Independent Police Auditor Michael briefed the Police Accountability Commission on Dec. 1 about a recent California Supreme Court decision limiting language in police complaint materials and explained how Davis accepts and processes complaints.

Michael read a sentence included in a San Diego County complaint preamble — "It is against the law to make a complaint that you know to be false" — and said the California Supreme Court ruled last month (an 8–1 decision) that such language is unconstitutional because it can dissuade potential complainants. "The majority decided that this language could well dissuade individuals who wanted to make a complaint from making a complaint," Michael said, summarizing the court's rationale.

Michael told the commission the Davis Police Department had already removed that cautionary language and that Davis’s online complaint form is designed to welcome inquiries or formal complaints. He also said the office accepts anonymous complaints but cautioned that anonymous reports frequently lack corroborating detail, which makes investigation difficult. "Davis does accept anonymous complaints," Michael said, "but oftentimes the information doesn't give a police department a lot to go on."

On submission methods, Michael said an email to the chief or the auditor's office is sufficient to start an investigation; a formal complaint form is an option for people who want a documented record. He described an existing police alternative conflict‑resolution pilot as an "off‑ramp" for some complainants but said it has not been used in recent years and that facilitation capacity is limited.

Why it matters: The court decision affects how agencies nationwide phrase materials that inform the public about filing complaints, and it may increase willingness to report misconduct if agencies remove or revise chilling language. For Davis residents, the auditor characterized the city's materials as accessible and emphasized multiple avenues for filing complaints or inquiries.

The commission discussed pathways for forwarding constituent concerns and agreed that sending complaints to the auditor can provide objectivity and options for follow‑up. Michael offered to receive emailed concerns and to coordinate with the Independent Police Auditor’s office about next steps for complainants.

Next steps: No policy vote was taken; the briefing was informational. Commissioners asked staff to clarify public contact points and email addresses to make it easier for residents to submit concerns to the appropriate office.