Others titles

  • Complaints conducted by the Detroit Police Department
  • DPD Complaints


  • Citizen Complaints
  • All Citizen Complaints
  • Complaints Filed in Detroit
  • Detroit Police Complaints
  • Citizen Filing the Complaint
  • Misconduct Against DPD

Detroit Citizen Complaints

This dataset reflects all citizen complaints received by the Detroit Police Department (DPD) and the Board of Police Commissioners since January 1, 2016.

Log in to download

Get The Data

  • The data in CSV format DOWNLOAD
  • Metadata in Human Readable format (PDF) DOWNLOAD
  • Metadata in Machine Readable format (JSON) DOWNLOAD
Your Data License
  • Research
    Non-Commercial, Share-Alike, Attribution Free Forever
  • Commercial
    Commercial Use, Remix & Adapt, White Label Buy Subscription


The data are provided by the Office of the Chief Investigator (OCI), under the direction of the Board of Police Commissioners. The OCI receives, investigates, and resolves complaints regarding non-criminal allegations of misconduct against the DPD and its personnel.

This dataset contains information about the nature of individual complaints, demographics for both the citizen filing the complaint and the officer against which the complaint is filed and the resulting finding from the OCI investigation. In order to protect the privacy of both the officer and the citizen filing the complaint, no personally-identifiable information is displayed. Each case is allotted 90 days to complete an investigation.

The Detroit Police Department is not responsible for the content of any off-site pages that are referenced by or that reference this web page other than an official City of Detroit or Detroit Police Department web page.

The following are areas of concern/allegations as set forth in a citizen complaint and investigated by OCI :

– Arrest: A seizure of greater scope or duration than an investigatory or Terry Stop. An arrest is lawful when supported by probable cause.

– Demeanor: A gesture, language or other action which can be interpreted as offensive or of doubtful social propriety or gives the appearance of conflict of interest, misuse of influence or lack of jurisdiction or authority.

– Entry: The use of improper and/or excessive force to gain entry into a building or onto a property.

– Harassment: The method of police action was improperly selective and was predicated upon factors irrelevant, under the circumstances, to good law enforcement decision making, such as race, attire, sex, age, etc.

– Force: The use or threatened use of force against an individual was improper and/or excessive and/or inconsistent with Department’s Directives. Force includes any of the following actions by an officer: any physical strike or instrumental contact with a person; any intentional attempted physical strike or instrumental contact that does not take effect; or any significant physical contact that restricts the movement of a person. The term also includes the discharge of firearms; the use of chemical spray, choke holds or hard hands; the taking of a subject to the ground; or the deployment of a canine. The term specifically excludes escorting or handcuffing a person, with no or minimal resistance. Use of force is lawful if it is objectively reasonable under the circumstances and the minimum amount of force necessary to effect an arrest or protect the officer or another person.

– Procedure: The actions taken were in violation of the Department rules, regulations, procedures or policies, or the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics.

– Property: Personal property was lost or damaged while in police custody or confiscated through police action.

– Search: The search of a person or his/her property was improper, unjustified or in violation of established police procedure.

– Service: Complaint regarding the lack, tardiness or inadequacy of police service.

These are the dispositions of a citizen complaint after investigation. Findings are based on the preponderance of the evidence standard and include at least one of the following:-

– Sustained: A preponderance of the evidence showed that the alleged conduct did occur, and that the actions of the officer violated the law, DPD policy, procedure or training.

– Not Sustained: There were insufficient facts to decide whether the alleged misconduct occurred.

– Exonerated: A preponderance of the evidence showed that the alleged conduct did occur, but did not violate the law, DPD policy, procedure or training.

– Unfounded: The investigation revealed no facts to support that the incident complained of actually occurred.

About this Dataset

Data Info

Date Created


Last Modified




Update Frequency


Temporal Coverage

2016 to 2020

Spatial Coverage

City of Detroit


John Snow Labs; Detroit Police Department;

Source License URL

Source License Requirements


Source Citation



Citizen Complaints, All Citizen Complaints, Complaints Filed in Detroit, Detroit Police Complaints, Citizen Filing the Complaint, Misconduct Against DPD

Other Titles

Complaints conducted by the Detroit Police Department, DPD Complaints

Data Fields

Name Description Type Constraints
Board_of_Police_Commissioners_IDA unique identifier issued by the BPC to each case in numerical order after the case has been assigned to an Investigator, used for internal tracking purposesstring-
Citizen_Complaint_Report_NumberThe unique identifier automatically assigned to the case via the data management systemintegerlevel : Nominal
Report_DateDate when the complaint was fileddate-
Mode_of_EntryMode of entry for the complaint by the citizenstring-
Age_of_CitizenAge of the citizen filing the complaintstring-
Citizen_RaceRace of the citizen filing the complaintstring-
Citizen_GenderSex of the citizen filing the complaintstring-
Closed_DateDate when the investigation was completed by OCIdate-
Commanding_UnitCommanding unit of the officer against which the complaint was filedstring-
Administrative_ClosureAdministrative closurestring-
AllegationA claim as set forth by the citizen complaintstring-
FindingThe disposition of a citizen complaint after investigationstring-
Officer_RaceRace of the officer against which the complaint was filedstring-
Officer_GenderSex of the officer against which the complaint was filedstring-

Data Preview

Board of Police Commissioners IDCitizen Complaint Report NumberReport DateMode of EntryAge of CitizenCitizen RaceCitizen GenderClosed DateCommanding UnitAdministrative ClosureAllegationFindingOfficer RaceOfficer Gender
16-1671272016-01-01Walk In65BlackFemale2016-01-25UNKNOWN COMMANDProcedureNot SustainedUnknownUnknown
16-2671282016-01-04Walk In75BlackMale2016-01-2111TH PRECINCTAdmin. ClosureProcedureAdmin. ClosureBlackMale
16-3671292016-01-04Telephone (or TDD)60BlackFemale2016-03-075TH PRECINCTDemeanorNo ChargeMale
16-3671292016-01-04Telephone (or TDD)60BlackFemale2016-03-075TH PRECINCTDemeanorNot SustainedHispanicMale
16-3671292016-01-04Telephone (or TDD)60BlackFemale2016-03-075TH PRECINCTForceNot SustainedHispanicMale
16-3671292016-01-04Telephone (or TDD)60BlackFemale2016-03-075TH PRECINCTProcedureExoneratedHispanicMale
16-3671292016-01-04Telephone (or TDD)60BlackFemale2016-03-075TH PRECINCTProcedureExoneratedMale
16-4671302016-01-04Walk In39BlackMale2016-01-21UNKNOWN COMMANDAdmin. ClosureProcedureAdmin. ClosureUnknownUnknown
16-5671312016-01-04In-Custody33BlackMale2016-03-286TH PRECINCTDemeanorSustainedWhiteMale
16-5671312016-01-04In-Custody33BlackMale2016-03-286TH PRECINCTEntryNot SustainedWhiteMale