Skip navigation

Paying online?

The City of Denver recently implemented a security enhancement to better protect our online payment processing system.  As a result of this enhancement, we are no longer able to accept payments from non-current browsers. If you are using an older browser version, please upgrade your browser to the most current version so that you can access the online payment service.

Departmental Orders

DEPARTMENTAL RULES

Sheriff's Department Rules, Policies, and Orders  

In General

In interpreting Sheriff Dept. rules, the plain and ordinary meaning of words should apply.  In re Kemp, CSB 19-13, p. 5 (7/28/14).

Where a hearing officer does not find a violation of a departmental rule, there is no finding to review on petition by the employee to reverse the discipline.  In re Kemp, CSB 19-13, p. 5 (7/28/14).

100.7  No Uniforms Off Duty  

Appellant deputy admitted he violated this rule when he acknowledged the rule but wore his uniform and sidearm to his child support hearing.  In re Strauch, CSA 37-11, p. 7 (12/20/11).

200.2  Use of Force Reporting 

This rule applies to a witness to, and not the actor in, a use of force incident.  It is illogical to require the actor to witness her own actions, particularly since another rule requires the actor to file a use of force report.  In re Norman-Curry, CSA 28-07 and 50-08, p. 21 (2/27/09).  

200.4.1  Misleading or Inaccurate Statements

A violation of RR-200.4.1 can occur when false statements are made without premeditation or an intent to influence the outcome of an investigation or official proceeding.  In re Kemp, CSB 19-13, p. 3 (7/29/14).

Conduct violating RR- 200.4.2 requires a different intent than conduct violating 200.4.1, and therefore a violation of RR-200.4.1 does not necessarily prove a violation of RR-200.4.2.  In re Kemp, CSB 19-13, p. 3 (7/29/14).

A violation of 200.4.2 requires an intent to convey false information in connection with investigations or official proceedings, whereas 200.4.1 does not require an intent to influence the outcome of an investigation or official proceeding.  In re Kemp, CSB 19-13, p. 2 (7/28/14).

Hearing officer did not misinterpret RR-200.4.1 by finding that deputy's denial that he slapped an inmate violated the regulation.  In re Kemp, CSB 19-13, p. 3 (7/29/14).

A violation of RR-200.4.1 does not necessarily also prove a violation of RR-200.4.2.  In re Kemp, CSB 19-13, p. 3 (7/29/14).

200.4.2  Commission of a Deceptive Act

Conduct violating RR- 200.4.2 requires a different intent than conduct violating 200.4.1, and therefore a violation of RR-200.4.1 does not necessarily prove a violation of RR-200.4.2.  In re Kemp, CSB 19-13, p. 3 (7/29/14).

A violation of 200.4.2 requires an intent to convey false information in connection with investigations or official proceedings, whereas 200.4.1 does not require an intent to influence the outcome of an investigation or official proceeding.  In re Kemp, CSB 19-13, p. 2 (7/28/14).

A violation of RR-200.4.2 requires an intent to convey false information in connection with investigations or official proceedings.  In re Kemp, CSB 19-13, p. 3 (7/29/14).

A violation of RR-200.4.1 does not necessarily also prove a violation of RR-200.4.2.  In re Kemp, CSB 19-13, p. 3 (7/29/14).

The same evidence which establishes a violation of CSR 16-60 E. also establishes a violation of Departmental Order 200.4.2, Commission of a Deceptive Act.  In re Romero, CSA 01-12, p. 8 (4/17/12).      

Agency established that appellant was dishonest in violation of departmental rule when appellant's description of her use of force against inmate and assertion that force was justified because other deputy involved had difficulty controlling inmate were contradicted by other deputy's testimony and by Diginet recording of the incident.  In re Norman-Curry, CSA 28-07 and 50-08, pp. 21-22 (2/27/09).

