol use. Collins-
Hackett expressed concern about the use of this designation by individuals who are not
medical professionals and are not qualified to diagnose mental health issues.
OPS Commander Morey further clarified that APD officers do not use this designation to
attempt to diagnose individuals. She stated that the “EDP” designation is intended to
acknowledge extenuating circumstances and open up non-criminal pathways for
individuals that officers encounter.
Vice Chair Dr. Harden noted that [New York Mental Hygiene Law] 9.41 provides police
officers with the discretion to determine that someone is in need of a [mental health]
evaluation, and that the designation is not intended to be a diagnosis. Dr. Harden noted that
9.41 is designed to ensure that police officers have a protocol to follow in such situations.
Dr. Harden encouraged further discussion about this issue among Board members and OPS
in another setting. Chair Vives concurred, stating that this requires a deeper conversation
and that a future committee meeting would be an appropriate setting.
Secretary Collins-Hackett expressed appreciation for Vice Chair Dr. Harden’s and Chair
Vives’ statements. Collins-Hackett noted that, concerning the complaint in question, the
body-worn camera footage showed the EDP designation being weaponized by officers.
VIII. CONSIDERATION OF COMPLAINT CLOSURE (N. Vives)
Two complaints were withdrawn within the past month, including CC2024-039 and a
complaint received on November 12, 2024, that had not yet received a case number. Chair
Vives moved to accept the withdrawal of the complaints. The motion was seconded and
approved. Six Board members (Vives, Harden, Collier, Person, Levendosky, and Santos)
voted affirmatively.
One complaint received within the past month was determined to be outside of the CPRB’s
jurisdiction. Chair Vives moved to accept the determination. Six Board members (Vives,
Harden, Collier, Person, Levendosky, and Santos) voted affirmatively.
IX. REPORTS (N. Vives)
CPRB Standing Committee Reports
Bylaws and Rules Committee Chair Antoinette Santos reported that the CPRB Bylaws and
Rules will need to be updated to reflect the Board’s transition. Changes to the Bylaws and
Rules are tabled until the transition is complete.
Community Outreach Committee Chair Paul Collins-Hackett reported that the committee
has been working with other organizations to share what the CPRB does. Collins-Hackett
reported that the CPRB recently participated in workshops at the ALERT Community
Leader and Law Enforcement Summit and a civic engagement program at Albany High
School organized by the People’s Perception Project (P3) and the Albany Chapter of the
NAACP. Collins-Hackett stated that the CPRB will be present at holiday events over the
next few weeks.
Investigation Committee Chair John Levendosky expressed thanks to Committee Vice
Chair Antoinette Santos, Board Members, and CPRB’s contract investigators and
monitors, who have all helped the CPRB make progress toward addressing the backlog of
complaints. Levendosky also expressed thanks to Tamar Reiner and Chel Miller at the
Government Law Center for their support of the Board during this time.
Mediation Committee Chair Dr. Veneilya Harden acknowledged Board Members John
Levendosky and Antoinette Santos for their efforts on the Investigations Committee. Dr.
Harden reported that Board has not conducted mediations but the Board is in conversations
with OPS, who has conducted focus groups. Dr. Harden reported that the Board received
an application from a consultant who is interested in facilitating mediations for the Board.
Police Department Liaison Committee Chair Dr. Harden reported that the committee
recently met with Lt./Dt. Rittie. The committee discussed whether APD has a policy
concerning the ability of officers to provide transportation to locations outside of its
jurisdiction. Lt./Dt. Rittie reported that APD General Order 3.3.00 [CONFIRM] provides
certain restrictions on the use of 24-hour vehicles: they are not to be operated outside of
APD’s jurisdiction with the exception of police business. Lt./Det. Rittie stated that there
are other General Orders that dictate how vehicles may be used. Dr. Harden reported that
the committee also discussed updates to the complaint withdrawal form. The complaint
withdrawal form has been updated. Commander Morey provided an updated version of the
form. The committee also stressed the importance of maintaining open lines of
communication with OPS during complaint review in advance of Public Monthly
Meetings, e.g. asking questions ahead of time so that OPS detectives can seek answers
prior to the meeting.
Public Official Liaison Committee Chair Nairobi Vives reported that the committee met
on December 3. The committee’s December 17 meeting has been canceled due to the
upcoming holidays. Vives reported that the CPRB’s new office space is being cleaned and
will be ready to access soon. Vives reported that the APD has not provided a response to
feedback from the Board concerning the APD Discipline Matrix. At the December 3
meeting of the committee, Commander Morey reported that the Discipline Matrix is on the
new Chief’s radar. Chair Vives reported that Board Members will meet with Chief Brendan
Cox on December 20.
Report from the Chair
Chair Vives acknowledged the hard work of the Board Members during a complicated
year. Vives noted that 2024 has been a year of growth for the Board. Vives expressed
thanks to the standing committee chairs for their instrumental role in this growth.
Vives recognized that Vice Chair Dr. Harden’s time on the Board is coming to a close after
nine years. Vives thanked Dr. Harden for her work. Dr. Harden expressed her thanks to
Board members for their work. Board Members Levendosky, Collins-Hackett, Santos,
Person, and Vives individually expressed thanks to Dr. Harden.
X. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES (N. Vives)
Chair Vives moved to approve the minutes from the CPRB Public Monthly Meeting on
November 14, 2024. The motion was seconded and approved. Six Board members (Vives,
Harden, Collier, Person, Levendosky, and Santos) voted affirmatively.
XI. NEW BUSINESS (N. Vives)
Board Officer Nominations
Chair Vives noted that each year, the Board must elect a new slate of Board Officers. Chair
Vives noted that Dr. Harden is stepping down from her role as Vice Chair. Vice Chair Dr.
Harden nominated Antoinette Santos to serve in the role of Vice Chair. This nomination
was seconded. Dr. Harden nominated John Levendosky to serve in the role of Secretary.
This nomination was seconded. Dr. Harden nominated Nairobi Vives to continue to serve
in the role of Chair. This nomination was seconded. The Board’s vote on the Board Officer
slate will take place during the Public Monthly Meeting on January 9, 2025.
XII. ADJOURNMENT (N. Vives)
With no further business, Chair Nairobi Vives adjourned the meeting at 6:59PM.
Agenda
NOTICE OF CPRB PUBLIC MONTHLY MEETING AGENDA
Thursday, December 12, 2024 – 6:00 PM
NOTE: Effective January 1, 2025, the Albany Community Police Review Board will be
located at 175 Central Avenue, 5th Floor, Albany, NY 12206. Beginning in January 2025,
CPRB Public Monthly Meetings will be held in a new location to be announced.
THERE ARE THREE WAYS TO ATTEND AND PARTICIPATE:
1. In Person: West Wing Classroom (W212) of Albany Law School's 1928 Building, 80 New
Scotland Avenue, Albany, NY 12208 (Parking Lot Entrance on Holland Ave.)
