Commendations and Complaints
UAPD is proud to provide modern, quality law enforcement services to students, faculty, staff and visitors. In order for UAPD to continue providing the highest quality service, the performance of its employees must be closely monitored. The police department is sincerely interested in both rewarding above average performance and in taking corrective action in those instances where an employee fails to meet our standards. The following will tell you how to provide recognition for an employee whose work is considered worthy of praise, or make a complaint against an employee who is believed to have acted improperly.
Commendation Procedure
To commend or compliment the performance of a UAPD employee, notify a UAPD supervisor by coming in person to the police department during business hours (Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 4:30pm) or by calling the non-emergency number at 479-575-3204, or by mailing comments to University Police, 155 South Razorback Road, Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701.
When a commendation is received, a Citizen Memorandum Form will be completed by the receiving supervisor and forwarded through the chain of command to the Director.
Letters of commendation from citizens are posted for all department employees to view.
Complaint Procedure
It is the policy of UAPD to investigate all allegations and complaints of misconduct against any member of the department. Proper adherence to the provisions of this policy will clear the innocent and facilitate prompt and equitable corrective disciplinary action.
To make a complaint against a UAPD employee, notification should be made to a UAPD supervisor by coming in person to the police department located in the Administrative Services Building, by writing or by telephone.
Complaints may be anonymous. Any complaint received by a member of the UAPD is directed to supervisory personnel immediately.
When a complaint is received it will be assigned to the employee's supervisor or division commander in the following instances: Complaints of harassment, complaints on demeanor and violations of lesser rules and regulations except those involving criminal activity.
An Internal Affairs Investigator will be responsible for investigation of the following: Complaints involving criminal activity, complaints involving command personnel, complaints of sexual harassment, incidents involving the discharge of firearms and allegations of excessive use of force.
If the allegation of misconduct is extremely serious in nature, the Director or designate will be notified without delay. Examples of extremely serious allegations include: Complaints involving criminal activity, complaints against command personnel or complaints of excessive use of force.
Notifications will be made to the reporting party informing them of the results of the departmental investigation. If the complaintant does not give an address or phone number, notification cannot be made. In internal investigations involving a great amount of time, an interim status letter may be sent explaining the status of the investigation.
Complaint Summary 2002
In 2002 UAPD supervisors investigated four (4) complaints against department personnel. Each of the four complaints alleged officers' actions against members of the community were rude or unprofessional. There were no complaints alleging criminal or bias-based behavior. Each complaint was investigated by a UAPD supervisor and the findings of those complaints are as follows:
Four (4) different officers were named in the complaints.
One (1) complaint was "Sustained." Investigation disclosed sufficient evidence to prove the allegation on which disciplinary action was based.
Two (2) complaints were "Not Sustained." The investigation failed to discover sufficient evidence to clearly prove or disprove the allegation.
One (1) complaint was "Exonerated." The acts alleged did occur but were justified, lawful and proper.
Complaint Summary 2003
In 2003 UAPD supervisors investigated two (2) complaints against department personnel. Each of the two complaints alleged that officers' actions against members of the community were rude, unprofessional or included an inappropriate use of force. There were no complaints alleging criminal or bias-based behavior. Each complaint was investigated by a UAPD supervisor and the findings of those complaints are as follows:
Two (2) different officers were named in the complaints.
Two (2) complaints were "Not sustained." The investigations failed to discover sufficient evidence to clearly prove or disprove the allegations.
Complaint Summary 2004
In 2004 UAPD supervisors conducted one (1) internal investigation and investigated six (6) complaints against department personnel. Five of the six complaints alleged officers' actions against members of the community were rude, unprofessional or included an inappropriate use of force. One complaint alleged criminal misconduct. There were no complaints alleging bias-based behavior. Each complaint was investigated by a UAPD supervisor and the findings of those complaints are as follows:
Eight (8) different officers were named in the complaints.
Two (2) complaints were "Sustained." The investigations disclosed sufficient evidence to prove the allegations on which disciplinary actions were based.
One (1) complaint was "Not sustained." The investigation failed to discover sufficient evidence to clearly prove or disprove the allegation.
