Preliminary Technical Assistance Recommendations to Improve the Cincinnati Division of Police
October 23, 2001
William R. Martin, Esq.
Dyer Ellis & Joseph
Watergate, Eleventh Floor,
600 New Hampshire Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20037
Re: Investigation of the Cincinnati Police Division
Dear Mr. Martin:
As an initial matter, my team and I would like to echo the
sentiments of Mr. Boyd at last month's meeting and express our
own appreciation for the considerable cooperation we have
received from the City, the Police Chief and the men and women of
the Cincinnati Police Division in our mutual effort to improve
policing in Cincinnati. The Division's willingness to review and
improve its policies and procedures is gratifying. We likewise
want to thank the Fraternal Order of Police, the Sentinel Police
Association and community leaders who share the Division's desire
constantly to improve police practices.
At the meeting Mr. Boyd outlined, in general terms, some of
the recommendations we can make at this preliminary stage. These
recommendations were in the areas of use of force policy, use of
force reporting, public accountability, monitoring and auditing,
and training. He also committed to provide, in writing, more
specifics about our police practices experts' recommendations.
In this letter, we convey in greater detail our recommendations.
To date we have reviewed relevant CPD directives and
conducted interviews with City officials, a broad cross-section
of the CPD (including a large number of its command staff), and
those charged with oversight of the CPD. We have also talked
with representatives of the police union and the Sentinel Police
Association, as well as community leaders and citizens.
This letter is not meant to be exhaustive, but rather
focuses on significant recommendations we can provide at this
preliminary stage of the investigation under 42 U.S.C. ยง 14141.
Important aspects of our fact-gathering process have yet to be
completed, most notably reviewing the incident reports included
in the documents we received from the City in August. Therefore
this letter is preliminary in nature.
We hope this letter will assist in our mutual goal of
ensuring that the CPD provides the best possible police service
to the people of Cincinnati, and we look forward to continued
cooperation toward this goal. We would also be happy to provide
examples of policies used by other police departments that might
address some of the issues we raise below.
I. USE OF FORCE POLICY
* The CPD should revise its policies to clarify terms, and to
ensure that force is only used in appropriate circumstances.
The use of force policy states that force may be used when
reasonably necessary to "apprehend the offender," or "effect the arrest" and also states that officers may use force to protect
themselves and to "perform their duty." It is unclear whether
"perform their duty" in this context is intended only to be
equivalent to "effect the arrest" and "apprehend the offender,"
or authorizes force in other, undefined situations. This
ambiguity may lead officers to believe they are justified in
using force in situations in which it would be unreasonable.
While the Supreme Court has recognized that the right to make an
arrest or investigatory stop necessarily carries with it the
right to use some degree of force, there are many activities
within a police officer's duty that do not require any force.
For example, an officer cannot reasonably use force when
conducting a traffic stop unless such force is necessary to
effect an arrest or protect the officer or others.
The use of force policy states that "courts could consider a choke hold or similar type hold as deadly force." According to
CPD officials, this statement is intended to be a blanket prohibition on the use of choke holds. If this is the case, we
recommend that the policy make this prohibition explicit. At a
minimum, the policy should state that a choke hold or similar
hold may not be used in any circumstance in which the use of
deadly force would be unreasonable.
Other examples of such ambiguity are provided in the
sections below addressing the use of chemical irritant and the
use of canines.
The multiple instances of vague or unclearly defined terms
cited in this letter raise the concern that other policies
contain terms which are not sufficiently defined. To make sure
all critical terms in all policies are defined, we recommend a
thorough review of all CPD policies aimed at eliminating
undefined terms.
* The CPD should modify its policy regarding the use of
chemical irritant to limit its use to appropriate
circumstances. The CPD should also track and monitor the
amount of chemical irritant officers use, and the ways in
which they use it.
The CPD use of force policy states that officers "will use chemical irritant as the primary response to aggressive citizen
behavior." This suggests that chemical irritant should or must be used even when verbal commands or less serious types of force
would be equally effective. In addition, the term "aggressive citizen behavior" should be explicitly defined to limit the use
of chemical irritant to those cases in which the force is
necessary to effect an arrest or to protect the safety of the
officer or a civilian.
The use of force policy also allows for the use of chemical
irritant as a "crowd control device in self-defense situations, or to disperse a disorderly crowd." The policy does not define a
"self-defense situation" or a "disorderly crowd" and therefore
does not provide enough guidance to ensure that chemical irritant
is only used when such force is reasonable. We also recommend,
absent exigent circumstances, that the approval of a supervisor
be required any time chemical irritant is used against a crowd.
Additionally, the use of force policy provides procedures
for using chemical irritant against a "disorderly prisoner" after
the prisoner is handcuffed and sitting in the back of a police
vehicle. This suggests that chemical irritant may be used
against a restrained individual, when in fact it is the
exceptional case in which chemical irritant can be
constitutionally used in such situations. Thus, such uses of
chemical irritant should be subject to the highest level of
scrutiny.
We received reports about CPD officers using chemical
irritant at closer range than is allowed pursuant to the CPD's
policy, or in quantities that seem unreasonable. For example,
interviewees related instances in which officers emptied entire
canisters of chemical irritant on a single subject or sprayed
chemical irritant up subjects' noses or down their throats. At
the in-service training we attended, officers engaged in a drill
in which they sprayed chemical irritant on a target. The
participating officers used different amounts of chemical
irritant and in some cases, none of the irritant actually reached
the target.