2. Online: Participate via Online Zoom enter code: 812 8068 0884 and numeric meeting
password: 880330
3. Listen: 1 646 931 3860 US and enter code: 812 8068 0884 and numeric meeting password:
880330
SUBMIT WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENT: If you would like to submit written comment on
an upcoming agenda item, please fill out the public comment form here on the CPRB’s website or
email cprb@albanylaw.edu.
BOARD MEMBERS: Chair Nairobi Vives, Vice Chair Veneilya Harden, Secretary Paul Collins-
Hackett, Reverend Dr. Victor L. Collier, Antoinette Santos, John Levendosky, Victor Person, and
Milton M. Arroyo
STAFF: Government Law Center Program Director Chel Miller, Outside Counsel Michael
Goldstein, and Outside Counsel Mark Mishler
The Albany Community Police Review Board (CPRB) independently reviews and investigates
complaints of alleged misconduct committed by officers of the City of Albany Police Department
(APD). The CPRB is staffed by civilians, and it is not part of the APD.
The CPRB holds a working meeting open to the public on the second Thursday of every
month. CPRB’s monthly meetings provide a platform for community members to learn more
about the Board’s scope and priorities. Board members also use the meetings to review complaints,
ask questions, and share concerns about police-community relations in Albany neighborhoods.
Speaking at Board Meetings is open to all. Please be advised that according to Albany Law
School, the possession of firearms or weapons is prohibited on any property owned or
occupied by the school.
During board meetings, all members and guests are expected to show utmost courtesy towards
each other, speakers, and city employees. Refrain from making rude or derogatory remarks
reflecting negatively on the integrity of others or making abusive comments about their motives
or personalities.
Public Comment is an opportunity for members of the public to address the Community Police
Review Board on matters under their jurisdiction. Public comment is limited to three (3) minutes
per person out of courtesy to all community members who wish to speak.
Accommodations: CPRB provides accommodations upon request to persons with disabilities and
individuals who are limited English proficient who wish to address CPRB Board/Committee
matters. A request must be made within 48 hours in advance of a Board or Committee meeting,
depending on the service requested. Please contact the CPRB’s Office by phone at (518) 445-2383
for information.
Albany Community Police Review Board Agenda Thursday, December 12, 2024
I. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL (N. Vives)
II. APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 12, 2024 AGENDA (N. Vives)
III. REPORT FROM GOVERNMENT LAW CENTER (C. Miller)
IV. REPORT FROM THE OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS (J. Rittie)
V. PUBLIC COMMENT (Three (3) minutes Per Person) (N. Vives)
VI. CASE REVIEW
A. CC2022-042 P. Collins-Hackett & Monitor A. Lawrence
The incident occurred in December 2022. The complainant alleged that when she called
APD to report a violation of an Order of Protection, the desk officer yelled at her and
hung up on her. The complainant alleged that when she demanded to speak with the
officer’s supervisor, he was disrespectful. The complainant stated that she threatened
to report him to “the commissioner,” to which the officer replied, “I’ve been here for
16 years. Tell the commissioner I said ‘hi.’ He doesn’t care.” The complainant
acknowledged that she had called APD several times before this interaction occurred.
Allegation(s): Conduct Standards (2cts)
1. Discussion
2. Complainant Related Public Comment
3. Action – Vote on Finding(s)
VII. CASE UPDATE
A. CC2022-001 P. Collins-Hackett & Monitor J. Schwartz
The incident occurred on December 11, 2021. The complainant alleged that he called
911 to report two individuals stealing items from vehicles. The complainant alleged
that the officers who arrived at the scene failed to take action despite the complainant
providing them with information about the incident he witnessed. The complainant also
alleges that the first officers he interacted with (APD Officers Matthew Hopper and
Justin Swan) stated that they could contact the potential suspect and that they were
dismissive. Officer Moran responded to the location for a separate call two days later,
on December 13, 2021.
CC2022-001 was initially presented at the October 10, 2024, CPRB Public Monthly
Meeting. The complaint findings were tabled until more information could be obtained.
Allegation(s): General Call Handling and Procedures (3cts) and Body-Worn Cameras
(1ct)
1. Discussion
2. Complainant Related Public Comment
3. Action – Vote on Finding(s)
B. CC2022-027 P. Collins-Hackett & Monitor A. Lawrence
The incident occurred on August 27, 2022. The complainant stated that she felt unsafe
while officers were trying to help her retrieve items from the property. According to
the complaint, the officers yelled at her and accused her of being difficult during the
process. The complainant believed that the officers' behavior was inappropriate and did
not adhere to proper police etiquette.
At the July 11, 2024, Public Monthly Meeting, the CPRB reached a finding of
exonerated with regards to 1 count of alleged improper Call Handling. Questions were
raised at the meeting about why the complainant was referred to as “emotionally
disturbed” in the investigation report and evidence related to the complaint, what
factors lead to dispatchers or APD officers to label an individual as “emotionally
disturbed,” and whether it was within APD policy for officers to transport an individual
to another location. At the meeting, CPRB members voted to add a discourtesy
violation, which would be tabled until the policy regarding transportation could be
clarified.
At the September 12, 2024, Public Monthly Meeting, Board Member Collins-Hackett
reported that he had requested information from OPS about what criteria is used to
designate an individual as an “emotionally disturbed person.” OPS Detective Raven
Dixon sent OPS’s classifications. Chair Vives requested that Board Member Collins-
Hackett follow up with OPS about whether APD officers can provide transport in such
circumstances.
Allegation(s): Call Handling (1ct)
1. Follow-up Discussion
VIII. CONSIDERATION OF COMPLAINT CLOSURE
A. Complaint(s) Withdrawn
1. Complaint received on November 12, 2024
2. CC2024-039
B. Complaint(s) Out of Jurisdiction
1. Complaint received on November 10, 2024
IX. REPORTS
A. CPRB Standing Committee Reports
1. Bylaws and Rules (A. Santos)
2. Community Outreach (P. Collins-Hackett)
3. Investigation (J. Levendosky)
4. Mediation (V. Harden)
5. Police Department Liaison (V. Harden)
6. Public Official Liaison (N. Vives)
B. Report from the Chair (N. Vives)
X. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES (N. Vives)
A. Approval of Minutes from Regular Meeting on November 14, 2024
XI. NEW BUSINESS (N. Vives)
A. Board Officer Nominations
XII. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS (Time Permitting)
XIII. ADJOURNMENT (N. Vives)
Materials Provided:
• Minutes from Regular Meeting on November 14, 2024
CITY OF ALBANY
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
PUBLIC MONTHLY MEETING
MEETING MINUTES
November 14, 2024, at 6:00 p.m.
Albany Community Police Review Board Minutes Thursday, November 14, 2024
I. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL (V. Harden)
CPRB Vice Chair Dr. Veneilya Harden called the meeting to order at 6:01 PM.