One (1) complaint was "Exonerated." The acts alleged did occur but were justified, lawful and proper.
Two (2) complaints were "Unfounded." Information derived during the investigations revealed the alleged misconduct did not occur, did not involve the employee cited or was untrue.
Complaint Summary 2005
In 2005 UAPD supervisors conducted two (2) internal investigations and investigated nine (9) complaints against department personnel. Each of the nine complaints alleged officers' actions against members of the community were rude, unprofessional or included an inappropriate use of force. There were no complaints alleging criminal or bias-based behavior. Each complaint was investigated by a UAPD supervisor and the findings of those complaints are as follows:
Seven (7) different officers were named in the complaints.
Two (2) complaints were "Sustained." The investigations disclosed sufficient evidence to prove the allegations on which diciplinary action were based.
Four (4) complaints were "Not sustained." The investigations failed to discover sufficient evidence to clearly prove or disprove the allegations.
Three (3) complaints were "Unfounded." Information derived during the investigations revealed the alleged misconduct did not occur, did not involve the employee cited or was untrue.
Complaint Summary 2006
In 2006 UAPD supervisors investigated one (1) complaint against department personnel. The complaint alleged the officer harassed a suspect. There were no complaints alleging criminal or bias-based behavior. The complaint was investigated by a UAPD supervisor and the findings of the complaint are as follows:
One (1) officer was named in the complaint.
One (1) complaint was "Not sustained."" The investigation failed to discover sufficient evidence to clearly prove or disprove the allegation.
Complaint Summary 2007
In 2007 UAPD supervisors investigated one (1) complaint against department personnel. The complaint alleged the officer's actions against members of the community were rude or unprofessional. There were no complaints alleging criminal or bias-based behavior. The complaint was investigated by a UAPD supervisor and the findings of the complaint are as follows:
One (1) officer was named in the complaint.
One (1) complaint was "Sustained." The investigation disclosed sufficient evidence to prove the allegation on which disciplinary action was based.
Complaint Summary 2008
In 2008 UAPD supervisors conducted two (2) internal investigations and investigated three (3) complaints against department personnel. One complaint alleged the officer violated department General Orders. Two complaints alleged bias-based behavior and criminal misconduct. Each complaint was investigated by a UAPD supervisor and the findings of those complaints are as follows:
Four (4) different officers were named in the complaints.
One (1) complaint was "Sustained." The investigation disclosed sufficient evidence to prove the allegation on which disciplinary action was based.
One (1) complaint was "Not Sustained". The investigation failed to discover sufficient evidence to clearly prove or disprove the allegation.
Two (2) complaints were "Not Sustained" in part and "Unfounded" in part. The investigations failed to discover sufficient evidence to clearly prove or disprove part of the allegations. Information derived during the investigations revealed some of the alleged misconduct did not occur, did not involve the employee cited or was untrue.
Complaint Summary 2009
In 2009 UAPD supervisors conducted one (1) internal investigation and investigated six (6) complaints against department personnel. One complaint alleged an abuse of authority, bias-based policing, harassment, and rude and unprofessional conduct. Two complaints alleged the officers' actions against members of the community were rude and unprofessional. One complaint alleged a constitutional rights violation. One complaint alleged abuse of authority. One complaint alleged a code of conduct violation. One complaint alleged the officer's actions included an excessive use of force. Each complaint was investigated by a UAPD supervisor and the findings of those complaints are as follows:
Eight (8) different officers were named in the complaints.
Two (2) complaints were "Sustained." The investigations disclosed sufficient evidence to prove the allegations on which disciplinary actions were based.
One (1) complaint was "Not Sustained". The investigation failed to discover sufficient evidence to clearly prove or disprove the allegation.
One (1) complaint was "Sustained" in part and "Unfounded" in part. The investigation disclosed sufficient evidence to prove part of the allegation. Information derived during the investigation revealed part of the alleged misconduct did not occur, did not involve the employee cited or was untrue.
Three (3) complaints were "Unfounded". Information derived during the investigations revealed the alleged misconduct did not occur, did not involve the employee cited or was untrue.