To ensure the appropriate use of chemical irritant, the CPD
should weigh officers' canisters on a regular basis or, at least,
track the number of canisters annually distributed to and
utilized by each officer. The CPD should also provide regular
in-service training on the proper amount of irritant to use, how
to deliver irritant effectively, and the proper anatomical
targets for chemical irritant.
The use of large quantities of chemical irritant may also
indicate that the CPD is not using the most effective type of
chemical irritant for its purposes. We recommend that the CPD
review recent research regarding chemical irritant, principally
that conducted by the National Institute of Justice, and consider
whether it should switch to a different type of irritant. Some
of these studies have reported that the use of pepper spray is
favored in many departments because it is highly effective and
causes less risk of injury to subjects.
* The CPD should adopt a "find and bark" policy and eliminate
undefined terms from its canine policy. It should also
provide more guidance to its officers regarding when canines
are to be deployed. Moreover, we recommend that the CPD
track and monitor the frequency with which its canines bite
civilians when making apprehensions.
The CPD's canine policy does not specify whether it has a
"find and bite" policy (which allows dogs to bite upon locating
the subject) or a "find and bark" policy (requiring a dog to
bark, rather than bite). According to canine unit supervisors,
the CPD's policy is "find and bite." We recommend that the CPD
explicitly adopt a find and bark policy. A find and bark policy
prevents canines from biting subjects in situations in which such
force is not necessary to effect an arrest or protect the safety
of officers or civilians.
The canine policy also does not provide for giving verbal
warnings before releasing a canine. The policy should require,
absent exigent circumstances, a set number of announcements, and
a sufficient interval between announcement and deployment to
allow for subject surrender. Except when conducting a building
search, the policy also should prohibit releasing the canine from
the leash before the canine is ready to be deployed. The policy
also fails to provide guidance for post-release handler controls
of the canine.
Moreover, critical terms in the canine policy are undefined
and unit supervisors were unable to provide clarification. For
example, according to the CPD policy, canines can be used for
"psychological deterrent" in high crime areas. However, there is
no definition of that term. (1) Additionally, canines can be used
to arrest those who commit a felony or a "serious misdemeanor."
While some examples of serious misdemeanors are given, the term
is not sufficiently defined to limit the situations in which it
might be viewed as authorizing the release of a canine.
In general, canine deployment for purposes of apprehending a
person should be limited to searches for serious felons or to
cases where a subject is armed or has the potential to use force
or cause harm to the officer, the subject or others. Moreover,
deployments should always be made in accordance with appropriate
safeguards.
We were told that the CPD does not track apprehensions made
by the canine unit. Instead, it tracks dispatches to a scene and
bites. An apprehension is defined as any time the canine is
deployed and plays a clear and well-documented role in the
capture of a person. The mere presence of a canine at the scene
of an arrest does not count. Not only does this failure to track
apprehensions make the monitoring of the use of canines more
difficult, but it prevents the CPD from properly calculating bite
ratios. Bite ratios are properly defined as the number of
apprehensions accomplished by means of a dog bite divided by the
total number of apprehensions (both with or without a bite).
Bite ratios enable a police department to assess its canine unit
and individual canine teams.
Finally, we understand that supervisors do not receive
formal standardized training in canine handling procedures. Such
training should be provided not only to supervisors in the canine
unit, but to all supervisors, because CPD policy allows
supervisors not assigned to the canine unit to supervise handlers
in some situations.
* The CPD should adopt a use of force continuum.
The CPD does not utilize a use of force continuum. When
properly designed and implemented, a use of force continuum is a
fluid and flexible policy guide. Moreover, many major city
police departments employ a use of force continuum because it
provides a useful tool in training officers to consider lower
levels of force first, which protects the safety of both the
officer and the civilian. Moreover, a use of force continuum
would enable the CPD to emphasize that officers' presence, verbal
commands, and use of "soft-hands" (using hands to escort rather
than control subjects) can often be used as an alternative not
only to chemical irritant (which pursuant to CPD policy is the
"primary response to aggressive citizen behavior"), but also to
other more significant uses of force.
* The CPD should create a committee to advise the Planning
Section on policy development, and should increase community
involvement in this process.
We understand that the Planning Section seeks feedback on
proposed policy changes by sending copies to every section and
district commander. This method does not ensure that the
Planning Section receives the benefits of feedback from the
entire CPD, including the rank and file. We recommend that the
CPD create a policy committee which includes a cross section of
ranks (both sworn and civilian employees) and a representative of
OMI. Each member of the committee would be required to respond
to each proposed change (even if merely to state that they agreed
with the policy without comment). Membership on this committee
could be rotated to give as many employees as possible a chance
to participate.
We also recommend that policy revisions be sent to community
representatives for feedback. We recognize that some policies
and some revisions are of more interest to the community than
others, and that such consultations may not be practical for
minor or technical changes to the policies. We also understand
the concern that the public may lack the expertise to provide
useful feedback in some areas. The very act of asking for such
feedback, however, increases community acceptance and provides an
opportunity for public education. Moreover, there are clearly
some policies (i.e., the complaint resolution process, civil
disturbance) in which the public has a major interest, and
therefore should play an important part in any revisions.