CPRB Members present: Vice Chair Dr. Veneilya Harden, Reverend Dr. Victor Collier,
John Levendosky, Victor Person, Antoinette Santos, and Milton Arroyo. Chair Nairobi
Vives joined later in the meeting (8:04 PM).
II. APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 14, 2024 AGENDA (V. Harden)
Vice Chair Harden moved to approve the meeting agenda. The motion was seconded. Six
members (Arroyo, Harden, Levendosky, Person, Collier, and Santos) voted affirmatively.
III. REPORT FROM THE OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS
None.
IV. PUBLIC COMMENT (Three (3) minutes Per Person) (V. Harden)
None.
V. CASE REVIEW
CC2021-005 V. Person & Monitor A. Lawrence
The incident occurred on September 1, 2019. The complainant alleged that she was parked
on the side of the road, texting, when an Albany Police Department vehicle pulled up
behind her. The complainant reported that the officers indicated that they smelled cannabis
and forcibly removed her from her vehicle. The complainant also alleged that an APD
officer handcuffed her and twisted her arm to the point where she lost feeling in her hand
through her driver’s side window, while she was still in the car. Additionally, the
complainant alleged that a second officer sprayed her with pepper spray. The complainant
stated that, when she tried to remain inside her car, one of the officers punched her arm to
make her let go of the steering wheel. The complainant alleged that several male officers
dragged her out of her car. The complainant reported feeling strikes to her back and her
face smashed into the ground, with one officer kneeling on her face. Moreover, the
complainant states that when she was brought to the station, she asked for medical attention
because her eyes were burning and she did not feel well, but she was told she was faking.
The complainant alleged that she was illegally stopped by police and directed to exit her
car, that excessive force was used to arrest her, that she was denied prompt medical
attention, and that she was improperly denied the right to a telephone call at the police
station.
CPRB Monitor Al Lawrence reviewed the OPS investigation conducted by Detective Keith
Johnson. In a final report dated August 15, 2024, Detective Johnson recommended that the
investigation be closed with the following findings: “Exonerated” concerning the
allegation of improper Arrest Authority; “Exonerated” concerning the allegation of
improper Use of Force, and “Not Sustained” concerning the allegation of failure to provide
Medical Treatment to a Person in Custody.
The Monitor raised the critical discussion point that it is unknown whether the officer could
smell cannabis on the complainant or not. The officer claimed to have smelled cannabis. A
trace amount of cannabis was discovered, but did not lead to any criminal charges. The
CPRB Monitor recommended findings of not sustained on both allegations since the issues
raised by the complainant could neither be proven nor disproven by the available evidence.
The Monitor concluded that use of force — four APD officers picking up the complainant
from the ground — was considered reasonable under APD policy because the complainant
refused to cooperate.
Board Member Person agreed with the Monitor’s conclusions. Mr. Person asked if there
were any mental health professionals on the scene at the time. The Monitor responded that
there were none present, to his knowledge. The Monitor noted that APD officers found
prescription medications in the car that were legally obtained by the complainant.
Board Member Levendosky asked about whether body-worn camera footage existed and
how much time took place between the booking and the end of the arrest. This information
is unknown because body camera footage is not available. APD Officers were not required
to use body-worn cameras at the time of the incident.
Board Member Person asked about what vehicle the complainant was transported in; it was
an APD SUV.
Board Member Santos sought clarification that the complainant was not charged for
possession of cannabis. The Monitor confirmed that the complainant was not charged for
possession. The Monitor reported that one of the officers asked to get the discovered trace
of cannabis tested but the Sergeant on duty declined.
The CPRB’s findings are as follows:
• With regards to 1 count of allegation of improper Arrest & Authority Procedure,
the CPRB reached a finding of Not Sustained.
• With regards to 1 count of allegation of improper Use of Force, the CPRB reached
a finding of Not Sustained.
• With regards to 1 count of allegation of improper Treatment of Persons in
Custody, the CPRB reached a finding of Not Sustained.
• With regards to 1 count of allegation of improper Treatment of Persons in
Custody, the CPRB reached a finding of Exonerated.
Board Member Person made a motion on the findings. Vice Chair Harden asked for a
seconding of Board Member Santos’ motion. Motion seconded and passed. Six members
(Arroyo, Collier, Harden, Levendosky, Person, and Santos) voted affirmatively.
CC2021-015 A. Santos & Monitor A. Lawrence
The incident on or around May 5, 2021. The complainant alleged that an APD officer
antagonized her during an encounter with Albany County Sheriff’s Deputies, who the
complainant alleged were breaking into her car. The complainant has filed a complaint with
the Albany County Sheriff’s Department concerning her encounter with the Deputies. The
complainant alleged that, while she was counting how many Sheriff’s Deputies were
around her vehicle, the APD officer antagonized her by counting “1-2-3.” The complainant
alleged that the officer’s actions caused her emotional distress. On May 8, 2021, the
complainant appeared at APD Office of Professional Standards, where she spoke with
Detective William Pierce. Detective Pierce filed a Citizen Grievance Notification Report
on June 1, 2021. No formal complaint form was filed through APD or the CPRB.
CPRB Monitor Al Lawrence reviewed the OPS investigation initiated by Detective Pierce
and completed by Detective Timothy J. Adalian. The CPRB Monitor reviewed the Citizen
Grievance Notification Report, an account of Detective Pierce’s interview with the
complainant, and Detective Adalian’s final report. In a final report dated September 11,
2024, Detective Adalian recommended the investigation be closed with a finding of “No
Finding,” where there was insufficient information to further the investigation concerning
the allegation of improper Call Handling. Detective Adalian’s report states that attempts
were made to contact the complainant via phone and email, with no correspondence.
The CPRB was also unsuccessful in reaching the complainant to obtain further information.
The CPRB Monitor agreed with the OPS finding. Board Member Santos also concurred
with this finding.
The CPRB’s findings are as follows:
• With regards to 1 count of allegation of improper Call Handling, the CPRB
reached a finding of No Finding.
Board Member Santos made a motion on the findings. Vice Chair Harden asked for a
seconding of Board Member Santos’ motion. Motion seconded and passed. Six members
(Arroyo, Collier, Harden, Levendosky, Person, and Santos) voted affirmatively.
CC2022-021 J. Levendosky, A. Santos, & Monitor A. Lawrence
The complaint was filed on July 22, 2022. The complainant alleged that an individual
named “Terrell” who claimed to be a police officer has sexually harassed and abused her
for multiple years. The complainant reported that in December 2020, she had met a man
who identified himself as an “Officer Terrell,” to whom she provided her phone number.
The complainant alleged that, for the following two years, “Officer Terrell” would harass
her, through several methods including issuing her tickets, destruction of property,
breaking into her apartment, putting substances in her food, and sexually abusing her.
The complaint was initially assigned to then-CPRB Monitor Gina Torres. It was later
reassigned to CPRB Monitor Al Lawrence, who reviewed the OPS investigation conducted
by Detective Keith Johnson, which included APD department records, Standard Incident
Reports submitted by APD and the Colonie Police Department, and body-worn camera
footage.