Appellant's denial that supervisor's inquiry into her knitting on duty was an order to cease because it inaccurately described her crocheting as knitting was dishonest in light of the obvious intent of the supervisor's question.  In re Norman-Curry, CSA 28-07 and 50-08, p. 4 (2/27/09).

Where evidence showed that use of crochet needles in jail setting was potentially harmful, and the directive to cease bringing crocheting materials to work were clear to other deputies present when directive was given, appellant's assertion that order applied only to yarn was dishonest.  In re Norman-Curry, CSA 28-07 and 50-08, p. 4 (2/27/09).

Deputy sheriff's denial that sergeant's "please do not do this again" was an order to cease knitting on post was dishonest in light of the obvious intent of the words and the sergeant's authority over appellant.  In re Norman-Curry, CSA 28-07 and 50-08, p. 4 (2/27/09).

200.9  Full Attention to Duties 

Deputy violated rule when he failed to check eligibility of inmate before releasing him.  In re Mitchell, CSA 57-13, p. 5 (5/6/14).

Appellant's knitting on duty prevented her from giving her full attention to her primary duties, in violation of departmental order.  In re Norman-Curry, CSA 28-07 and 50-08, p. 5 (2/27/09).

200.10  Use of City Equipment 

No violation of this rule for use of city equipment “which is prejudicial (detrimental) to the efficient and orderly performance of [the employee’s] assigned duties, and/or the operation of the Department,” where Sheriff’s Dept. claimed deputy was viewing an internet website at the time he mistakenly released an inmate, since the evidence showed that the website was minimized at the time in question and did not interfere with his duties.  In re Mitchell, CSA 57-13, p. 5 (5/6/14).

200.13  Disobeying Lawful Order

Sheriff’s Dept. failed to prove deputy disobeyed an order where evidence showed the supervisor who ordered deputy to find a mistakenly released inmate did not direct the deputy to only go to the inmate's last known address.  In re Mitchell, CSA 57-13, p. 6 (5/6/14).

Supervisor's directive need not be prefaced with words like "I order you" to be the lawful order of a superior.  In re Norman-Curry, CSA 28-07 and 50-08, p. 9 (2/27/09).

200.15.1  Respect for Fellow Deputies and Employees   

This rule must be evaluated under the totality of the circumstances surrounding the allegedly offensive conduct.  In re Gutierrez, CSB 65-11, p. 4 (4/4/13).

Factors to be considered under this rule are whether the appellant intended to be disrespectful, insolent or abusive and whether the subject of the conduct reasonably found it disrespectful, insolent or abusive.  In re Gutierrez, CSB 65-11, p. 4 (4/4/13). 

When deputy sheriff engaged in extended dispute of superior's directive to leave crochet needles out of the jail, she violated this rule.  In re Norman-Curry, CSA 28-07 and 50-08, p. 9 (2/27/09). 

200.19  Performance of Duties 

Deputy violated rule when he failed to check eligibility of inmate before releasing him.  In re Mitchell, CSA 57-13, p. 5 (5/6/14).

300.1  Enforcing Criminal Statutes

Appellant did not violate DO 300.1 by answering calls from a co-worker with “what are you wearing?” where  the words were not patently offensive, the co-worker willingly engaged in the practice, and it was a common greeting among some employees, including the co-worker.  In re Gutierrez, CSA 65-11, pp. 7-8 (8/28/12).

Supervisor’s gestures to a co-worker to lift her shirt and sit on his lap was not immoral conduct under CO 300.1 where agency failed to establish the orderly performance of their duties were impaired thereby, or that the public lost confidence in the agency.  In re Gutierrez, CSA 65-11, p. 8 (8/28/12).

300.2  Soliciting Preferential Treatment 

Deputy violated this rule by his acknowledgment that he wore his uniform and sidearm to his child support hearing.  In re Strauch, CSA 37-11, p. 7 (12/20/11).