Finally, we recommend that every policy change be evaluated
by the City Solicitor's Office. The Planning Section should
consider the input of the committee, the public and the
Solicitor's Office, make its recommendation regarding the policy
change, and retain all comments in a central file.
II. USE OF FORCE REPORTING
* The CPD should require officers to report all uses and shows
of force.
The CPD's use of force policy distinguishes between "force"
and "restraining force." (2) Although officers are required to
report all uses of "force," they are not required to report
restraining force or other physical contacts with civilians
unless those contacts lead to injury. This artificial
distinction causes the under-reporting of force. The CPD should
report all physical and instrumental (i.e., baton or firearm)
acts that impose any degree of force on a civilian, including all
acts that would currently be regarded as restraining force. To
do this, the CPD could revise its definition of "use of force" to
include all physical and instrumental acts, and any use of
chemical irritant.
The CPD uses different forms for reporting different types
of uses of force (e.g., taser, canine, chemical irritant), but
only one use of force form is filled out for any one incident.
This practice may undermine the ability of the CPD to track all
uses of force because more than one type of force may be used in
a particular incident. For example, it is impossible to count
every use of chemical irritant without reviewing all use of force
reports, use of taser reports, canine reports and injury to
prisoner reports, and determining, in each case, whether the box
indicating the use of chemical irritant is checked. As a result,
simply counting the number of chemical irritant reports would
seriously underestimate the number of times chemical irritant was
used. Moreover, tracking multiple uses of force on one report
may well lead to supervisors not evaluating the appropriateness
of each and every use of force. For example, if an officer uses
both chemical irritant and some other form of force, there is no
place on the form for the supervisor to evaluate the
appropriateness of the use of chemical irritant. We recommend
that the CPD use a single uniform use of force report that
indicates each and every type of force that was used and requires
the evaluation of each use of force. Not only will this aid the
CPD in investigating and reviewing uses of force, but it will
also allow the CPD to take advantage of available computer
systems to track and evaluate uses of force.
We have particular concerns with the reporting of chemical
irritant use. As discussed in more detail below, the CPD, when
it reports the use of chemical irritant, does not provide a
narrative of the incident. Narratives should be provided in all
instances. In addition, the CPD does not require, but should,
that photographs be taken in instances where complainants suffer
prolonged physical injury resulting from the use of chemical
irritant. We recommend that when the use of a chemical irritant
results in prolonged physical injury, the CPD report uses of
chemical irritant as it reports other serious uses of force by
including in the report a taped statement, photos, and (if
treated) a medical release summarizing the doctor's diagnosis.
This is especially important given the CPD's direction that
chemical irritant be used as the "primary response to aggressive citizen behavior."
Finally, we have talked to many civilians who believed that
firearms were improperly pointed at themselves or their families.
For example, we were told about guns being drawn on citizens for
minor traffic violations where there was no indication that a
felony was committed or that the occupants were armed. We also
learned from some CPD officers that they are trained to brandish
their firearms in a wide variety of circumstances, including, for
example, any time they make a traffic stop on a car with tinted
windows. This information raises concerns that CPD officers are
un-holstering and pointing their guns in circumstances where it
is not appropriate under the CPD's policy. Therefore, we
recommend that CPD officers be required to report any instance in
which they un-holster their firearm and point it at an
individual. This reporting requirement would allow the CPD to
identify, monitor, and evaluate the types of circumstances in
which officers un-holster and seriously consider using firearms.
* The CPD should revise its use of force reporting forms to
clarify terms and to ensure that force is only used in
appropriate circumstances.
CPD use of force reporting forms have boxes for supervisors
to indicate the civilian's conduct which led to the use of force.
We found considerable confusion among the officers we interviewed
about what many of the boxes were intended to convey (e.g.,
"resistive tension," "conspicuously ignoring" and "excessive emotional tension"). Moreover, some of these boxes could be read
to authorize force in response to civilian conduct that would
not, in a significant number of circumstances, provide sufficient
justification for that force to be reasonable (e.g.,
"conspicuously ignoring," "ceased all movement" and "violent history"). We recommend that these boxes be revised to clearly
indicate the conduct that they are designed to measure, and to
avoid suggesting that force can be used in inappropriate ways.
Moreover, these boxes should not take the place of requiring the
officer who uses the force to provide a written narrative
explaining the sequence of events and circumstances that prompted
each use of force. Such a narrative is required for supervisors
to fully evaluate uses of force.
III. PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY
* The CPD should better disseminate information to the public
about the citizen complaint process and should solicit
feedback regarding public perception of that process.
Each district police station should have information about
the complaint process posted in a visible place in the public
reception area. A pamphlet providing this information should be
added to the information brochures currently available at City
Hall. The CPD should also consider making information about the
complaint process available on-line. Finally, we recommend that
the CPD re-institute its customer satisfaction surveys, and
include questions regarding the public's perception of the
complaint process.
* The CPD should change aspects of its citizen complaint
process that have the potential to discourage the filing of
complaints, and to impair their effective tracking and
resolution. Supervisors should also receive appropriate
training in handling and adjudicating citizen complaints.