In a final report dated August 5, 2024, Detective Johnson noted that a review of the APD
roster indicated that there were no employees with the first or last name of Terrell and
could not locate an individual matching the description provided by the complainant.
Detective Johnson cited reports from the Colonie Police Department indicating that these
allegations have been a pattern with the complainant. Detective Johnson forwarded the
complainant’s information to the APD Crisis Intervention Team liaison for them to conduct
outreach with the complainant. Detective Johnson recommended the investigation into
allegation of improper Conduct Standards be closed with “No Finding,” in which there was
insufficient information to further investigate the allegation.
The CPRB Monitor agreed with the OPS finding. Board Member Levendosky also
concurred with this finding. Board Member noted that Detective Johnson demonstrated
due diligence and made numerous efforts to identify the individual in the complaint despite
little information.
The CPRB’s findings are as follows:
• With regards to 1 count of allegation of improper Conduct Standards, the CPRB
reached a finding of No Finding.
Board Member Santos made a motion on the findings. Vice Chair Harden asked for a
seconding of Board Member Santos’ motion. Motion seconded and passed. Six members
(Arroyo, Collier, Harden, Levendosky, Person, and Santos) voted affirmatively.
CC2022-026 J. Levendosky & Monitor A. Lawrence
The incident occurred on August 18, 2022, at Jennings Landing. The complainant alleged
that an APD officer endangered the lives of multiple people by driving recklessly and fast,
without warning, through a park near pedestrians. The complainant stated that an officer,
speaking through a loudspeaker, threatened to ticket and tow vehicles that were parked.
The complainant alleged that the police vehicle’s headlights were on maximum brightness
and that the officer engaged the vehicle’s emergency lights and quickly fled the park to
avoid being identified.
CPRB Monitor Al Lawrence reviewed the OPS investigation conducted by Detective Keith
Johnson. In a final report dated November 3, 2023, Detective Johnson noted that he was
able to identify the officer in question by obtaining call tickets for the time of the incident.
Detective Johnson interviewed the officer. The officer stated that he received a “priority
one” call while at Jennings Landing, which required him to activate his emergency lights
and sirens, and that he proceeded below 20 mph with sirens on, not seeing any pedestrians.
Detective Johnson reviewed video provided by the complainant and body-worn camera
footage from the time of the incident. There was a child in the footage, but not in the path
of the car.
Detective Johnson recommended that the investigation be closed with the following
findings:
1. “Unfounded” concerning the allegation of improper Vehicle Operation, where the
review shows that the act(s) did not occur or were misconstrued
2. “Exonerated” concerning the allegation of improper Conduct Standards, where the
acts which prove the basis for the complaint occurred but the review shows that
such acts were proper according to APD policy and applicable laws.
The CPRB Monitor agreed with the OPS findings. Board Member Levendosky also
concurred.
The CPRB’s findings are as follows:
• With regards to 1 count of allegation of improper Vehicle Operations, the CPRB
reached a finding of Exonerated.
• With regards to 1 count of allegation of improper Vehicle Operations, the CPRB
reached a finding of Unfounded.
• With regards to 1 count of allegation of improper Conduct Standard, the CPRB
reached a finding of Unfounded.
Board Member Santos made a motion on the findings. Vice Chair Harden asked for a
seconding of Board Member Santos’ motion. Motion seconded and passed. Six members
(Arroyo, Collier, Harden, Levendosky, Person, and Santos) voted affirmatively.
CC2024-024 A. Santos & Monitor A. Lawrence
The incident occurred on February 3, 2022. The complainant alleged that an APD officer
exercised abuse of authority and discriminated against the complainant based on gender,
race, and sexual orientation. The complainant alleged that the officer used a homophobic
slur, accused the complainant of selling drugs, and did not inform the complainant of their
Miranda rights when arresting the complainant. The complainant alleged that they were
placed in a holding cell for ten hours. The complainant expressed feeling shocked,
traumatized, and in fear for their life. The complainant stated that, as a result of this
incident, they have been in psychotherapy support for almost two years.
CPRB Monitor Al Lawrence reviewed the OPS investigation conducted by Detective Keith
Johnson. Detective Williams obtained the tape of a 911 call to police and related call ticket
for the night of the incident at the complainant’s home, an Incident Report completed by
one of the responding officers, and an Arrest Report and Booking and Arrest Report
completed by the officer who is the subject of the complaint. Detective Johnson also
interviewed the complainant and reviewed camera footage from the officers’ body-worn
cameras and Central Booking security cameras.
In a final report dated August 30, 2024, Detective Johnson identified five allegations that
the complainant made in their written complaint and interview with the detective:
1. The complainant alleged that the arresting officer made a homophobic statement
by claiming, “That’s nasty,” when the complainant referred to condoms that he was
carrying. Detective Johnson recommended a finding of “Unfounded” concerning
this allegation because the other officer on scene denied hearing such a remark and
none is heard on body cameras of the incident.
2. The complainant alleged that the arresting officer accused the complainant of being
a drug dealer. The other officer on scene denied hearing such a comment, and video
footage depicts no mention of drugs during the hours that the complainant had
contact with the officers. Detective Johnson recommended a finding of
“Unfounded” concerning this allegation.
3. The complainant alleged that they were not read their Miranda rights. Detective
Johnson recommended a finding of “Exonerated” concerning this allegation, stating
that the complainant was not interrogated once placed in custody and that Miranda
warnings were not required.
4. The complainant alleged that the arresting officer abused his authority by assuming
the complainant was a drug dealer. Detective Jonson recommended a finding of
“Unfounded” because the other officer on scene denies hearing mention of drugs
and the camera footage reveals no mention of drugs during the complainant’s
interactions with the officers.
5. The complainant alleged that the arresting officer showed bias on the basis of
gender, race, and sexual orientation. Detective Johnson recommended a finding of
“Unfounded” concerning this allegation as there is no video evidence to support a
claim of differential treatment.
The CPRB Monitor suggested parsing the allegations differently but ultimately shared the
same conclusions as the OPS Detective:
1. The complainant alleged that the arresting officer discriminated against the
complainant based on race, gender, and sexual orientation, and used a
“homophobic” statement by referring to his use of condoms as “nasty.” The CPRB
Monitor recommended a finding of “Unfounded” because the available evidence
disputes the allegation.
2. The complainant alleged that the arresting officer abused his authority by
questioning the complainant concerning selling drugs and accused him of being a
drug dealer. The CPRB Monitor recommended a finding of “Unfounded” because
the available evidence disputes the allegation.
3. The complainant alleged that they were not read their Miranda rights. The CPRB
Monitor recommended a finding of “Exonerated” because the available evidence
shows that the officers’ actions were proper according to APD policy and
applicable laws.
Board Member Santos agreed with the CPRB Monitor’s conclusions.