Complaint Summary 2010
In 2010 UAPD supervisors conducted one (1) internal investigation and investigated four (4) complaints against department personnel. One complaint alleged abuse of authority, bias-based policing, harassment and criminal misconduct. One complaint alleged the officer was rude. One complaint alleged the officer was rude, unprofessional and the officer's actions included an unnecessary use of force. One complaint alleged the officer was rude and disrespectful. Each complaint was investigated by a UAPD supervisor and the findings of those complaints are as follows:
Five (5) different officers were named in the complaints.
Two (2) complaints were "Sustained." The investigations disclosed sufficient evidence to prove the allegations on which disciplinary actions were based.
Three (3) complaints were "Not Sustained." The investigations failed to discover sufficient evidence to clearly prove or disprove the allegations.
Complaint Summary 2011
In 2011 UAPD supervisors conducted one (1) internal investigation and investigated six (6) complaints against department personnel. One complaint alleged the officer violated a traffic law. One complaint alleged the officer was unprofessional. One complaint alleged abuse of authority, corruption, criminal misconduct, constitutional rights violation, excessive force and rude and unprofessional behavior. Two complaints alleged the officer was rude. One complaint alleged the officer was rude and unprofessional. One complaint alleged unprofessional conduct. There were no complaints of bias-based behavior. Each complaint was investigated by a UAPD supervisor and the findings of those complaints are as follows:
Seven (7) different officers were named in the complaints.
Two (2) complaints were "Sustained." The investigations disclosed sufficient evidence to prove the allegations on which disciplinary actions were based.
Three (3) complaints were "Not Sustained." The investigations failed to discover sufficient evidence to clearly prove or disprove the allegations.
One (1) complaint was "Unfounded." Information derived during the investigation revealed the alleged misconduct did not occur, did not involve the employee cited or was untrue.
One (1) complaint was "Withdrawn." The complainant did not intend for the complaint to be formal.
Complaint Summary 2012
In 2012 UAPD supervisors conducted two (2) internal investigations and investigated eleven (11) complaints against department personnel. One (1) complaint alleged the officer was disrespectful to the public. One (1) complaint alleged abuse of authority; violation of constitutional rights, and the officer was unprofessional. One (1) complaint alleged improper driving. One (1) complaint alleged bias based profiling. Two (2) complaints alleged harassment. Two (2) complaints alleged officers and a dispatcher were rude and unprofessional. One (1) complaint alleged unprofessional conduct. Each complaint was investigated by a UAPD supervisor and the findings of those complaints are as follows: Six (6) officers and one (1) dispatcher were named in the complaints.
Six (6) complaints were "Not sustained". The investigations failed to discover sufficient evidence to clearly prove the allegation on which disciplinary action would be based.
One (1) complaint was "Sustained". The investigation disclosed sufficient evidence to prove the allegation on which disciplinary action was based.
Three (3) complaints were "Exonerated". The acts alleged did occur but were justified, lawful and proper.
One (1) complaint was "Unfounded". Information derived during the investigation revealed the alleged misconduct did not occur, did not involve the employee cited or was untrue.
Complaint Summary 2013
In 2013 UAPD supervisors conducted one (1) internal investigation and investigated one (1) complaint against department personnel. The complaint alleged the officer violated constitutional rights. There were no complaints alleging criminal or bias based behavior. The complaint was investigated by a UAPD supervisor and the findings of the complaint are as follows:
One (1) officer was named in the complaint.
One (1) complaint was "Not sustained". The investigation failed to discover sufficient evidence to clearly prove the allegation on which disciplinary action would be based.
Complaint Summary 2014
In 2014 UAPD supervisors conducted one (1) internal investigation and investigated eight (8) complaints against department personnel. Four (4) complaints alleged officers and a dispatcher were rude and unprofessional. One (1) complaint alleged the officer abused authority, was rude and unprofessional. One (1) complaint alleged the officer was intimidating and unprofessional. One (1) complaint alleged improper driving. One (1) complaint alleged the dispatcher mishandled a call for service. Each complaint was investigated by a UAPD supervisor and the findings of those complaints are as follows:
Seven (7) officers and one (1) dispatcher were named in the complaints.