CPD policy requires, where circumstances allow, that
supervisors, typically sergeants, accept incoming citizen
complaints. Nonetheless, both command staff and CPD officers
acknowledged being aware of instances where citizens attempting
to file a citizen complaint were inappropriately made to wait to
file their complaint with a particular sergeant, or were told to
go to a different district to file a complaint. This may also
discourage the filing of complaints. The CPD should reinforce
with its staff that failure to accept a citizen complaint is
always unacceptable. In addition, while the CPD's complaint
policy allows complaints to be registered in person, by mail, or
by telephone, the policy requires CPD employees to ask
individuals who attempt to register a complaint by telephone to
appear in person. This practice may have a deterrent effect on
would-be-complainants who fear retaliation or who are simply
unable or otherwise reluctant to come to a police station.
We understand that it is the CPD's practice to allow some
citizen complaints to be deemed resolved by a sergeant without
being reduced to writing. This practice interferes with the
effective monitoring and resolution of citizen complaints. We
recommend that a citizen complaint form be completed every time a
person enters a police district to make a complaint, telephones
the district to make a complaint, or sends in a complaint by
mail. Immediately upon completion of the form, it should be
assigned a unique identifier (that is provided to the
complainant) and tracked by the type of complaint (e.g.,
excessive force, discourtesy, improper search). This numbering
and tracking should be done by a central control desk.
In completing citizen complaint forms, the policy encourages
CPD officers to include an analysis of the complainant's apparent
mental and physical description, specifically to describe whether
"complainant/subject exhibits any unusual behavior." This
encourages the CPD officer to make a number of subjective
judgments about the complainant's credibility and may provide the
officer with an opportunity to be dismissive of the complainant.
Furthermore, not only could such judgments intentionally be used
to protect an officer who engaged in misconduct, but such an
evaluation may well be outside the officer's area of expertise.
These subjective judgments may therefore bias the complaint
process. We recommend this policy of encouraging or even
allowing such subjective descriptions be eliminated.
We also recommend that sergeants charged with accepting
citizen complaints be given appropriate training on handling
citizen complaints with an emphasis on interpersonal skills.
Additionally, supervisory staff we interviewed gave varying
explanations for the appropriate standard of proof to be used in
evaluating citizen complaints. CPD should provide training on
appropriate burdens of proof (i.e., preponderance of the
evidence) to supervisors who are responsible for investigating
and determining the outcome of a complaint, and the factors to
consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility (to
ensure that their recommendations regarding dispositions are
unbiased, uniform and legally appropriate).
* The City should clarify the roles of all entities charged
with investigating serious allegations of misconduct by the
CPD and it should provide adequate resources for such
investigations. The City should better educate civilians
and CPD officers about the citizen complaint process.
We understand from our investigation that CPD's Internal
Investigations Section is responsible for investigating
complaints of serious police misconduct, criminal conduct, sexual
misconduct, uses of excessive force and investigations directed
by the Chief. All other complaints, such as discourtesy, use of
unnecessary restraining force, lack of proper service or
procedural violations, are typically investigated at the district
level by an officer's supervisor. In addition to these internal
processes, three non-CPD bodies receive citizen complaints: 1)
The Office of Municipal Investigation ("OMI"); 2) the Citizens
Police Review Panel ("CPRP"); and 3) the Human Relations
Commission ("HRC").
OMI, an independent review body initially created by the
City Council approximately fifteen years ago in response to
several shooting incidents, was originally charged with reviewing
and investigating officer involved shooting incidents and any
other wrongdoing by other City employees. According to its past
and current directors, OMI has never had sufficient staff to
carry out its mission of investigating all serious allegations of
misconduct by the CPD. They told us that OMI has had only two or
three staff people available to investigate the as many as 450
complaints per year it receives about CPD officers. This
information strongly suggests that OMI is not sufficiently
staffed. Moreover, even when OMI does investigate an incident
and finds misconduct or deficiencies related to the incident,
there is no formal mechanism to ensure that the CPD addresses the
results of the investigation. Finally, OMI directors, both past
and present, reported a lack of coordination between OMI and the
CPD when both are investigating the same incident. Formal
procedures regarding timing, notification, and the interviewing
of witnesses should be developed to ensure that such parallel
investigations do not impair the effective investigation of
incidents.
CPRP was reportedly formed three years ago as the result of
a mediation conducted by the Community Relations Service.
Although there is some dispute about the scope of its authority,
CPRP is generally authorized to review all complaints alleging
police misconduct. According to its members, the CPRP does not
conduct its own investigations of serious allegations of
misconduct against the CPD, but only reviews the investigations
conducted by the CPD and OMI. CPRP reports its ultimate findings
to the City Manager, although it is within the City Manager's
discretion to decide whether to follow a recommendation made by
the CPRP. We understand that the HRC does not investigate
complaints, but only attempts to informally resolve complaints
with the officer's chain of command.
To provide oversight of the CPD's complaint resolution
process and to aid in ensuring that citizen complaints are
handled in an objective and thorough manner, we recommend that
there be a non-CPD body that actually investigates all serious
allegations of misconduct. There should be formal mechanisms for
the CPD to respond in writing to any discrepancies between its
own investigations and the one conducted by the non-CPD body.