300.10.1  Immoral Conduct 

Deputy sheriff who yelled obscenities at a secured inmate during book-in, distracted deputies engaged with other inmates, and disrupted the book-in area, with potentially dangerous results, violated written departmental rule against disorderly performance of duties.  In re Norman-Curry, CSA 28-07 and 50-08, p. 15 (2/27/09).

Deputy sheriff's unjustified violence against an inmate was disorderly performance of her duty to keep inmates safe.  In re Norman-Curry, CSA 28-07 and 50-08, p. 22 (2/27/09).

NOT FOUND 

No violation found where only proof was agency’s assertion that appellant’s gestures “clearly amount to” immoral and indecent conduct, Evaluation of the totality of the circumstances is required.  In re Gutierrez, CSB 65-11, p. 4 (4/4/13).  

Hearing officer did not misinterpret this rule where agency’s only proof of error was that the efficiency of the agency was impaired because a charge was investigated, a lawsuit was filed and discipline resulted.  In re Gutierrez, CSB 65-11, p. 4 (4/4/13).

300.17.1  Franternization with Prisoner

Fraternization is not limited to sexual relationships, but includes any personal relationship between a deputy and an inmate.  In re Romero, CSA 01-12, p. 9 (4/17/12).

Deputy sheriff violated this rule where he spent inordinate amounts of time with an inmate, placed his own funds in her inmate account, sought her out 10 times per month when she was out of custody, and engaged in a 20-minute phone call from her.  In re Romero, CSA 01-12, p. 9 (4/17/12).

300.17.3  Reporting of Prohibited Associations

Deputy sheriff’s failure to self-report his personal relationship with an inmate was a violation of this rule.  In re Romero, CSA 01-12, p. 9 (4/17/12).

300.19  Disobedience of Rule 

CSR 16-60 Y and DO 300.19 apply only in the absence of a more specific violation.  In re Gutierrez, CSA 65-11, p. 8 (8/28/12).

This catchall rule is cumulative where other more specific career service rules are alleged by the agency.  In re Gutierrez, CSA 65-11, p. 6 (8/28/12).

Appellant did not violate the Sheriff's Department rule against disrespectful language by answering co-worker’s phone calls with “what are you wearing” where co-worker participated in the practice.  In re Gutierrez, CSA 65-11, pp. 6-7 (8/28/12).

The application of more specific violations renders this catchall rule moot.  In re Strauch, CSA 37-11, p. 7 (12/20/11).

Deputy sheriff's loss of control when she yelled obscenities at inmate through closed door, causing other inmates to yell back and diverting other officers' attention from control of other inmates, breached her primary duties of care, custody and control of inmates, in violation of departmental rule.  In re Norman-Curry, CSA 28-07 and 50-08, p. 16 (2/27/09).

Deputy violated rule when he failed to check eligibility of inmate before releasing him.  In re Mitchell, CSA 57-13, p. 5 (5/6/14).

300.20  Requirement to Obey Laws, Department Rules & Regulations & Orders during Pendancy of Appeal 

The application of more specific violation renders this catchall rule moot.  In re Strauch, CSA 37-11, p. 7 (12/20/11).

300.22  Inappropriate Force

Hearing officer did not misinterpret this rule where there was record evidence to support her conclusion under D.O. 5011.1J , and the provisions of the 2 rules are similar.  In re Kemp, CSB 19-13, p. 5 (7/28/14).

Under regulation stating that use of force must be objectively reasonable, finding that force was unreasonable was supported by evidence that deputy slapped inmate out of anger, inmate was not resisting or posing a threat, and deputy failed to follow jail guidelines or employ approved control techniques.  In re Kemp, CSB 19-13, p. 4 (7/29/14).

Deputy needlessly escalated an annoying comment by an inmate and engaged in an unreasonable use of force when he pushed and held an inmate's head against the wall, put his hands on his neck and slapped him.  In re Kemp, CSA 19-13, p. 11 (1/2/14).

