Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 415-09TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: POLICE DATE: NOVEMBER 2, 2009 CMR:415:09 REPORT TYPE: CONSENT SUBJECT: Acceptance of Transmitta] of Police Auditor's Fina] Report For 2008 RECOMMENDATIONS Staff is transmitting the attached the final report for 2008 provided by the Police Auditor for Council acceptance. DISCUSSION On September 10,2007, the City Council voted to extend the agreement with Michael 1. Gennaco and Robert Miller of the OIR Group to serve as the City's Police Auditor. A requirement of the contract is for the Auditors to provide two reports per year summarizing their findings and reporting on each investigation and disposition. Attached is the second report for 2008 (April-December 2008). RESOURCE IMPACT Between April and December 2008, $12,930 has been expended. POLICY IMPLICATIONS This report is consistent with City policies. ATT ACHMENTS 2008 Police Auditor Final Report CMR:41S:09 Page 1 of 2 PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CMR:415:09 Delmis Burns, Police Chief DENNIS BURNS Police Chief Page 2 of2 POLICE AU-DITOR'S FINAL REPOR T Presented to the Honorable City Council Ci ty of Palo Alto April 13, 2009 Prepared by Michael Gennaco & Robert Miller orR Group 323-890-5425 www.laoir.colll Palo Alto Independent Police Allditor Fil1al Report for 2008 1. The Second Year This report is the second of two reports covering the second year of the Independent Police Auditor's work with the Palo Alto Police Department. It reports on investigations initiated and complaints that have been considered since the publication or the second year Interim Report and provides upclated information regarding investigations tbat bad not yet been fully resolved at the time the Interim Report was released . Additionally this Report updates the work the Auditor and the Police Department have engaged in with regard to systemic issues. This report also covers the Auditor's review of all applications of the Taser by PAPD personnel in the course of detention and arrest of suspects. This complies with the mandate of the Palo Alto City Council that the lPA expand its purvic'vv to include Taser- relatecl incidents. II. Taser Incidents Since the introduction of the Taser as standard cquipment for all Palo Alto PD patrol officers in late 2007, Department members have applied the Taser in the field to tbree persons in separate incidents. "Ve reviewed the first incident in OLlr previous report. We review the second and third incidents below. To date we find the documentation ofTaser incic1ents by the Department to be tborough. Additionally, the Taser-cam video and, where practical, the MA V video have proven to be invaluable aids to the Auditor's monitoring of these incidents. 1 Taser Use of Force #2 -Incident 08-1777 Responding to a resident's complnillt, three officers went to check on a parked van in which someone appeared [0 be living. The occupant of the van would not open <l door or window to talk to the officers so one of the orncers pretended to call for a tow truck. This ruse worked and the man in tbe van came out for a few seconds then ran back into the van. He did not shut the door however and continued to converse with the officers. During this conversation he showed signs of erratic behavior and possible intravenous drug use. The officers ordered him out ofthc van and attempted to handcuff him lo determine if he was limier the illilliellce. Thc mall strugglcd when an oCficer grabbed his arms to handcuff him anc! lwisted away I'rom the ol'ficer. At this point, thc officer stepped back, drew his Taser and shot it at the man. At least one of the two Taser barbs missed the man entirely. Consequently, the Taser had no effect on the man except to enrage him. He charged toward the officers swinging his arms in a windmill fashion and kicking. He strllck one of the of/lcers in the face with a fist. The brief struggle with the three officers ended when one ofthell1 lIsec1 (\ second Taser in drive stun mode twice against the suspect's torso. The suspect said that he would give up and submitted to handcuffing. The sllspect and the officers sustained minor cuts and scrapes. The documentation of the incident was thorough. The Taser-cam video, MAY videos and audio tapes were personally reviewed by the IPA and comported with the account of the incident documented in the written reports. This Taser application appeared to comply with Department policy. As a result of this incident, thc District Attorney filed a felony count of resisting arrest against the van occupant. At the ensuing preliminary hearing, thejuc!ge ruled that the ruse that caused the suspect to come out of' his van was an improper violation of the suspect's rights and dismissed the case. The IPA has reviewed the Court transcript and is satisfied that the ruling did not relate to th e officer's use of the Taser or the asserti on that the Taser video evidence bad been tampered with. The ruling docs, however presenl a challenge to PAPD officers facing similar calls for service in the Cuture. Accordingly, we recommend that, in order to avoid the risk of an ambiguous legal interpretation in the future, officers avoid usin g ruses in this type of situation until they have investigated the matter sufficiently to determine 2 whether there is a basis for concluding that a crime has occurred. We recommend that PAPD brief its officers on this approach to avoid similar