In such cases, the CPD should be required to explain, again in
writing, how the discrepancy was resolved, and why it was
resolved in that manner. Moreover, the CPD should conduct
additional community outreach to expand public awareness on how
complaints are adjudicated and how each of these investigatory
bodies function. Similarly, we recommend that members of the
investigative bodies be allowed to address recruits at the
academy and members of the rank and file to explain their purpose
and function. This will encourage an atmosphere of trust and
cooperation for future interactions.
* The CPD should change aspects of the Citizen Complaint
Review Process ("CCRP") that may discourage citizens from
participating. The CPD should also take measures to prevent
inclusion of a complaint in the CCRP from interfering with
the effective investigation and appropriate adjudication of
that complaint.
Citizen complaints that the CPD determines do not require
review by its Internal Investigations Section are subject to
CCRP, a "feedback" session conducted internally by the CPD. The
civilian involved in the incident is asked to attend a resolution
meeting at the district with the officer and the officer's
supervisor. Prior to the meeting, the officer's supervisor is
supposed to investigate and adjudicate the complaint. The CPD
intends the CCRP to allow citizens and officers to air their
concerns about a particular incident in a structured setting and
perhaps, allow the CPD to clear up any misunderstandings with the
citizen.
Allegations of serious misconduct such as excessive
restraining force and unlawful searches and seizures are handled
through the CCRP. While the CPD seems to regard complaints of
the improper use of restraining force as a minor matter, improper
restraining force, because it is an unreasonable use of force, is
a constitutional violation. Moreover, despite the seriousness of
these types of allegations, according to many senior CPD
officials, the most severe form of discipline that can result
from allegations deemed appropriate for CCRP resolution,
including excessive restraining force and unlawful searches and
seizures, is an oral reprimand or an entry in the district's
Evaluation Supplement Log. Inclusion in the CCRP should not
prevent the imposition of serious discipline for serious
misconduct.
Additionally, we were told by some of the officers and
citizens we interviewed that complaints were considered resolved,
without a full investigation and an administrative adjudication,
if the complainant declined to participate in the Complaint
Resolution Meeting. (3) Command staff also advised us that
complaints are sometimes considered resolved, simply because the
complainant is deemed to be "satisfied" with the explanation
provided at the meeting. We interviewed several civilian
claimants the CPD reportedly had deemed "satisfied." They told
us that they were not satisfied with the CPD's explanation and
still believed the CPD officer(s) had engaged in misconduct.
Complaints handled through the CCRP should be fully
investigated, and adjudicated, prior to a complaint resolution
meeting. Moreover, it should be made explicit that the
complainant's willingness to participate in the CCRP, and the
outcome of any meeting (i.e., whether the complainant came away
from the meeting "satisfied") shall have no bearing on the
investigation or the adjudication of that complaint. We also
recommend that the CPD consider narrowing the categories of
complaints that are investigated through the CCRP to those
involving discourtesy, rudeness or similar complaints. The CCRP
should not be used for complaints of excessive force,
discrimination or improper searches and seizures.
Finally, many people we talked to whose complaints were
designated for the CCRP objected to being asked to attend a
meeting, to which they were not allowed to bring any kind of
support person, at the police station, with the officer and the
officer's supervisor. A number of citizens reported that they
believed this created an adversarial environment, intimidated
them, and discouraged them from participating in the process.
Therefore, we recommend that the CPD consider changing where
these meetings are held, having a higher level supervisor or a
non-CPD mediator conduct the meetings, and allowing a support
person to accompany the complainant.
* The CPD should increase and improve its interactions with
the community councils.
During our investigation, we spoke to a number of leaders of
the community councils that represent the neighborhoods of
Cincinnati. We understand from CPD officials that meetings
between these leaders and the CPD are the primary way in which
the CPD interacts with the community. Officers attend meetings
of the community councils, and community council leaders attend
resource meetings at the police districts.
However, we learned from some community council leaders that
they had never been invited to a resource meeting, even though
council leaders from other neighborhoods within the same district
reported frequent invitations. We also learned that the
frequency of such resource meetings varied considerably between
districts, and depended on the inclinations of the district
commander. We recommend that these resource meetings be well
publicized (to ensure that all community leaders have the
opportunity to attend), and that the CPD require that such
meetings occur on a regular basis in all districts.
We were told by community council leaders and CPD officials
that community policing officers (who are referred to as
"neighborhood officers") regularly attend community council
meetings. We recommend that all other officers who patrol that
community, not just neighborhood officers, be encouraged
(whenever schedules and resources permit) to attend community
council meetings. Finally, we were told of several incidents in
which neighborhood officers were abruptly designated to be
transferred to another district. We recommend that such
transfers only be made with sufficient lead time to allow for a
transition period to a new neighborhood officer.
IV. MONITORING AND AUDITING
* The CPD should centralize all information regarding
uses of force by its officers, and take steps to ensure
that all of its commanders fully use this information.