Deputy was not justified in putting his hands on an inmate's neck, pushing his head against the wall and slapping an inmate for making an annoying comment.  In re Kemp, CSA 19-13, p. 11 (1/2/14).

300.23  Intimidation of Persons 

Where record demonstrated that deputy acted intentionally and out of anger in slapping an inmate, conduct supports a finding of intimidation of a prisoner.  In re Kemp, CSB 19-13, p. 6 (7/28/14).

400.5  Harassment of Prisoners 

Deputy sheriff who yelled obscenities at inmate, threatened and harassed inmate in violation of departmental rule.  In re Norman-Curry, CSA 28-07 and 50-08, p. 16 (2/27/09). 

400.6  Abuse of Prisoners

Accepting appellant’s definition of abuse as physical or mental maltreatment, board concludes that hearing officer did not misapply this rule by finding that deputy engaged in abuse when he put his hands on the inmate’s neck and slapped him for no legitimate reason.  In re Kemp, CSB 19-13, p. 5 (7/28/14), citing American Heritage College Dictionary (Third Edition).

1100.4  Relationshipe with Other Employees 

Appellant’s status as captain and acting chief required him to set a respectful tone rather than accept or participate in locker-room banter in the sheriff's department.  In re Gutierrez, CSA 65-11, pp. 8-9 (8/28/12).

Captain violated DO 1100.4 requiring appropriate workplace conduct by his sexually-oriented comments and gestures toward a co-worker, even though co-worker fully participated in the sexual banter.  In re Gutierrez, CSA 65-11, p. 8 (8/28/12).

Captain violated DO 1100.4 when he failed to heed his supervisor's counseling to act more professionally, responded to a subordinate’s request for time off by texting “only if u r nice to me,” told a female co-worker to unbutton her blouse more, motioned for her to expose her breasts and sit on his lap, and failed to stop inappropriate conversation by others, cautioning them instead to "just be careful", where there was testimony that a deputy found this type of conversation inappropriate in the workplace.  In re Gutierrez, CSA 65-11, pp. 8-9 (8/28/12).

DO 2420.1  Sexual Harassment 

No error in hearing officer’s finding of no violation where evidence did not support finding of: quid pro quo harassment; alteration of terms and conditions of employment; interfered with another’s work performance; or subjected another to an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.  In re Gutierrez, CSB 65-11, p. 4 (4/4/13). 

This rule does not require evidence that a third party witness actually observed the action and was offended by it.  In re Gutierrez, CSB 65-11, p. 5 (4/4/13).

Presence of the word “could” in this D.O. means the actual presence of an offended witness is not required to prove a violation.  In re Gutierrez, CSB 65-11, p. 4 (4/4/13).  

The plain language of this rule requires an objective analysis of the conduct at issue.  In re Gutierrez, CSB 65-11, p. 5 (4/4/13).  

Even though appellant’s gestures to colleague to expose her breasts and to sit on his lap did not establish sexual harassment where she actively participated in sexual banter, his gestures could be seen as offensive by reasonable third party in violation of this rule.  In re Gutierrez, CSB 65-11, p. 5 (4/4/13).

DO 2440.1  Human Relations/Code of Ethics and Standard of Conduct

Conduct is measured by an objective standard under departmental rule requiring sheriffs to adhere to guiding standards of conduct and ethical rules.  In re Gutierrez, CSA 65-11, p. 12 (8/28/12).

Conduct violated department's objective standards of conduct when it was deemed offensive by three employees and appellant admitted the conduct was stupid and caused him to be ashamed.  In re Gutierrez, CSA 65-11, p. 12 (8/28/12).

Written directives couched in vague, aspirational terms like "accountable for everything we do" and "strive for excellence" and reference to the golden rule provide guidance but are not orders to be enforced.  In re Norman-Curry, CSA 28-07 and 50-08, pp. 7, 17 (2/27/09).