unfavorable court rulings . Arrestee's Complnint. During the pendency orthe criminal case, the man from the van complained that the PAPD officers had used the Taser on him in violation oflhe PAPD policy on Taser use ane! that the video evidence fl'O\11 the case had been tamperecl with. The auditor viewed these as significant issues independent of tile criminal case (Ind evaluated them in light of all of the evidence relating to the arrest. At thisjul1cture, vve continue to conclude that the LIse of the Taser by both officers complied with the Department's Taser policy. Each time a Taser was used, whether in projectile mode or drive stun mode, the suspect appeared to meet or surpass the "active resistance" threshold. The complainant's concern about videotape t<lmpering concerned "gaps" present in the Taser video tapes. We consulted independent experts as well as Department experts and their conclusion is not that the Taser tapes had been tampered with but that the "gaps" in the tape were consistent with the activation and deactivation of the Taser during normal use or while switching modes. Furthermore, there was little relevant information lost, as olher continllolls videotape retrieved from the in-car video record ings recorded the same actions. Finally, after reviewing the tapes, we pointed out that one of the ofJIcers needlessly used foul language toward the suspect. The ChiefofPolice agreed with this observation and directed tbe officer's supervisors to counsel him regarding the discou rtesy issue. We are aware that there is potcntial civil litigation regarding this event bl'Ought by the man who was Tasered. Wc will follow that litigation to learn whether additional information produced during that litigation should cause us to revisit our conclusions regarding this incident. Tnser Use of Force #3 -I Ilciclell t 08-8631 Officers, called to the scene ora man acting suspiciously near a car, observed <I man alone in a parked car smoking rock cocaine 1'1'0111 Ci glass pipe. They knocked on th e closed windows of the car anci ordered the inan to get Ollt. He locked the doors, continued to smoke the glass pipe, refused to get out, and appeared to search for 3 something in and under the car seats. The officers broke a vvinelow and usee! a Taser to extract the man. We have reviewed the case materials and Taser video, but have not concluded our discussions with PAPD mnnagers regarding this matter. Accordingly, we will report our conclusions regarding the Taser use in this case in our next report. III. Complaints, Cases llnd Issues 1. Complaint of Improper Request for Identification #C 2007-011 Synopsis: An officer pulled a motorist over for a traffic violation. During the stop, after requesting the usual documentation from the driver, the officer asked the driver's passenger for identification. The passenger latel' complainecl to the Department that this was an unlawful intrusion into his privacy and was unsupported by the law. Recommendation: Current C,lse I<IW indicates that so long as there is a legitimate basis to stop the motorist in the first place, peace officers may briefly detain passengers as well and request their identification. It was also clear from the investigation, that the complainant felt harassed by Palo Alto police officers who he felt stopped him frequently becallse of his clothing <md appearance. We commend the Department for going beyond the narrow legal question presenled hcre ancl renching out to the complainant to try to address his othcr concerns. Resolution/Corrective Action: The internal affairs unit commander followed up with the complainant to explain the legal basis for the 10 check as well as to ask about the complainant's perception of harassment. The complainant stated that he understood to some degree why his physical appearance coule! attracl police attention. 2. Complaint of Harassment #C 2007-015 Synopsis: A woman complained that an officer issued her and her husband fOllr separate parking or traffic violation tickets during a five month period and was interfering with their missionary work. The complainant failed to show up for an appointment with the investigating supervisor who subsequently tried to reach her on several occasions without success. 4 Recommendation: The Auditor agrees with the clecision to suspend the complaint investigation. Resolution/Corrective Action: The cOlllplain<lI1t was notified of the case status by letler. 3. Sexual Harassment #IA 2008-003 Synopsis: Two days prior to his retirement, an employee surprised a feillale officer by kissing her on the lips . He did the sallle thing to another feillale officer thal day while grabbing her head anc! forcing the physical contact. He macie remarks to the effect that he was beyond discipline because of his impending retirement. During the course of the internal affairs investigation, a previous incident of sexually offensive remarks directed at a thire! feillale officer was unearthecl and investigated. Recommendation: The Auditor agreed ,vith the Department's founded conclusion based on the evicicilce. The Department's clisciplinary Ol)tions were limited due to the subsequent retirement of the subject employee. Nevertheless, the Department acted ,1S forcefully and quick Iy as it could. The subject was put on administrative leave at the outset of tile investigation, which was completed swiftly. This was especially important given the subordinate rank of ' the victims and sent an unequivocal message to all members of the Department. Resolution/Corrective Action: The Department sustained llnclings on a variety of sexual harassment-related aclministr;ltive charges. As ,1 result of the incicients, the Chief also decided to exercise her discretion to deny the subject a permit to carry a concealed weapon subsequent to his retirement. 