In interviewing various CPD management officials, we learned
that while some general summary statistics regarding uses of
force are reported in an Executive Information Summary,
sufficiently specific trend data (i.e., citizen complaints broken
down by type of complaint or use of force data broken down by
shift) is not regularly available to, or used by, district
commanders. This makes it difficult for district commanders to
measure and manage the use of force by their officers, especially
if they are relatively new to their command. We understand all
of the district commanders have been in their current assignments
for less than a year. We are also concerned by the opinion
expressed by some CPD command staff that the collection and
review of data by the Inspections and Planning Sections lessened
their responsibility to monitor the officers under their command.
Trend data must be available to supervisors, and it should be
made clear that it is their responsibility, not just the
responsibility of the Inspections Section, to monitor this
information to ensure that officers under their command are using
force appropriately.
* The CPD should centralize all of its disciplinary
information regarding officers.
We learned from a number of the district commanders and
other CPD management officials that the complete disciplinary
records of officers are difficult to review because they are kept
in a number of different files housed in a number of locations.
For example, information about an officer's record could be
housed at internal affairs, OMI and any district or unit in which
they served. Moreover, many of these files are reportedly not
organized or automated in ways that are conducive to retrieval.
We recommend that all disciplinary information (from the most
serious misconduct to the types of minor counseling entered in
district logs) be centralized and automated.
* The CPD should expand its review of firearm discharges by
its officers.
We recommend that CPD expand and formalize its mechanism for
reviewing firearm discharges to incorporate a cross-section of
division personnel who will review the incident for compliance
with policy and procedure requirements, as well as for tactical
and training related implications. One way for CPD to accomplish
this is to designate formally personnel to review the
investigative files and report to the Chief. Many police
departments convene a special board to review all officer firearm
discharges. These boards hear presentations about the incident
from the internal investigations unit and determine whether the
discharge was within policy and whether any tactical errors were
made. At a minimum, such boards typically include high ranking
command staff officials, a training academy representative, and a
City Attorney or Solicitor's office representative. Some
departments augment their boards with Field Training Officers, a
representative of the police union, and a community
representative.
* The CPD should institute risk management and audit systems
that track a wider variety of conduct over a longer period
of time.
According to CPD management, the CPD currently has a risk
management system that only alerts CPD management or "flags"
officers who repeatedly engage in the same type of conduct within
a certain time period (e.g., when officers use chemical irritant
a certain number of times or receive a certain number of citizen
complaints). We also understand that past risk management
systems have only tracked one year's worth of incidents.
Reportedly, the CPD is working on a new system that will flag
officers based on the accumulation of various types of conduct
(e.g., some number of complaints plus some number of uses of
chemical irritant). We support this change.
In devising this new system, we recommend that at a minimum
the CPD account for shootings, uses of force (including chemical
irritant and restraining force), citizen complaints (whether
filed with the CPD, OMI, the CPRP or the HRC) criminal charges
against officers, civil suits alleging officer misconduct, and
disciplinary actions (including counseling, redirecting, and
reinforcing). Moreover, the one year time frame is too short and
should be increased. Finally, in regard to citizen complaints,
the CPD should track 'all' citizen complaints. For example, the
CPD should track those complaints that are not sustained because
of factual discrepancies that can not be resolved by the
investigation. Non-sustained complaints containing allegations
of similar types of misconduct (e.g., verbal abuse, use of
excessive force, improper search and seizure) should be tracked
because the repeated appearance of these complaints may indicate
that the officer is engaging in a pattern of inappropriate
behavior. The resulting supervisory review of the officer's
conduct should result, where appropriate, in non-disciplinary
corrective actions.
* The CPD should standardize its auditing practices, and
increase the scope and frequency of its audits.
We were informed during our investigation that the
Inspections Section (the CPD body that is primarily responsible
for auditing) does not have standardized procedures or checklists
for conducting the types of audits it currently performs. We
recommend that such standardization occur, to ensure audits are
thorough, complete and consistent. We also recommend that the
Inspections Section conduct its audits on a regular and fixed
schedule to ensure that such audits occur with sufficient
frequency, and reach all parts of the CPD (i.e., cover all five
of the districts). For example, we understand that the
Inspections Section selected a sample of complaints that were
processed through the CCRP and attempted to contact the
complainants to evaluate whether the actions and views of the
citizen were captured correctly in the CCRP report. However, we
were told that such an audit does not happen regularly. We
commend the CPD for conducting this type of audit, but believe it
should happen more regularly, and should cover all five
districts. Such an audit should also examine whether there is
consistency in the CCRP across districts.
We also recommend that the CPD increase the scope of its
audit function. For example, the CPD should monitor the
frequency with which officers charge civilians with resisting
arrest, assault of a police officer, and obstruction of justice.
The CPD should examine instances in which particular officers use
such charges more frequently then their peers, because such
charges can be used to mask misconduct. The CPD should also
monitor patterns and trends regarding officers' court activity
(including the dismissal of charges and officers' failure to
appear to testify). We also recommend that the Inspections
Section have regular meetings with the local prosecutors to
identify problems in officer performance. Finally, we recommend
that the CPD audit investigations conducted by the Internal
Investigations Section.
* The CPD should increase its crime analysis capabilities.