Hearing officer did not misinterpret this rule where there was ample evidence to support the same conclusion under D.O. 5011.1J , and the provisions of the two rules are similar.  In re Kemp, CSB 19-13, p. 5 (7/28/14).

DO 2700.1  Uniform Policy 

Deputy’s acknowledgment that he wore his uniform and sidearm to his child support hearing was a violation of this rule regardless of his of his intent.  In re Strauch, CSA 37-11, p. 8 (12/20/11).

Where sheriff's department dress code prohibited hair adornments that are not minimal size, plain design, and matching or dark color, appellant's persistent refusal to remove seven-inch long, brightly colored, flapping butterfly hair sticks that did not match her hair was a violation of dress code under this rule.  In re Norman-Curry, CSA 28-07 and 50-08, p. 9 (2/27/09).

DO 2730.1  Medical Examinations for Officers & Employees  

Before sending an employee for a fitness for duty examination, requiring her to use sick or vacation leave, a supervisor must reasonably believe the employee cannot perform his or her duties due to medical problems or disabilities.  In re Martinez, CSB 09-12, p. 3 (8/15/13).   

Sheriff's departmental order on fitness for duty examinations was not intended to allow a supervisor to send an employee for an examination out of spite or on a whim, or without sufficient information to form a reasonable belief that mental or physical issues or disabilities were preventing an employee from performing the job in an acceptable manner.  In re Martinez, CSB 09-12, p. 3 (8/15/13).   

Supervisor who ordered fitness for duty examination did not have reasonable basis for concluding that employee had a breakdown when she did not witnessed the incident, and the direct supervisors who witnessed it believed it was not a breakdown and would have sent the employee back to work.  In re Martinez, CSB 09-12, p. 4 (8/15/13).  

Lacking sufficient information to reasonably conclude that appellant's inappropriate behavior prevented her from performing her job acceptably due to medical problems or disabilities, management faced a disciplinary issue, not a medical one.  In re Martinez, CSB 09-12, p. 4 (8/15/13).  

Every act of inappropriate behavior does not justify an order for a fitness for duty examination.  In re Martinez, CSB 09-12, p. 4 (8/15/13).  

Deference to management decision-making cannot replace evidence or the requirement that management have sufficient information to form a reasonable belief that a fitness for duty examination is justified.  In re Martinez, CSB 09-12, p. 4 (8/15/13).

DO 5011.1  Use of Force

The reasonableness of force used against an inmate is evaluated taking into consideration whether the inmate presented an imminent threat or was resisting a lawful command, and the severity of the force applied.  In re Kemp, CSB 19-13, p. 4 (7/28/14).

Hearing officer did not misinterpret this rule to contain some sort of personal space or ploy provision where the only mention of that concept was in the decision's summary of the decision-maker's testimony.  In re Kemp, CSB 19-13, p. 4 (7/28/14).

Hearing officer’s conclusion that deputy’s use of force violated this order was supported by evidence that deputy was angry, needlessly escalated the situation and used neither approved control techniques nor jail guidelines for dealing with belligerent inmates, and the inmate posed no threat and did not resist an order.  In re Kemp, CSB 19-13, p. 4 (7/28/14).

Under regulation stating that use of force must be objectively reasonable, finding that force was unreasonable was supported by evidence that deputy slapped inmate out of anger, inmate was not resisting or posing a threat, and deputy failed to follow jail guidelines or employ approved control techniques.  In re Kemp, CSB 19-13, p. 4 (7/29/14).

Force is determined to be objectively reasonable if the subject presents an imminent threat, resists a lawful command, and the nature of the force used is objectively reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances.  In re Kemp, CSA 19-13, p. 10 (1/2/14).

In choosing an appropriate force option, officers must rely on their training, experience and their assessment of the situation, including the nature of the inmate's resistance.  In re Kemp, CSA 19-13, p. 10 (1/2/14).