4. Complaint of Discourtesy, Hrlrassmcnt and Prohibited Use of E-mail #IA 2008-004 Synopsis: An officer discovered that someone had accessed his Department e- mail account and sent a message out to various members of the Department that purported to be from the officer revealing highly personal information. A supervisor came forward and admitted that he had played the prank. 5 Recommendation: The e-m8iling stunt 8ppeared to be a poor attempt 8t humor without serious malicious intent. Nevertheless, the supervisor displ8yed a profound lack ofleaclership and violated 8 host ofPAPD policies, from discourtesy to making ll1isle8ding statements to improperly 8ccessing the e-mail of8nother to violating the 8nti- h8rassment policy. Most import8nt 01',111, the supervisor used language that could easily have sent a message ofdiscril1lin8tion ancl disrespect throughout the Department. For these re8sons, the Auditor was pleasecl to see the Department take this violation seriously 8l1d clo a quick and effective investigation. The Auditor 8greed with the Department's findings 8nd the discipline imposed. Resolution/Corrective Actiol1: All policy violations were sustained resulting in a suspension imposed on the subject supervisor. 5. Complaint of Inadequate Service and Discourtesy #C 2008-005 Synopsis: A resident requesteci service because a large commercial truck was unl08cling next door and blocking his vehicle. The dispatcher misunderstood the location which caused a brief delay in the police response. The resident felt he had been treated rudely by the dispatcher and was unh,lpPY with the PAPD declining to put tighter controls on commercial vehicle loaciing in the area. Recommendatioll: The Auditor reviewed the tape of the dispatch conversation and concluded that the Department's elTort to follow up on the complaint was adequate <md that the dispatcher was not ciiscourteous uncleI' the circul1lst8nces. We recommencled th8t Department supervisors implement 8 qU81ity control progr8m of random monitoring of desk response to citizen compl8ints. The Department is considering this recommendation. Resolu lion/Correctivc Action: A supervisor fol lowed up with the complainant and offered to refer the matter to traffic services but the complainant hung up during the conversation. 6. Complaint of Discourtesy anel Threatcning Improper Action #C 2008-006 Synopsis: A cat was struck by a motorist. A woman driving nearby saw the accident and pulled over, as did the motorist. An officer saw the two cars pulled over and 6 stopped to offer assistance. The woman pointed out the severely injut'ed cat. The officer confirmed that animal control was on the way and suggested to the woman that she might prefer to leave. Shortly after tl](lt, the officer observed that the cat appeared to be dead. He assured the woman that animal control was on the way and left the scene. The woman believed that the officer's unemotional demeanor and his suggestion that she might want to leave meant that he intended to execute the cat with his gun. She later complained to I) APD . Recommendation: The Auditor agreed with the investigating supervisor's conclusion that the complainant misunderstood the otlicer's 'v\fords and intentions. Shooting the cat under these circLlmstances woulel have been an unnecessary and bizarre departure frolll logic and Del)altment policy guidelines. The Auditor also agreed that cautioning the officer about taking time to explain his actions to community members in the field is a positive precaulionary measure. Resolu tion/Corrective Action: The complainant was informed of the Department's findings. The olTicer was reminded to explain his actions and intentions more plainly in the field to comlllunity members. 7. Complaint of I mpropcr Arrc~it #C 2008-008 Synopsis: Two officet·s initiated a vehicle stop 011 a vehicle with no fmnt licen se plate. The vehicle contained one adult passenger. The other three occupants were juveniles. The odors of alcohol and marijuana were evident to the officers. The adult was very drunk by his own admission. The juvenile driver showed some signs of possible alcohol impairment. As the olTicers attempteci to get the driver to exit the vehicle in order to determine whether he was under the inOuence of alcohol , the adult passenger loudly told the dl'ivct' not to cooperate and insulted and thre<1tened the officers. When the driver refused to exit the vellicle, the officers pulled the adult passenger out of his seat, handcuffed him anc! arrested him for being cirunk in public and delaying and interfering with an investigation. The adult later filed a complaint with PAPD that the LIse of force was excessive ancl the arrest unjustified. Recommendation: The Auditor reviewed the investigation reports aile! the MA V video and concluded that the arrest ancluse of force in pulling the adult passenger Ollt of 7 the car was within the PAPD use of force policy ancl (hat there was a good basis for the administrative finding oful1lounded on the complaint. We recolllmended that the responding officers be bl'iefed about the tactical disadval1tages and officer safety issues that are present when oflicers reach into vehicles to extract individuals, Resolution/Corrective Action: Tile results orthe Department's investigation were conveyed to the complainant by letter. 