The CPRB’s findings are as follows:
• With regards to 1 count of allegation of improper Conduct Standards, the CPRB
reached a finding of Unfounded.
• With regards to 1 count of allegation of improper Arrest Authority &
Procedures, the CPRB reached a finding of Unfounded.
• With regards to 1 count of allegation of improper Arrest Authority &
Procedures, the CPRB reached a finding of Exonerated.
Board Member Santos made a motion on the findings. Vice Chair Harden asked for a
seconding of Board Member Santos’ motion. Motion seconded and passed. Six members
(Arroyo, Collier, Harden, Levendosky, Person, and Santos) voted affirmatively.
CC2022-052 A. Santos & Monitor A. Lawrence
The incident occurred on December 19, 2022. The complainant alleged that APD officers
used excessive and unnecessary force while placing her boyfriend into custody while he
was resisting his arrest for a domestic incident. The complainant alleged that arresting
officers placed a knee on the boyfriend’s back, twisted his arm, and pushed his face into
the ground. The complainant stated that one of the two officers laid across her boyfriend’s
body while trying to handcuff him. The complainant alleged that a third officer kicked the
boyfriend in the foot or leg as the officers took him to a patrol car because he was resisting
arrest. The complainant stated that, throughout the incident, she was screaming for the
officers to stop and for the boyfriend to stop resisting arrest. After a struggle, he was
arrested (revealing a bruise on his right cheek and scratches on his hands and left knee,
ultimately leading him to the hospital).
CPRB Monitor Al Lawrence reviewed the OPS investigation initiated by Detective Alyssa
Eaton and completed by Detective Hillary Burns. Evidence reviewed included the
complaint, video recording provided by the complainant, records of the incident (Subject
Resistance/Use of Force reports completed by the subject officers), body-worn camera
footage from officers involved with the incident, and a statement from one of the
responding officers. In a final report dated August 7, 2023, Detective Burns concluded that
the subject officers should be “Exonerated” on the allegation of excessive use of force as
the available evidence demonstrates that the degree of force used to subdue the
complainant’s boyfriend was reasonable and necessary under the circumstances. Detective
Burns concluded that the subject officers had reason to believe a crime had been committed
and that the complainant’s boyfriend was responsible.
The CPRB Monitor agreed with Detective Burns’ conclusions. Board Member Santos also
concurred with the OPS findings.
The CPRB’s findings are as follows:
• With regards to 1 count of allegation of improper Use of Force, the CPRB reached
a finding of Exonerated.
• With regards to 1 count of allegation of improper Use of Force, the CPRB reached
a finding of Exonerated.
• With regards to 1 count of allegation of improper Use of Force, the CPRB reached
a finding of Exonerated.
Board Member Santos made a motion on the findings. Vice Chair Harden asked for a
seconding of Board Member Santos’ motion. Motion seconded and passed. Six members
(Arroyo, Collier, Harden, Levendosky, Person, and Santos) voted affirmatively.
CC2020-018 J. Levendosky & Monitor J. Schwartz
The incident occurred on July 20, 2020. The complainant alleged that he was falsely
arrested for robbery in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second
degree, and possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree. The complainant
further alleged that an acquaintance’s mother conspired with an APD detective to have the
complainant arrested.
CPRB Monitor Julie Schwartz reviewed the OPS investigation conducted by Detective
William Pierce. OPS received the case on November 30, 2020. The case was initially
assigned to Detective Keith Johnson and was reassigned to Detective Pierce on March 8,
2021. Detective Pierce obtained APD reports and video footage which provided context
for the complainant’s arrest. Detective Pierce found that, on May 21, 2020, a victim went
to South Station to report a robbery that had taken place the day prior. The victim alleged
that the complainant, with whom she was acquainted, forcibly stole money from her. The
victim reported that the complainant had punched her twice in the face and held a knife to
her throat. On July 20, 2020, an APD detective who was aware that the complainant was
wanted for the May 2020 robbery arrested the complainant and brought him to South
Station. The complainant was arrested for robbery in the first degree and criminal
possession of a weapon in the fourth degree; the complainant was not arrested or prosecute
for any drug-related offenses.
In a final report dated March 27, 2023, Detective Pierce recommended the investigation be
closed with a finding of “Exonerated,” where the acts which prove the basis for the
complaint occurred, but the review shows that such acts were proper according to APD
policy and applicable law.
The CPRB Monitor agreed with Detective Pierce’s conclusions. Board Member
Levendosky also concurred with the OPS findings.
The CPRB’s findings are as follows:
• With regards to 1 count of allegation of improper Arrest Authority & Procedure,
the CPRB reached a finding of Exonerated.
• With regards to 1 count of allegation of improper Arrest Authority & Procedure,
the CPRB reached a finding of Exonerated.
• With regards to 1 count of allegation of improper Arrest Authority & Procedure,
the CPRB reached a finding of Unfounded.
Board Member Levendosky made a motion on the findings. Vice Chair Harden asked for
a seconding of Board Member Santos’ motion. Motion seconded and passed. Six members
(Arroyo, Collier, Harden, Levendosky, Person, and Santos) voted affirmatively.
CC2022-041 J. Levendosky & Monitor J. Schwartz
The incidents occurred on September 7, 2022, September 20, 2022, and November 4, 2022.
The complainant alleged that APD Detectives came to her home on multiple occasions to
harass and threaten her partner into agreeing to allegations of a crime that he did not
commit. The complainant reported that the detectives told the complainant and her partner
that they had video footage of the partner throwing a rock at a vehicle and damaging it.
The complainant reported that the detectives told them that the other driver wanted the
complainant’s partner to pay for the damages and that the partner should cooperate with
them, or he would be charged as a result. The complainant reported that one of the
detectives told the partner to rethink what happened that day and to reach out to them so
that they could coordinate with the victim concerning the monetary value of the alleged
damage. The complainant alleged that she was threatened by a detective during a second
visit to convey a message to her partner, or she ran the risk of having him arrested. The
complainant reported asking the detective why the other driver was not communicating
through a lawyer and instead has the police serving as a “middleman.” The complainant
described the detectives’ behavior during the third visit as rude, disrespectful,
unprofessional, bullying, vague, and unorthodox. The complainant alleged that the
detectives arrived with a warrant for her partner’s arrest, but ultimately left without
arresting him.
CPRB Monitor Julie Schwartz reviewed the OPS investigation conducted by Detective
Raven Dixon. Evidence reviewed included the complaint, APD documentation and reports,
body-worn camera footage from one of the detectives, interviews with the detectives, and
security video footage. Detective Dixon found that the subject detectives were following
up on a criminal mischief incident that had occurred on July 26, 2022, at a gas station
parking lot. Detective Dixon found that a victim had reported an individual caused damage
to his vehicle and that the detectives believed that the complainant’s partner was involved
in the incident. When speaking to the detectives during the first visit on September 7, 2022,
the complainant’s partner placed himself at the scene and stated that he had a disagreement
with an individual in the gas station parking lot but denied causing damage to the
individual’s vehicle. Detective Dixon found that the detectives had visited the
complainant’s residence as the complainant had described but concluded that the
detectives’ actions were proper.