Jail video and witness testimony contradicted deputy's statements that he was calm and the inmate was defiantly refusing an order.  In re Kemp, CSA 19-13, p. 10 (1/2/14).

Deputy's failure to use an authorized control hold and follow guidelines for belligerent inmates are relevant to whether force used was reasonable.  In re Kemp, CSA 19-13, p. 11 (1/2/14).

The value of expert testimony on a use of force is weakened by fact that expert based his opinion only on deputy's version of events, and did not review the entire file.  In re Kemp, CSA 19-13, p. 11 (1/2/14).

Manager of Safety's review of entire file, numerous viewings of jail video, and comparisons of deputy's changing statements supported her credibility determinations and finding that use of force was excessive.  In re Kemp, CSA 19-13, p. 11 (1/2/14).

Deputy needlessly escalated an annoying comment by an inmate, and engaged in an unreasonable use of force, in violation of this rule.  In re Kemp, CSA 19-13, p. 11 (1/2/14).

Deputy sheriff violated departmental order on proportionate use of force when she shoved the face of a non-threatening, though drunk and argumentative, inmate into a Plexiglass ® window three times, unnecessarily increasing the force of each shove.  In re Norman-Curry, CSA 28-07 and 50-08, p. 18 (2/27/09).

Deputy sheriff who used force upon an inmate violated department rule when she failed to file a use-of-force incident report required by that department rule.  In re Norman-Curry, CSA 28-07 and 50-08, p. 20 (2/27/09).

Even though sheriff department use of force rule permits grabbing inmate's hair to prevent spitting, appellant's repeated slamming of inmate's head into Plexiglas®, after inmate was under control was disproportionate response, in violation of agency rule regarding use of force.  In re Norman-Curry, CSA 28-07 and 50-08, p. 19 (2/27/09).

Where deputy sheriff justified repeatedly slamming the face of a shackled inmate into Plexiglas® window because the inmate had spit in her face, potentially exposing her to AIDS virus, deputy's justification under use of force rule became suspect when deputy acknowledged she did not seek prophylactic course of treatment following the incident.  In re Norman-Curry, CSA 28-07 and 50-08, p. 21 (2/27/09).

Denver Human Services

Agency Rules/Policies/Orders

DHS Employee Handbook, P.10, Code of Ethics

Communication, Language, and Behavior

Display professionalism by using appropriate and civil language, tone and affect. Likewise, your attitude and non-verbal communication should be business-like, respectful and appropriate.

Use accurate and respectful language in your written and verbal communications to or about clients, customers or co-workers. 

Respect

Treat colleagues and clients/customers with respect.

Recognize the value of teamwork, cooperation, and collaboration as a means to provide excellent services to our clients/customers, our community and each other. 

In contrast to unenforceable vision statements in employee handbook, specific ethics provisions, which provide reasonably clear measures of behavioral expectations, are enforceable.  In re Quezada, CSA 40-12, p. 8 (4/5/13). 

Ethics provision to treat colleagues and clients with respect, and to cooperate, and collaborate in providing excellent services, are enforceable standards.  In re Quezada, CSA 40-12, p. 8 (4/5/13). 

Appellant’s admission that she told her supervisor she was refusing to do assigned work, violated established standard to be respectful.  In re Quezada, CSA 40-12, p. 8 (4/5/13). 

Appellant’s hostile and sarcastic words and gestures to her supervisor violated established ethics standard to be respectful in the workplace.  In re Quezada, CSA 40-12, p. 8 (4/5/13).

Performance Enhancement Plan for 2012

Section 1- Duties

Leadership and Management

Case Management Supervisor I – Operations.

Description: Ensures that federal reporting deadlines are met…Assists employees with difficult and unusual assignments…Reviews work for accuracy and completeness…

Violation established where appellant caused agency to miss mandated compliance standard and her attempts to reassign blame were unpersuasive.  In re Quezada, CSA 40-12, pp. 7-8 (4/5/13).