8. Complaint of Inadeqllate Service #C 2008-010 Synopsis: Two pmscs were stolen ['rom a family group inside a restaurant late 011 a weekend night. One 0 f the victims callecl PAPD to report the theft and was asked to file a report using the Department's automated on-line or telephone reporting systems. The caller asked that the Department send an officer. The dispatcher alerted an officer in the area who \vas then flaggecl down by the victims. The officer spoke to the victims for fifteen minutes and, since there was no suspect information, encouraged them to file a report on-line or at the Police Department desk 011 a weekclay. The officer later indicated that he had not taken a report because he was monitoring the large late night crowd outside the restaurant. The investigation of the complaint unearthecl a relatively recent department-wide memo acknowledging that some members of the community were dissatisfied when told to fi Ie a report using the automated system. It strongly suggested that officers who have already gone to a location or been nagged down should go ahead and take a report in person. The memo acknowleclged that busy situations in the field could make tbis impractical. Nevertheless, the Department investig,llion concluded that the officer in this case had complied with Dep,lrtment policy. Recommendation: The Auditor agreed that the officer's actions complied with the letter ofPAPD policy but conclucled th<lt, had the omcer taken a brief report of the theft, he would have servecl the sp iri t 0 f Departmen t po I icy llluch better. Resolu lion/Corrective Action: The auditor l'ccommended that the Department reissue the 2007 memo to the Department as a training bulletin clarifying this aspect of cllstomer service and that the officer's unit commander specifically brief him on the contents of the memo. The Departmellt has accepted these recommendations. 8 9. Complaint of Improper Arrest #C 2008-011 Synopsis: An officer stopped (] motorist for erratic driving in the early morning folloyving New Year's Eve. Arter smelling the odor of alcohol, the officer administered ,1 full battery offield sobriety tests. The officer also did a preliminary test of the motorist's blood alcohol level with a portable device which showed a reading of a few hundredths below the presumptive impairment limit. The motorist also st8ted th8t he had taken a prescription medication which made him drowsy. He was taken to the station and booked for driving under the influence. The District Altol'lley decided not to file charges in this case. Six months 18ter, the motorist wrote a letter ofcompl8int to PAPD aSSerlil1g that there had been inadequate probable cause to arrest him and that he was denied the opportunity to give 8 breath sample instead ofa blood sample. The blood sample showed an alcohol level below the presumptive legal limit. Recommendatioll: The Auditor agreed with the Department's conclusion that the officer had 110t exceeded his authority ill arresting the sllspect and arranging for a blood sample to be taken in view of the 8dmission regarding prescription medication. It is 8 best practice in DUI investigations for the investigating officer to eV81uate the sLlspect based on the tot81ity of the circumstances rnther th8n rely on any single indicator. The driving p8ttern, the perform8nce on the field sobriety tests, the admissions about prescription medication 8nd the preliminary blood 81cohol test collectively provided probable calise to believe that the suspect's driving was impaired. Blood alcohol level is not the only b8sis for making a probable calise determination of il1lpaimlent. It can also be appropriatel y based on all of the other indicators observed and tested by the officer who appeared 10 follow the Department's elaborate DUI protocol to the letter. Resolution/Corrective Actioll: The investigation of this complaint was thorough and revealed no apparent issLles regarding the Departmen t's our investigation methodology. 10. Complaint of Jnadeqllate Service #C 2008-013 Synopsis: PAPD Detectives investigating a series of daytime burglaries spotted two burglary sllspects moving household goods from a home into their vehicle. As the 9 suspects drove off, the detectives called in marked patrol cars to detain the suspect vehicle. Police vehicles pursued the suspects briefly but then desisted when the pursuit became more hazardous than Department policy ,ll1ows for non-violent felony sLlspects. The homeowner, who came home as the burglars were fleeing, complained to the PAPD that she felt that the officers sllOuld have tried harcJer to catch the burglars and pursued them longer. About 35 minutes later the suspect vehicle crashed and rolled over for unknown reasons, but the suspects fled when the Fire Department arrived. The sLlspects were later apprehended, convicted and tied to a series of burglaries. Recommendation: The Auditor concluded that PAPD personnel had performed their duty in making an earnest effort to apprehend the burglars, but had called off the pursuit in order to comply with Department policy. Upon review or the policy, the Auditor also believes that it stl'ikes an ,lppropriate balance between the importance of apprehending criminal suspects at the earliest possible