In a final report date September 10, 2024, Detective Dixon recommended the investigation
be closed with the following findings: “Exonerated” concerning the allegation of improper
Conduct Standards, where the acts which prove the basis for the complaint occurred but
the review shows that such acts were proper; and “Not Sustained” concerning the allegation
of improper Arrest Authority and Procedure, where the review fails to disclose sufficient
facts to prove or disprove the allegation made in the complaint.
The CPRB Monitor came to a different conclusion. The CPRB Monitor found that it was
unclear whether there was probable cause to arrest the partner and noted that the detectives’
actions were unusual. The CPRB Monitor questioned why the detectives would go through
the effort to obtain an arrest warrant and repeatedly follow up on the incident without
actually arresting the complainant’s partner. The CPRB Monitor concluded that the
detectives acted inappropriately and that negotiating a “settlement” for monetary damages
is outside of the scope of their duties. The CPRB Monitor noted that the case is beyond the
statute of limitations to impose discipline. The CPRB Monitor recommended a finding of
“Sustained” for the allegations in the complaint and recommended that detectives be re-
trained on conduct standards, proper arrest procedures, and body-worn camera policy. The
CPRB Monitor further recommended the warrant be removed from the system so that the
complainant’s partner does not face the possibility of being arrested on an active warrant.
Board Member Levendosky concurred with the CPRB Monitor’s findings and expressed
that obtaining the warrant but not executing it was inappropriate. Board Member
Levendosky echoed the CPRB Monitor’s recommendation that the warrant be removed.
Board Member Santos moved to vote on the findings.
The complainant was present at the meeting and provided comment. The complainant
reported that she is a former employee of the City of Albany. The complainant expressed
feeing disappointed by the acts of the detectives in this case. That it took two years for this
case to be handled, and that nobody talked to her, was dissatisfying. The complainant stated
that her partner had a difficult past but has been on a path of turning his life around. The
complainant reported that the detectives’ harassment was disruptive in their lives and had
a significant effect on her partner’s mental health. The complainant stated that she was
upset about how much time it took to investigate her complaint and, during that time, her
family had moved outside of the City.
The complainant expressed appreciation for the CPRB Monitor’s review of the
investigation and findings. The complainant expressed that she was pleased with the
outcome of this review, but believed that there is a lot of work here to be done. The
complainant stated that there should be a finding of bullying, which she believes to be
revealed in the body cameras, as detectives did not respect and use her partner’s preferred
name as requested. The complainant provided further recommendations that APD
employees be trained on trauma-informed practice and New York State’s preferred name
policy.
The CPRB’s findings are as follows:
• With regards to 2 counts of allegation of improper Conduct Standards involving
Detective Jason Wilson, the CPRB reached a finding of Sustained.
• With regards to 1 count of allegation of improper Arrest Authority & Procedure
involving Detective Jason Wilson, the CPRB reached a finding of Sustained.
• With regards to 1 count of allegation of improper Department Policy involving
Detective Jason Wilson, the CPRB reached a finding of Sustained.
• With regards to 1 count of allegation of improper Conduct Standards involving
Detective Roger Zapata, the CPRB reached a finding of Sustained.
• With regards to 1 count of allegation of improper Arrest Authority & Procedure
involving Detective Roger Zapata, the CPRB reached a finding of Sustained.
• With regards to 2 counts of allegation of improper Violation of Department
Policy involving Detective Roger Zapata, the CPRB reached a finding of
Sustained.
Board Member Santos made a motion on the findings. Vice Chair Harden asked for a
seconding of Board Member Santos’ motion. Motion seconded and passed. Six members
(Arroyo, Collier, Harden, Levendosky, Person, and Santos) voted affirmatively.
Detective/Lieutenant John Rittie interjected later in the meeting to discuss the outcome of
this complaint. Det./Lt. Rittie expressed concern about OPS and the Board’s divergent
findings and that he would like to have a conversation in regard to their disagreement.
Board Member Levendosky defended the position and findings of the Board, but this issue
will be further addressed at upcoming meetings of the Standing Committee on
Investigations and Standing Committee on Police Department Liaison. Board Chair Vives
noted that the problem raised by Det./Lt. Rittie may be best addressed by completion of
the APD Discipline Matrix.
CC2022-010 J. Levendosky & Monitor J. Schwartz
The complainant alleged that an APD Detective exhibited unprofessional, racist, and sexist
behavior towards the complainant when she attempted to obtain a copy of her statement
reporting a robbery. On March 10, 2022, APD officers responded to the complainant’s
home, where the complainant alleged that her upstairs neighbor stole her cell phone. The
complainant stated that she was quickly and rudely dismissed during the encounter. The
complainant claimed that she was belittled and not acknowledged.
CPRB Monitor Julie Schwartz reviewed the OPS investigation initiated by Detective
William Pierce and completed by Detective Hillary Burns. Evidence reviewed included the
complaint, APD documentation and reports filed by the responding officers, and body-
worn camera footage from one of the responding officers on March 10, 2022. In a final
report completed on September 6, 2024, Detective Burns recommended the investigation
be closed with the following findings: “Not Sustained” concerning the allegation of
improper Conduct Standards, on the basis that the review failed to disclose sufficient facts
to prove or disprove the allegation(s); and “Exonerated” concerning the allegation of
improper Call Handling, where the acts which provide the basis for the complaint occurred,
but the review shows that such acts were proper according to APD policy and applicable
laws. Detective Burns concluded that the responding officers properly investigated the
allegations on scene by interviewing all parties present, aiding the complainant in an
attempt to locate her cell phone, and completing an incident report for her allegation of
robbery. Detective Burns further concluded that Detective Ryan Johnson properly
investigated the robbery complaint and ultimately closed the case as “No criminal act
committed.”
The CPRB Monitor agreed with Detective Burns’ conclusions. Board Member Levendosky
also concurred with the OPS findings.
The CPRB’s findings are as follows:
• With regards to 1 count of allegation of improper Call Handling involving Officer
Silvestre Acevedo, the CPRB reached a finding of Exonerated.
• With regards to 1 count of allegation of improper Call Handling involving Officer
Steven Alberts, the CPRB reached a finding of Exonerated.
• With regards to 1 count of allegation of improper Conduct Standards involving
Detective Ryan Johnson, the CPRB reached a finding of Not Sustained.
Board Member Levendosky made a motion on the findings. Vice Chair Harden asked for
a seconding of Board Member Santos’ motion. Motion seconded and passed. Six members
(Arroyo, Collier, Harden, Levendosky, Person, and Santos) voted affirmatively.