Six (6) complaints were "Not sustained". The investigation failed to discover sufficient evidence to clearly prove the allegation on which disciplinary action would be based.
One (1) complaint was "Sustained." The investigation disclosed sufficient evidence to prove the allegation on which disciplinary action was based.
One (1) complaint was "Unfounded". Information derived during the investigation revealed the alleged misconduct did not occur, did not involve the employee cited or was untrue.
Complaint Summary 2015
In 2015 UAPD supervisors conducted three (3) internal investigations and investigated six (6) complaints against department personnel. One (1) complaint alleged the officers were rude. One (1) complaint alleged the officer abused authority. One (1) complaint alleged the officer abused authority and was a threat to public safety. One (1) complaint alleged bias based profiling. One (1) complaint alleged the officer made an inappropriate comment. One (1) complaint alleged the officer mishandled a criminal trespass warning. Each complaint was investigated by a UAPD supervisor and the findings of those complaints are as follows:
Eight (8) officers were named in the complaints.
One (1) complaint was "Not sustained". The investigation failed to discover sufficient evidence to clearly prove the allegation on which disciplinary action would be based.
One (1) complaint was "Exonerated". The acts alleged did occur but were justified, lawful and proper.
Four (4) complaints were "Unfounded". The factual information derived during the investigation revealed that the alleged misconduct did not occur, did not involve the employee cited or was untrue.
Complaint Summary 2016
In 2016 UAPD supervisors conducted four (4) internal investigations and investigated one (1) complaint against department personnel. The complaint alleged the officer was rude. The complaint was investigated by a UAPD supervisor and the findings of the complaint are as follows:
One (1) officer was named in the complaint.
One (1) complaint was "Sustained." The investigation disclosed sufficient evidence to prove the allegation on which disciplinary action was based.
Complaint Summary 2017
In 2017 UAPD supervisors conducted no (0) internal investigations and investigated one (1) complaint against department personnel. The complaint alleged the officer was rude. The complaint was investigated by a UAPD supervisor and the findings of the complaint are as follows:
One (1) officer was named in the complaint.
One (1) complaint was "Unfounded." The factual information derived during the investigation revealed the alleged misconduct did not occur, did not involve the employee cited or was untrue.
Complaint Summary 2018
In 2018 UAPD supervisors conducted one (1) internal investigation and investigated one (1) complaint against department personnel. The complaint alleged the employee was harassing a non-affiliated person. The complaint was investigated by a UAPD supervisor and the findings of the complaint are as follows:
One officer was named in the complaint.
One complaint was "Unfounded." The factual information derived during the investigation(s) revealed the alleged misconduct did not occur, did not involve the employee cited or was untrue.
Complaint Summary 2019
In 2019 UAPD supervisors conducted no (0) internal investigations and ivestigated one (1) complaint against department personnel. The complaint alleged improper conduct. The complaint was investigated by a UAPD supervisor and the findings of the complaint are as follows:
One security officer was named in the complaint.
One complaint was "Not Sustained." The investigation failed to discover sufficient evidence to clearly prove the allegation on which disciplinary action would be based.
Complaint Summary 2020
In 2020 UAPD supervisors conducted one (1) internal investigation and investigated one (1) complaint against department personnel. The complaint alleged criminal misconduct and harassing communications. The complaint was investigated by a UAPD supervisor and the findings of the complaint are as follows:
One officer was named in the complaint.
One complaint was "Not Sustained." The investigation failed to discover sufficient evidence to clearly prove the allegation on which disciplinary action would be based.
Complaint Summary 2021
In 2021 UAPD supervisors conducted one internal investigation and no (0) complaints against department personnel.
Complaint Summary 2022
In 2022 UAPD supervisors conducted no (0) internal investigations and no (0) complaints against department personnel.
Complaint Summary 2023
In 2023 UAPD supervisors conducted no (0) internal investigations and no (0) complaints against department personnel.
Caution: Any false, misleading or untrue statements, accusations, or allegations made in relation to an employee of the University of Arkansas Police Department may lead to civil or criminal sanctions.