opportunity ancl the need to minimize the danger to the community posed by car chases. The policy is in keeping with the best practices of progl'essive police agencies and state law regarding vehicle pursuits of non-violent felons. Resolution/Corrective Action: A Department Capt8in offered to meet with lhe homeowner to explain the pursuit policy and the competing factors that underlie it but the complainant diclnot desire this. 11. Complaint of Improper Arrest #C 2008-014 Synopsis: Officers responded to a 911 call reponing a loud physical fight between a lllan and a woman. When they arrived at the residence the woman ned the scene and the man rel11C1 i ned. [-Ie exp la i ned that the woman vvas his gi 1'1 friend and tha t they lived together at the resicience. Tiley had argueci about recent social plans and she had tried to leave the apartment. The man had blocked her egress and pushed her to prevent her frol11 leaving the apartment. She retaliated by scratching him with her nails and made her escape. After the fight, she had no visible marks and he had a small scratch on his chest. The man provided the officers with the woman's cell phone number and they found her and took her st()tement which was consistent with these facts. Based on the statements of both panies, the officers arrestecl the man for misdemeanor domestic 10 battery. The \\oman filed a complaint that day contenciing that the police had had no basis to arrest her boyfriend. The case was ultimately rejected for filing by the District Attorney. During the course of the Intern,d AfTairs investigation, the supervisor investigating the complaint eXIJlained to the complainant that the arrest of her boyfrienci was for a domestic battery rather than the more serious charge of willful injury of spouse, which can be filed as a felony or a misllemeanor. When the complain,1l1t read the penal code section, she indicated that she no 10llger wished to pursue the Lnternal Affairs complaint of all improper arrest. The complaint investigation was nevertheless completed, resulting in a finding of unfounded Recommendation: The Auditor concurred with the Department's conclusion that this was an appropriate arrest of the boyfriend and that the complaint should be unfounded. Furthermore, the arrest was in keeping with the policy of a county-wide protocol that emphasizes concern for lile safety or the domestic violence victim and prevention of fllrther violence between the involved parties. We also reviewed the audio tape of the interview with the complainant and observed that the Internal Affairs investigator's patience, demeanor and knowledge while interviewing the complainant was exemplary. We also found the Department's decision to complete the complaint investigation, despite the apparent change of heart by the complainant to be the appropriate decision. That said, we helVe recommended to the Internal Affairs unit thaL in future instances when a complainani decides, during the course of a formal i nvesti gation, to wi thd ra w the comp la i 11 t based on in [ormation provided by the inves tigator, that sincere desire to withdraw should be confirmed by the head of IA in a follow up contact. This will avoid even the appearance of subtle coercion or advocacy by IA investigators, whose primary mission is fact gathering. Resolution/Corrective Action: We agree with the Department's finding. Tht: Department has accepted our recommendation to have the Internal Affairs unit commander follow up with the complainant when he or sh e expresses a desire to withdraw the complainant. 12. Complaint of Improper and Discourteolls Search of Person #C 2008-018 1 1 Synopsis: An officer pulled a vehicle over for expired registration. The officer discovered that, among the four occupants of the vehicle, the driver had an outstanding telony drug walTant, passenger A had current drug charges pending, and passenger B \vas on probation for a drug conviction anci was subject to search as a condition of her probation. The officer searcllcd the whick: and fOLind I"Ock cocaine anci two cocaine pipes. In the course of the seal'ch, another passenger told an officer that passenger B was hiding drugs on her person. Thereafter, a male officer conducted a field search of passenger B outside her clothing and in th e presence of another officer. He did not find any contrabancl. He called a fema le ollicer to the scene to conduct a more thorough field search. The female officer dicl not find any contTClband either. Passenger B was arrestecl and charged with possession of drug p;lrapllen18lid. Passenger B complained to the Department that it was inappropriate lor a male officer to search her in this \-\'ay. She did not object to the basis for the search, simply the method. Recommendation: The investigation of the complaint was commenced immecliately alld the investigator interviewed all of the I'elevant witnesses, including a brief'telephone interview of the compl:linant, but the investigator was unable to persumle the complainant to respo nci lor a follo\\ up intcrview ciespite repeateci appointments <llhl phone calls. The investigator also reviewed the MA V vicieo and audio tapes, but the searches occurred outside the video frame. Based on the initial complaint, there were no disputed facts as to the method of the search. The central question was whether a male officer should have conducted the initial search of the female passenger's person. PAPD policy and training allows a male officer