CC2021-025 A. Santos & Monitor A. Lawrence
The complainant alleged that on March 6, 2019, APD officers conducted a “no-knock” raid
and kicked in the door to his residence. The complainant alleged that APD officers
handcuffed him in his living room and brought five unknown men, who were also
handcuffed, into the residence. The complainant alleged that the APD officers proceeded
to perform strip searches and cavity searches on the unknown men and the complainant
before bringing all of the men to the precinct for processing. The complainant alleged that
the officers’ entry caused cooking oil to spill on his clothing and that the officers seized
$800, which has not since been returned. The complainant reported that he was charged
with possession of a firearm and various drug charges, most of which were later dismissed.
The complainant reported that he lost his apartment and property, was incarcerated, and
became homeless as a result of this incident.
CPRB Monitor Al Lawrence reviewed the OPS investigation initiated by Detective
William Pierce and completed by Detective Timothy Adalian. Evidence reviewed included
the complaint, APD documentation and reports completed by the reporting officers,
statements and interviews with three of the reporting officers, and body-worn camera
footage from one reporting officer. One officer and three of the detectives identified by
Detective Adalian as present on the scene have since retired from APD.
In a final report dated September 19, 2024, Detective Adalian recommended the
investigation be closed with the following findings: “Not Sustained” concerning the
allegation of improper Conduct Standards involving the spilled cooking oil, where the
review fails to disclose sufficient facts to prove or disprove the allegation(s); “Not
Sustained concerning the allegation of improper Strip Search; and “Exonerated”
concerning the allegation of improper Evidence & Property Handling, where the acts which
provide the basis for the complaint occurred but the review shows that such acts were
proper according to APD policy and applicable laws.
Detective Adalian found that the responding officers were dispatched to the complainant’s
residence with information that a person of interest in an apparent crime was present and
that the search of the complainant’s residence was court-authorized. The incident took
place seven months before APD officers were required to utilize body-worn cameras, so
there is limited video footage. Detective Adalian concluded that the complainant’s
allegations concerning property damage and improper strip search could not be sustained
because there was no video footage inside the residence and the officers who were inside
denied seeing any destruction of property or body searches. Detective Adalian reported
attempts to contact the complainant but was unsuccessful in his efforts.
Detective Adalian found that property reports substantiate that $723 was taken from the
complainant’s residence and secured as “proceeds of illegal activity.” Detective Adalian’s
report indicates that the complainant’s property was released on January 26, 2023, by the
Albany County District Attorney’s Office, and that the complainant’s attorney was notified
that the property was to be returned by APD. Detective Adalian’s report states that a check
has been made out to the complainant in the amount of $723 to properly document that the
funds are still in the possession of APD and have not been claimed by the complainant.
Board Member Santos sought clarification about whether the money has since been
returned to the complainant. Detective Adalian stated that the money has not been returned,
and that he has not successfully made contact with the complainant.
Board Member Santos recommended findings of “Not Sustained” for the first two
allegations (improper Conduct Standards and improper Strip Search) and “Exonerated” for
the allegation of improper Evidence and Property Handling, because the complainant’s
property is available for the complainant to retrieve.
The complainant was present at the meeting and provided comments. The complainant
noted the amount of time that had elapsed and referred to the case as “egregious.” The
complainant claimed that neither he nor his attorney have been contacted by anyone from
APD or the CPRB until he received the CPRB’s notification about the case review. The
complainant stated that he went to South Station to retrieve his property and was given a
hard time. The complainant alleged that the officers on duty claimed they couldn’t find the
appropriate individual to release the property.
Board Member Santos sought clarification from OPS about the procedure to obtain
released property from APD. OPS Commander Melissa Morey stated that there is a strict
protocol and that there is only one detective with the authority to release the property.
Commander Morey provided instructions and contact information for the complainant.
The complainant stressed the failures of his case. The complainant stated that this incident
had similarities to the police killing of Breonna Taylor, and that he was lucky to be alive.
The complainant stated that he was incarcerated in the county jail for eight months as a
result of this incident. The complainant reported that, at his preliminary hearing, one of the
reporting officers told the judge under oath that he did not recognize the complainant and
that the officers were looking for the complainant’s former roommate. Further, the
complainant stated that his residence was left in a mess and that the site was not secured—
as a result, much of his property was stolen. The complainant stated that he faced numerous
felony and misdemeanor charges, and that the felony charges were gradually dropped.
Board Vice-Chair Dr. Harden acknowledged the complainant’s comments and thanked him
for sharing his experience with the Board. The complainant stated that photographs exist
of the state in which the officers left his residence. Det. Adalian claimed that he did not
receive any photographs. The CPRB Monitor stated that he also did not receive
photographs. The complainant reported that the photographs were taken by a friend and
submitted as evidence for his preliminary hearing. The complainant stated that this
information could be obtained from his lawyer.
Board Member Santos sought clarification about which APD unit conducts no-knock
warrants. OPS staff clarified that it is the community response unit. Board Vice-Chair Dr.
Harden and Board Member Santos stated that they would work with the complainant to
help him obtain his property from APD.
This complaint has been TABLED for further review. The Board did not vote on findings
concerning this complaint.
CC2022-014 J. Levendosky & Monitor A. Lawrence
The incident occurred on June 2, 2022. The complainant alleged that, while he was
recording video in Albany City Hall as an independent journalist, APD officers violated
his First Amendment right (freedom of the press) and Fourth Amendment right (search and
seizure). The complainant alleged that, after an APD officer observed the complainant
recording the officer and an unidentified man, the officer told the complainant to stop
recording. The complainant alleged that the officer then demanded that the complainant
leave City Hall. The complainant alleged that the officer did not deescalate the situation.
The complainant further alleged that, when he attempted to pass by the officer and a second
officer, they physically impeded his movements and forced him to use the elevator, where
he was physically harassed. The complainant further alleged that the officers used
excessive force and unlawfully arrested him for filming papers that were on someone’s
desk. In an accompanying grievance report, a companion of the complainant reported that
the complainant was wrongfully arrested and that the companion was pushed by the APD
officers.
CPRB Monitor Al Lawrence reviewed the OPS investigation conducted by Detective Keith
Johnson. Evidence reviewed included the complaint, APD documentation and reports, a
City Court Record, interviews with the involved officers, video footage from the patrol car,
and a YouTube video recorded by the complainant. In a final report dated September 30,
2024, Detective Johnson reached the following conclusions:
1. The complainant alleged that an officer gave the complainant a hard time about
recording video in City Hall. Detective Johnson recommended a finding of
“Unfounded,” where the review shows that the act(s) complained of did not occur
or were misconstrued. In an interview at OPS, the officer stated that he was having
a personal conversation and that the complainant began recording the conversation.
The officer stated that he asked the complainant to stop recording and that the
complainant refused.
2. The complainant alleged that the same officer was malicious and disorderly.
Detective Johnson recommended a finding of “Unfounded.” Detective Johnson
reported that the officer’s body-worn camera footage disputes the allegation.
