What happens when a Cleveland police officer, dispatcher or other department employee is accused of misconduct? The path from a complaint to a discipline decision can involve layers of investigations, hearings and reviews. And a decision to discipline someone isn’t always the last word.
We studied police policies and talked to top officials, read union contracts, oversight agency manuals and a half dozen flow charts covering different parts of the process to make it easier for Clevelanders to understand and follow. Our walkthrough explains how a case begins, who makes the decisions and how those decisions can be challenged. Have questions? Let us know.
Scroll to follow the whole path, or jump to a stage.
How the discipline process starts
There’s a complaint or report of misconduct. This can start with…
Not every complaint or investigation leads to discipline
Who reported the conduct and what it involves help determine who investigates
Investigation and review
Department investigation
Supervisors investigate and record facts, findings and applicable policy violations. Cases enter discipline-tracking software and move through the chain of command to the police chief or safety director. At each step, supervisors review whether the alleged violations were properly identified and investigated. They can request more information, correct details, or add, remove or change alleged violations.
External investigation
The Office of Professional Standards, a civilian office outside the police department, investigates noncriminal complaints from members of the public.
The Office of Professional Standards sends its findings and recommendations to the Civilian Police Review Board, an independent group of residents appointed by the mayor and City Council.
The board reviews the investigation and makes its findings at a public meeting. Possible findings for each allegation include:
- Sustained: The evidence supports the allegation.
- Unfounded: The alleged conduct did not occur.
- Insufficient evidence: There is not enough evidence to prove or disprove the allegation.
- Exonerated: The conduct occurred but did not violate policy.
If the board finds a violation and recommends discipline, the employee gets an opportunity to respond at a discipline hearing.
Internal Affairs Unit investigates possible crimes and more serious allegations of misconduct.
A prosecutor reviews the criminal investigation and decides whether to file charges.
Criminal charges and department discipline must be handled separately. An employee can face discipline for violating policy even if no criminal charges are filed.
Chief of Police review and charging letter
In most cases, the police chief reviews the investigation and decides whether the evidence supports the violation. The most serious violations go directly to the safety director. The case can be sent back for more investigation if something was missed. At this point, lower-level misconduct may be resolved with verbal counseling. Those cases never enter the formal disciplinary process.
The chief or safety director begins the formal disciplinary process by sending the case to the Case Preparation Office. That office schedules the pre-disciplinary hearing and sends a “charge letter” to the employee that outlines the city’s account and the alleged policy violations.
Under the collective bargaining agreement, discipline must be issued within 90 days of the original hearing notice. After 90 days, no discipline can be imposed.
Disciplinary hearing
Pre-disciplinary hearing
Before discipline is imposed, the employee can respond with evidence, defenses or witnesses. The employee can also waive the hearing.
The hearing officer — usually a deputy chief or assistant public safety director — reviews the evidence to decide whether it is more likely than not that misconduct occurred. For complaints from the public, the Civilian Police Review Board presents its findings and recommendations to the hearing officer.
Discipline decision
Corrective action
Who decides the consequences?
The hearing officer presents their findings and recommendations to the chief or safety director. If an employee is found to have violated policy, the chief or public safety director determines the consequence. The city calls this “corrective action,” which includes both formal discipline and steps that are not considered discipline.
The chief generally decides cases involving suspensions of 10 days or less. The public safety director decides cases that could result in longer suspensions or termination.
For Civilian Police Review Board cases, the chief must follow the board’s findings and recommendations, under the city charter. If the chief disagrees with the review board, they send what’s called a “departure memo” explaining their reasoning. That could be a misread policy or a conflicting General Police Order.
Then, the board rehears the case, considering the memo, and issues its final decision. The board’s decision is final, and the chief must issue that discipline.
Types of discipline
Non-disciplinary corrective action
- Verbal counseling
- Letter of reinstruction
- Remedial training
Formal discipline
- Written reprimand
- Unpaid suspension
- Demotion
- Termination
Violations are ranked in three groups with a sliding scale of consequences
The department uses a discipline matrix — a chart that sets penalty ranges for different violations — to guide these decisions.
Group I Less serious violations that generally have a limited impact on the department or public, such as tardiness, discourtesy or some reporting errors.
Group II More serious violations that interfere with the department’s mission or create significant risks to public or officer safety.
Group III The most serious violations including serious abuses of authority, unethical conduct, excessive force, dishonesty, discrimination and some criminal offenses. All Group 3 cases go to the Safety Director.
The groups have general ranges for discipline so that employees are treated consistently. Supervisors making discipline decisions can also consider:
- The seriousness of the misconduct
- Prior disciplinary history back to a certain point
- Aggravating factors that may justify a harsher penalty. That could include dishonesty, harm to the public or repeated misconduct.
- Mitigating factors that may support a lesser penalty. That could include accepting responsibility or lack of previous discipline.
The Community Police Commission approved revisions to the discipline policy in 2025, including changes to how violations are grouped. The revised policy is still being negotiated and is not yet in effect.
Challenging discipline
How employees can challenge discipline
Grievance
Arbitration
An officer or other union-represented employee can challenge discipline by filing a grievance.
The city has a labor relations office, which considers the grievance arguments and consults with the law department on a potential resolution, called a settlement.
If they cannot reach an agreement, the union may take the case to arbitration.
In arbitration, a neutral third party holds a hearing, reviews evidence and issues a written decision that both sides agree to follow. Only in rare instances can that be appealed to a local court.
It is unclear how often grievances lead to settlements or changes in discipline. Settlements and arbitration decisions are public records but are not published by the city like discipline decisions are.
Where the Community Police Commission fits in
Direct appeal
The city charter gives Cleveland’s Community Police Commission final authority within city government over police discipline. Voters expanded its powers by passing Issue 24 in 2021.
The commission can order the chief and public safety director to impose or increase discipline and, in limited circumstances, decrease it.
A resident or officer who disagrees with a discipline decision can petition the commission for review. They can make the request at a public meeting, submit it in writing or ask a commissioner to submit it on their behalf.
Commission members publicly discuss and vote on whether to review a case. If they agree to proceed, the next step is to hear evidence.
How and when the commission can intervene remains disputed, in part because union contracts set deadlines for discipline. The unions argue that the commission’s charter powers do not override state collective bargaining law.
The commission has proposed policy changes that would allow it to get involved earlier in discipline cases to address those timing disputes. The revised policy is not yet in effect.