to field search a female suspect outside her clothing with the officer's lingers held together to minimize intrusion. The policy recommends that when a search is conducted by an officer of the opposite sex, another witness officer should be present. The evidence indicatecl that the officer complied with these guidelines. The Auditor agreed that the allegation of exceeding lawful police powers was un founded. The Auditor further understands that, while it is generally preferable to li se a female officer in this circuIllstance, such is not always practical. Such searches can easily calise offense or IlllsLlllderstanding, howeve r, and it is important to document them as well as all other searches scrupulously. We recommend that the Department remind field officers that they will be expected to optimize the 12 documentation of field searches by utilizing the MAY system when the opportunity presen ts itself. Resolu tion/Corrective Action: PAPD has sent a response letter to the Complainant. The Department has agreed to the Auditor's training recommendation. 13. Complaint of Discourteous Treatment #C 2008-022 Synopsis: An officer initiatecl ~l vehicle stop on a vehicle because the registration was expired. He questioned the driver ,mel found that his license was suspended. There were also problems with the registration of the vehicle. The officer counseled the fami Iy members in the vehicle to clear up the documentation and required that the man's wife, who had a valid license, though not in her possession, take the wheel for the rest of the trip. The officer did not issue a citatioll. Three men standing across the street had just lert a municipal meeting on the topic of racially biased policing. They noticed the officer conducting a traffic stop, though they had not seen the initial stop. They stopped to observe the officers actions and talked about I'acial profiling. After completing the traffic investigation, the officer saw the men and shined his spotlight on them for t\Vo to four seconds before turning the light off. He recognized one of the men, w(lved anci drove off. The men contacted PAPD immediately and a supervisor came out to illtel'vie\V them. They complained that the omcer had been intentionally rude and had "as saulted '-them with the spotlight. They (llso believed that the traffic stop might have been an example of racial profi ling. Recommendation: The Auditor reviewed the interviews and MA V video of this incident and determined that the officer was extremely courteous and professional towards the motorist that he pulled over, as well as the occupants of the vehicle. A review of this video evidence ,tiso docs not i mlicate allY c1pparent COl1cern on behalf 0 r the vehicle occupants regarding the actions of the police officer. In fact, as noted above, the ofJicer could well have cited and/or arrested the driver of the vehicle for driving with a suspended license and the lack of CI valid registration but instead used his discretion to resolve the issue without any formal action. As for the officer's behavior toward the bystanclers across the street, there is litt Ie dispute over thc facts. The cOl11plainClllts interpreted the officer's brief llse of the 13 spotlight by the officer as rude and provocative. The officer indicated that he lIsed his spotlight on the occupants for officer safety reasons in order to learn more about the identity and intent of the onlookers, a common police practice. Based on all of tile information, in particular the video evidence, there is no bnsis whatsoever to cstablish improper actions by the officer and no basis for the allegation that the stop consisted of racial profiling. Accordingly, the ALiciitor agreed with the Depmlment's linding of exonerated for these alleg<1tions . This finding signifies that the alleged action did take place but that it diclnot violate Department policy. Resolution/Corrective Actioll: The Department has sent a response letter to the complninants. IV. Cases Pellding frOI11 Interim Report 14. Complaint of Mistaken Forfeiture orCaI' #C -2007-010 Synopsis: A car was stolen and used in a crime. While PAPD conducted the initial arrest of the suspect, the vehicle was eventually transferred to the custody of the police departmcnt in a neighboring jurisdiction where the crime had occurred. When the owner tried to claim the car, she found that it had been sold as abandoned property in a lien sale. The complainant alleged that she was not provided sufficient notice regarding the selling of her vehicle. Recommendation: PAPD conducted all investigation of this matter and the Police Chiefhas come to an appropriate conclusion. While both the other police agency and the complainant shared some responsibility for the failure to care for the complainant's property, the complain,lllt was, after all, all innocent victim of the original car theft. Because PAPD bears partial responsibility for lhe loss, corrective action shoulcl be takell. ResoIu tion/Corrective Action: The Police Cbiel' has agreecito ask the city to contact the complainant to discuss compensation. 