We understand from our investigation that the CPD uses a
crime analysis system that tracks calls for service and certain
types of crimes. We recommend that the CPD take fuller advantage
of this type of system by tracking additional types of police
activity. For example the system should be used to track
pursuits and citizen complaints. To aid in the better
utilization of this system, we recommend that the CPD add to its
crime analysis staff. This could be done by adding civilian
staff members or even out-sourcing crime analysis functions.
* The CPD should require its officers to use mobile video
cameras in more circumstances, supervisors should increase
their review of such tapes, and the tapes should be used by
supervisors for more purposes.
Currently, mobile vehicle cameras automatically record when
the police vehicle's emergency lights are activated. Officers
are only required to manually activate the equipment when
operating in "emergency mode" for all traffic stops and
pursuits. (4) We suggest that the CPD make greater use of this
equipment by enlarging those situations in which it is required
to be used. For example, instead of making the recording of
prisoner transports optional, the CPD should give circumstances
(e.g., when the prisoner being transported is violent) in which
officers are required to activate the recording device.
We also recommend that the CPD make greater use of the tapes
produced by these cameras. Currently, CPD supervisors review the
tapes, at random, for general training purposes. We recommend
that the tapes also be used to correct or discipline officers who
engage in improper conduct. Moreover, supervisors should be
required not only to review any tapes that may be relevant to a
questionable use of force or a citizen complaint, but should
retain and preserve those tapes beyond the current 30-day
retention period. We also recommend that the CPD eliminate an
ambiguity in the policy requiring supervisors to review tapes.
The policy states that "if applicable" supervisors should review
the tapes. It is unclear what "if applicable" means in this
context, and this ambiguity may cause inappropriate failures to
review tapes.
We also recommend that supervisors be required, rather than
encouraged, to conduct random checks of the working condition of
the cameras during each shift.
* The CPD should upgrade its communications technology,
ensure that officers responding to calls for service
have information about locations to which they respond,
and provide more guidance to its telephone operators about
the information they should gather from callers.
We understand that the CPD is in the process of upgrading
its communications technology. We recommend that this occur as
soon as possible because the current equipment lags well behind
the state-of-the-art. In general, given the considerable
information technology challenges the CPD faces, we recommend
that the CPD have a separate technology budget so that the
funding of technology does not come at the expense of other
programs.
According to communications staff, they do not receive
information from CPD commanders about on-going special
operations. This lack of information can cause an officer to be
dispatched to a location by the communications section in
response to a call for service without the officer being aware of
other police activity at that location. This could endanger the
officer or compromise police operations. We recommend that the
district commanders regularly inform the communications section
about on-going operations.
We also recommend that the telephone operators be given more
guidance on the types of questions to ask in particular
situations. For example, they could be given a script or
checklist to ensure that they obtain all information about the
incident being reported, which would reduce the chance of
operators speculating about details they forget to inquire about.
The CPD should consider having different scripts or checklists
for different types of incidents.
V. TRAINING
* The CPD should provide adequate use of force decision-making
training, both for recruits and experienced officers, and
more in-service training in weapons use.
Training in "use of force decision-making" should encompass
both training officers to only use reasonable force, and
instructing them in tactics and de-escalation techniques that can
eliminate the need for an officer to use force. In response to
feedback from our expert consultants the training academy
instituted a new course that covers aspects of use of force
decision-making. We applaud this addition to the curriculum.
The training academy staff deserves special recognition, not just
for their knowledge, dedication, and general effectiveness as
instructors, but also for their commitment to constantly re-evaluating the curriculum and their openness to new ideas to
improve officer training.
We recommend, however, that this training emphasize how
officers can avoid the use of force, or minimize the force they
are required to use, rather than focusing solely on when officer
are legally justified in using force, and the types of force they
can use. Moreover, we recommend that this training focus on
discussions with officers about particular scenarios (preferably
taken from actual incidents involving CPD officers) with the goal
of educating the officers regarding the legal and tactical issues
raised by the scenarios.
The CPD should also provide more in-service training
regarding both use of force decision-making and weapons use. All
CPD officers receive 3 types of in-service firearms training.
One day of firearms training (divided between classroom
instruction and firearms qualification), one day of civil
disturbance training (divided between instruction in tactics to
be used at civil disturbances and additional time for firearms
qualification), and an hour or two of firearms simulation
training (which presents officers with scenarios in which they
make use of force decisions).
We recommend that the CPD provide its officers with more
in-service training in the use of firearms. We agree with the
opinion expressed by the firearms training staff that firearm
qualification (which focuses on testing officer's current
proficiency) is not a substitute for firearm training (which
focuses on improving the officer's proficiency, safe handling
skills, and shooting technique). In short, testing is not the
same as training. Moreover, the CPD should provide additional
training to simulate the conditions officers will face in the
field. Specifically, we recommend that the officers receive
night training (the current use of glasses to simulate darkness
is not a sufficient substitute), and stress training (i.e.,
training in using a firearm after undergoing physical exertion).
We recommend that the in-service training, like the new
recruit training, provide more instruction in use of force
decision-making. Currently, officers spend one hour in the
classroom during which they are read portions of the use of force
policies by the instructor. Rather than reading from the
policies, we recommend that this training, like the new recruit
training, focus on discussing with officers particular scenarios
(preferably taken from actual incidents involving CPD officers)
with the goal of educating the officers regarding the legal and
tactical issues raised by the scenarios. This type of training
is so critical that a small amount of time using a simulator and
one hour in the classroom is not sufficient. Finally, use of
force decision-making should be emphasized at every opportunity
during in-service training. For example, we observed a drill in
which officers were instructed to command a person to "stop and drop the weapon," but, there was no discussion or instruction
regarding how an officer should decide when and if to use deadly
force.