3. The complainant alleged that the same officer verbally and physically harassed him
prior to his unlawful arrest. Detective Johnson recommended a finding of
“Unfounded.” The officer’s body-worn camera footage, YouTube video recorded
by the complainant, and officer’s interview with OPS dispute this allegation.
Further, Detective Johnson concluded that the complainant was lawfully arrested
for trespassing after being asked to leave by an employee in City Hall and more
than one employee objected to being recorded. The Albany City Court Record
indicates that the complainant was tried and convicted for the charge of Trespass.
4. The complainant alleged that the same officer refused to de-escalate the situation.
Detective Johnson recommended a finding of “Exonerated,” where the act(s) which
prove the basis for the complaint occurred, but the review shows that such acts were
proper according to APD policy and applicable law. Detective Johnson reported
that the video footage does not depict the officer yelling or being argumentative.
5. The complainant alleged that, when he attempted to pass officers to walk up the
stairs, they physically impeded his movements and forced him to use an elevator.
Detective Johnson recommended a finding of “Exonerated.” Detective Johnson
reported that the video footage shows the officer telling the complainant that he
needed to leave City Hall, stepping in front of the complainant as he attempted to
walk up the stairs, and then stepping in front of the complainant to prevent him
from entering other spaces in City Hall.
6. The complainant alleged that the officers used excessive force to arrest him.
Detective Johnson recommended a finding of “Exonerated.” Detective Johnson
reported that video footage and officers’ interviews at OPS dispute this allegation.
7. The complainant alleged that his First Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights
were violated. Detective Johnson recommended a finding of “Unfounded.”
Detective Johnson reported that video footage and officers’ interviews at OPS
dispute this allegation.
8. The complainant’s companion alleged that officers pushed her. Detective Johnson
recommended a finding of “Unfounded.” Detective Johnson reported that video
footage and officer’ interviews at OPS dispute this allegation, showing instead that
incidental contact had occurred.
The CPRB Monitor parsed the allegations differently and reached slightly different
conclusions. The CPRB Monitor recommended the following findings:
1. The complainant alleged that he was impeded from exercising his First Amendment
right to film and record in the lobby and hallways of City Hall. The CPRB Monitor
recommended a finding of “Sustained,” where the act(s) which prove the basis of
the complaint did occur and were improper.
2. The complainant alleged that the officer was malicious, disorderly, and refused to
de-escalate the situation. The CPRB Monitor recommended a finding of
“Unfounded.”
3. The complainant alleged that he was unlawfully arrested. The CPRB Monitor
recommended a finding of “Exonerated.”
4. The complainant alleged that officers used excessive force when arresting the
complainant. The CPRB Monitor recommended a finding of “Exonerated.”
5. The complainant alleged that he was improperly searched. The CPRB Monitor
recommended a finding of “Exonerated.”
6. The complainant’s companion alleged that she was assaulted by an officer. The
CPRB Monitor recommended a finding of “Unfounded.”
Board Member Levendosky concurred with the CPRB Monitor’s findings. Mr.
Levendosky stated that, while the complainant was initially in the right to record in the
lobby and hallways, multiple workers objecting to being recorded gave officers a valid
reason to remove him from the premises.
The complainant was present at the meeting and provided comment. The complainant
expressed his belief that he was exercising New York State’s “Right to Monitor” law,
allowing him to film the officer in question on top of the First Amendment right to freedom
of the press. The complainant claimed that the trespassing charge was dropped. The
complainant expressed empathy for other complainants who spoke during the meeting.
Board Member Arroyo confirmed that the complainant was arrested for trespass because
of harassment and refusal to stop recording after employees objected to being recorded,
justifying the arrest. Board Vice-Chair Dr. Harden proposed moving forward despite some
uncertainty concerning the arrest and trespass charges.
The CPRB’s Findings are as follows:
• With regards to 1 count of allegation of improper Violation of Civil Rights, the
CPRB reached a finding of Sustained.
• With regards to 1 count of allegation of improper Conduct Standards, the CPRB
reached a finding of Exonerated.
• With regards to 1 count of allegation of improper Arrest Authority &
Procedures, the CPRB reached a finding of Unfounded.
• With regards to 1 count of allegation of improper Use of Force, the CPRB reached
a finding of Unfounded.
• With regards to 1 count of allegation of improper Search, the CPRB reached a
finding of Exonerated.
• With regards to 1 count of allegation of improper Use of Force, the CPRB reached
a finding of Unfounded.
Board Member Levendosky made a motion on the findings. Vice Chair Harden asked for
a seconding of Board Member Levendosky’s motion. Motion seconded and passed. Six
members (Arroyo, Collier, Harden, Levendosky, Person, and Santos) voted affirmatively.
VI. CONSIDERATION OF COMPLAINT CLOSURE (V. Harden)
A. Complaints Withdrawn
1. CC2024-040 was withdrawn per the complainant’s request.
B. Complaints Out of Jurisdiction
1. Complaint received October 15, 2024, was determined to be under the
jurisdiction of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community
Supervision.
VII. REPORTS
A. CPRB Standing Committee Reports
1. Bylaws and Rules (A. Santos)
The Committee will propose a series of changes to the Bylaws and Rules that
correspond to the Board’s integration into the City.
2. Community Outreach (P. Collins-Hackett)
None.
3. Investigation (J. Levendosky)
None.
4. Mediation (V. Collier & V. Harden)
None.
5. Police Department Liaison (V. Harden)
None.
6. Public Official Liaison (N. Vives)
None.
B. Report from the Government Law Center (C. Miller)
Government Law Center Program Director Chel Miller reported that the GLC and Board
have been working with various City leaders to assure that the CPRB transition occurs
smoothly. Miller noted that the law school will be closed the week of December 23, 2024.
C. Report from the Chair (N. Vives)
Board Chair Vives reported that there are many activities related to the transition. Chair
Vives reported that the Board’s new physical location will be at 175 Central Avenue in
Albany.
Chair Vives reported that Board members presented at the annual NACOLE conference.
Chair Vives stated that Board members had an opportunity to meet with OPS Commander
Melissa Morey, who attended the conference on behalf of APD.
Chair Vives reported that the Board presented its budget proposal to the Common Council
on October 29 and that the Board has been attempting to fight a 15% budget cut.
VIII. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES (N. Vives)
Board Chair Vives made a motion to approve the October 10, 2024, meeting minutes.
Motion seconded and passed. Seven members (Arroyo, Collier, Harden, Levendosky,
Person, Santos, and Vives) voted affirmatively.
IX. NEW BUSINESS (N. Vives)
Government Law Center Program Director Chel Miller shared a reminder that the Board
will have a new mailing address, phone number, and email addresses in January. The new
contact information will be announced. Miller also shared a reminder that while the
December 12, 2024, public monthly meeting will take place at the law school, the Board’s
meetings will take place in a new location effective January 1, 2025.
X. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
None.
XI. ADJOURNMENT (N. Vives)
With no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 8:54 PM.
Get email alerts for Albany
A daily email when new agendas and minutes are posted.