15. Complaint of Excessive Force and Unprofessional Conduct #C 2008-009 14 Synopsis: PAPD officers assisted a police agency from another city in executing an arrcst warrant and a search warrant at a house in Palo Alto. They arrested a suspect staying as a guest in the house. He was wanted for a murder and an attempted murder with <1 handgun which had occurred two cI<1Ys prior. PAPD offIcers were aware that the gun was still outstanding and the suspect might be armed. Members of the family that lived in the house complained that they were treated roughly and discourteously by PAPD officers, that two of them were pushed to the ground, that they were forced to lie on their front yard in handcu ffs for an excessive period or time, that guns were pointed and profanities shouted at them, that the officers wore no name tags and would not identify themselves, and that they were kept out of their home and confined on their porch or front yard for an excessive period of timc. Recommendatioll: While not the originating agency of the search or arrest warrants, PAPD played a significant role in their execution. The Auditor recommended that the Department review the incident for possible discourtesy, excessive force, excessivedetelltion and failure to identifyoneselfin viol,ltion ofPAPD policies. The Depmtment agl'eed to investigate this matter, met with the family to confirm the complaint, interviewed family members and other witnesses as well as involved officers. The Department determined that the complaints of excessive force and prolonged detention were unfounded. The Department found that it could not determine whether or not complainants had been treated in a discourteous or disrespectful manner, so that complaint was deemed "unsustained." The Depmtment did sust<1in an allegation of unreasonable conduct relating to an ol'licer slicing Ihl'Ough an outdoor canvas tarp in the course of the search. The Dep<lrtment did not address the complaint that officers refused to i d en ti fy themseJ ves. The Auditor reviewecl the case file, including photographic and video evidence. The Auditor asked for additional compan1tive analysis of the MAY videotapes and the computerized radio traffic to determine the accuracy orthe MAY time clocks. PAPD technical staff were able to pl'Ovide this. The search and arrest arose from a criminal case of the most serious and urgent nature. Forceful language and fast, even abrupt action to secure the location and clear the individuals was justifiable under these cirCUJ11stallces. The evidence did not support the IS claim that the force used was excessive under the circuillstances. The Auditor conferred with internal Affairs during the course of the investigation of these complaints and emphasized the significance of the excessive detention complaint. While a search warrant pursuant to a murder investigation is a high risk activity, the interests of members of the public \-vho are not targets of the investigation 111 LiSt be respected as l11L1ch as possible. Being handcuffed face clown on your front lawn during daylight hours in the presence ofyoLir neighbors is ,I highly intrusive ,md porelltially humiliating experience. The Auditor was aware that I) APD was not responsible for choosing the time of day for the execution of the warrant nor did they plan to encounter family members on the front porch and lawn. That is simply where the family was when the search warrant team arrived. Nevertheless, the Auditor was troubled by the complainant's contention that they were detained for over an hour while handcuffed and lying prone on the lawn. The radio traffic and video evidence however makes it clem tllat the household members were detained on the front lawn for less than fifteen minutes. This period, does not appear to be excessive llnder the circumstances. The Auditor did however conclude that the Department had failed to address the complainants' contention that the officers at the scene had failed to provide their names to the householders during the incident. We recommend tlult the Department revie\v its proceclures for providing identification to COllllllun i ty members cluri ng I <trge po I ice operations. We a Iso recommended that plans for futme operations of this nature include an oflicer assigned to videotape the crucial stages of the event. The Department has agreed to do this. Resolution/Corrective Action: The Department sent the complainants a letter with the results of the investigation. Department executives also met with the family to explain the department's reasoning. The Department has replaced the damaged tarp. The Auditor commcnds the Department for meeting face-to-f,lce with the family members after cOlllpletion of the investigation. Even before the conclusion of this internal investigation, Department executives instituted procedural reforms arising from this incident. Department trai ni ng sta ff was gi ven the fo Ilowi ng instruct ion for upcomi ng training: "[RJeinlorce the importance of providing clear, explicit commands that anyone can follow during an arrest situation. There is no room 16 for offensive language in our profession .... arrest cOlllmands should not include vulgarities." Upcoming training \vill also inclucle instruction to insure that the MA V system or other video devices are used to accurately record incidents wherever practicable. Additionally, the Acting Police Chief has also laid out a written plan focused on better serving the needs of householdlllembers for information and assistance following incidents that may have"siglli ftcantly impacted the residCI1ts of the house or the neighborhood." The plan instructs watch commanders where appropriate to send an uninvolved supervisor to the scene to: "Provide the citizens ,vith as much information about the legal authority and procedures that we followed that allowed our agency to take the actions that they took, (taking into account the public's right to know, the integrity of the investigation and the ckfendanl's right to privacy)." "Assist the citizens wherever possible, including how to file a claim should we have damaged any pl'Operty in our operation." "Ensure that all uses of force or claims of injury were ciocumented and investigated. " "Assist the citizen by accepting any citizen complaint." "Provide the citizen with contact information ... to increase their underst,lllcling of the incident." "Assist thel~1l11ily in obtaining a copy oftllC police report should they seek it and it is feasible to rel ease it." "Assess whether a community meeting might be appropriate to explain police actions or neighborhood safety." 