* The CPD should institute formal mechanisms for the training
academy staff to receive information regarding incidents
that may raise training issues.
There is no formal mechanism for the training academy staff
to be notified about firearms discharges by CPD officers. If
provided with this information, the staff could tailor its
training to reflect the types of situations actually encountered
by CPD officers. The training staff also receives no feedback
from the Internal Investigations Section regarding issues
identified during misconduct investigations that may suggest the
need for additional training. The training academy staff does
not meet with the Solicitor's Office every time a civil suit is
settled. Such meetings could prevent future constitutional
violations and help the City avoid future liability. In general,
the more the training staff knows about the situations actually
encountered by CPD officers, the better able it will be to
provide for their training needs.
* The CPD should provide greater incentives to attract
volunteers to be Field Training Officers (FTOs), take
additional measures to ensure officers with troubling
disciplinary histories are not selected as FTOs, give
district commanders greater control over FTOs, and provide
the training staff and recruits with a role in the FTO
program.
We were concerned to hear from many CPD staff we interviewed
that the CPD has trouble getting a sufficient number of qualified
volunteers for these positions. We recommend that the CPD
provide additional incentives to attract the best officers to the
FTO program. Such incentives could include not only greater
monetary inducements, but non-monetary incentives such as
priority to receive new types of training (annual and in-service,
local and national).
While the policy for selection of FTOs states that an
officers' disciplinary record should be one factor in selection,
many officers we talked to reported that officers with less than
stellar disciplinary records were being selected as FTOs. This
may result from the absence, discussed above, of centrally
located, complete disciplinary histories for district commanders
to consult in making their selections. We recommend that any CPD
officer who has a significant disciplinary history or who has
received a significant number of citizen complaints (other than
those which were determined to be unfounded) be ineligible for
the FTO program.
We also understand that district commanders have no
authority to remove an officer they have concerns about from
serving as an FTO, but can only refuse to assign that officer a
recruit. We recommend that district commanders be given this
authority and that selection to serve as an FTO be made for a
limited term (subject to reappointment if the district commander
believes that it is warranted).
The training staff at the academy should be enlisted to
provide feedback to the FTOs. For example, designated sergeants
from the training academy should have a role both in the
selection of FTOs and in evaluating whether a particular FTO is
retained after a certain period of time. That role would include
providing input into the evaluations of FTOs.
Finally, there should be a mechanism for recruits to provide
anonymous evaluations of their FTOs. This will aid the CPD in
better training and evaluation of its FTOs.
* CPD should form additional units to review and audit
training.
To ensure that lesson plans are consistent with department
policy, we recommend that the CPD institute a curriculum review
or curriculum development unit within the training academy. In
addition to core academy staff, the unit should include field
personnel that represent a wide cross-section of the
organization, including CPD command staff (at all levels), and
lawyers from the City Solicitor's office. Moreover, we recommend
that the academy create an audit committee to ensure that
mandated objectives, and only mandated objectives and approved
lesson plans, are taught by instructors, and that what is being
taught at the academy comports with CPD policy.
* The CPD should have more exposure to the policies, practices
and procedures of other police departments.
The CPD management seems to have had limited exposure to the
practices of other police departments. Greater exposure would
provide the CPD with access to new ideas and innovations. It
would also provide a valuable mechanism for re-evaluation of its
policies and practices in light of those used by other
departments. This exposure could be achieved in many ways. For
example, more CPD officers could be sent to a greater number and
variety of law enforcement conferences. The CPD could also ask
outside agencies to review and evaluate its policies and
procedures.
In conclusion, we appreciate the cooperation we have
received from City and CPD officials and look forward to
continued discussion about the issues raised by this letter.
Sincerely,
Steven H. Rosenbaum
Chief
Special Litigation Section
cc: Fay D. Dupuis
City Solicitor
Chief Thomas H. Streicher, Jr.
c/o Dyer Ellis & Joseph
Keith A. Fangman
Fraternal Order of Police
1. We understand that as a result of feedback from our
police practices experts, the CPD is going to change the canine
policy to prohibit deployment of canines in crowd control
situations.
2. For purposes of this letter, except when explicitly
referring to the CPD's definition of "use of force," the term
"use of force" is intended to refer to any physical and
instrumental acts that impose any degree of force on the
civilian, including the use of chemical irritant and what the CPD
calls "restraining force."
3. This practice may result from ambiguity in the
complaint resolution policy, which states that a full
investigation should be conducted but also provides that if the
claimant fails to attend the scheduled meetings "the complaint/problem will be deemed to have been resolved by the
supervisor's inquiry and the file will indicate same."
4. The policy states that the camera may be deactivated if
"the enforcement action is complete" or recording is "no longer necessary." There is no statement of why it may be "no longer
necessary" and this ambiguity may undermine the requirement that
the camera be activated. We suggest the CPD eliminate this
ambiguity.
Updated July 25, 2008