16. Complaint of False Slntemellts and Omissiolls in Arrest Report #C-2006-0 I 0 Synopsis: A civil litigant was charged with felony vandalism against the opposing party when PAPD investigators concluded that he had scratched the other party's car with a metal object after losing in civil comt. The prosecution of the vandalism case has been delayed by procedural writs that continue to work their way up 17 to higher courts of appeal. The vandalism defendant has complained to the Department that the officer who investigated the vandalism made biased statements and omitted evidence in his report. Recommendation: The Auditor recoml11endecl that the department hold any investigation ofthe complaint until after the resolution orthe criminal case. Any other course of action would be disruptive to the court proceedings. The Department agreed. Resolu (ion: The Department is monitori ng the status of the criminal case and has prepared to commence the complaint investigation as soon as the criminal case is resolved. EJ'J'atllm: In the IPA Interill/ Report jor 200712008, the IPA described a citizen's cOli/plaint concerning the adequacy ojpolice action dllring ([ police standby while a jellwle spouse reilloved some clothes {{lid property frOIl/ the house tliot she alld her husbolld shored. The IPA report synopsis illdico/ed thot the Hiife had requested the police stalldby/or this process. This was Oil error. Injoct, the husb({lId hod requested the police stondby. We upologizejor the lIIisclwracteriza/ioll ojthe standby request. This[actual error, however, would hove 110 Sllbstolltive iii/pact on our conclusions or recOllll7lendation. Table of Complaint and Internal Affairs Investigations Reviewed by the Auditor April 2008 through January 2009 Case No. Casell nvestigation Allegation Results of Resolution Type Investigation C-2007-Citizen Complaint Improper Unfounded Results and 011 request for legal basis identification explained to complainant C-2007-Citizen Complaint Harassment Investigation Complainant 015 suspended informed of status 18 IA-2008-Internal Affairs Sexual Founded Offic er retired 003 In vestigation Harassment I IA-2008-Internal Affairs Discourtesy, Founded Suspension 004 Investigation Harassment C-2008-Citizen Complaint Inadequate Unfounded Offer to refer 005 service and matter to traffic discourtesy I services I rej ected C-2008-Citizen Complaint Threatening Unfounded Complainant I 006 improper informed of action results; offic er cautioned C-2008-Citizen Complaint Improper arrest Unfounded Complainant 008 informed of results C-2008-Citizen Complaint Inadequate Unfounded Training bulletin 010 service and briefing C-2008-Citizen Complaint Improper arrest Unfounded Complainant 011 for DUI informed of results C-2008-Citizen Complaint Inadequate Unfounded Department 013 attempt to captain offered apprehend to meet with burglars complainant to explain pursuit policy. Complainant informed of results. C-2008-Citizen Complaint Improper Unfounded Department 014 domestic policy explained violence arrest to complainant; procedural change for complaint investiQations C-2008-Citizen Complaint Discourteous Unfounded Complainant 19 018 search of informed of I person of results; opposite sex department will train on utilization of MAV system C-2008-Citizen Complaint Discourteous Unfounded Complainants 022 treatment with informed of spot light; results possible racial profilinq Cases Pending from Previolls Reports C-2007-Citizen Mistaken Founded Complainant to 010 Complaint forfeiture of car be contacted re compensation C-2008-Citizen Excessive force, Unfounded Complainant met 009 Co mplaint excessive for excessive with detention and force & complainants to unprofessional detention; discuss results; conduct Unsustained Procedure for changes and discourtesy; training Founded for inappropriate I destruction of I property C-2006-Citizen Folse Investigation None I 010 Complaint statements and pending I omissions in resolution of arrest report criminal case V. Conclusion 20 The Palo Alto Police Department has undergone a significant transition over the past year, including the recent retirement of the Chief of Police. We take this opportunity to note that Chief Johnson alw<lys worked with the Auditor in a spirit of mutual respect. Civilian oversight with full ,1ccess is still an unsettling 110velty for many law enforcement executives, but Chief.lohnson acceptccl the IPA with all attitude of progress and always provided us with the 8ccess, dialogue, and receptivity that we requirecl to fulfill our m8nd8te from the City. We have continueci to build offoftl18t initial t·elationship with Department leaders during this current tr8llsitional ph8se. 21