Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 14472 City of Palo Alto (ID # 14472) City Council Staff Report Meeting Date: 6/20/2022 Report Type: Information Reports City of Palo Alto Page 1 Title: Police Response to OIR Report From: City Manager Lead Department: Police Recommendation This is an informational report, and no Council action is required. Background Since 2006, OIR Group has been contracted by the City of Palo Alto to act as an Independent Police Auditor (IPA). The IPA provides an independent review of qualifying administrative investigations and public complaints investigated by the Palo Alto Police Department, publishes a bi-annual report reviewing those investigations, and gives recommendations on ways to improve investigative processes and department practices. On February 14, 2022, the IPA presented the December 2020-2021 report to the Council. On March 14, 2022, Council requested the Department prepare written responses to the IPA recommendations. In the future, Department responses will be published as an addendum to the IPA report. For the December 2020-2021 report, which has already been published, the Department is providing these responses as an informational item to the Council. Discussion The Department reviewed the IPA recommendations in detail and consulted with the IPA and appropriate staff members about them. In most cases, the Department agreed with the IPA’s recommendations and modified existing policies or procedures accordingly. The Department addresses its responses to each of the IPA recommendations in the attached document. In the interest of public awareness, the Department publishes an updated version of its policy manual on the Department’s website on a quarterly basis. The next quarterly publication is scheduled to occur in August 2022. Attachments: • PAPD Response to Dec 2020-2021 IPA Recommendations 1 | P a g e DATE: MAY 26, 2022 TO: ED SHIKADA, CITY COUNCIL FROM: ASSITANT CHIEF ANDREW BINDER SUBJECT: POLICE DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TO DEC 2020-2021 IPA RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATION ONE: PAPD should go beyond a “letter of the law” assessment when evaluating an allegation that an officer used his discretion in a retaliatory or otherwise improper fashion. The Department agrees that if there is an allegation an officer used their discretion in a retaliatory or otherwise improper fashion, the Department should interview the officer to determine intent and rationale for the officer’s actions instead of solely relying on the “letter of the law” to reach a conclusion on the officer’s conduct. RECOMMENDATION TWO: PAPD should address allegations of officer misconduct in straightforward and timely ways, apart from concerns about parallel proceedings that may involve some of the same concerns. The Department agrees with this recommendation and has revised its administrative procedures to reflect the Department’s commitment and expectation for the prompt resolution of all administrative matters while remaining mindful of parallel court proceedings. RECOMMENDATION THREE: PAPD should prioritize the timely resolution of cases, and should hold managers accountable as needed to ensure that this occurs. The Department agrees with this recommendation and will continue to balance the prioritization of the timely resolution of administrative cases with other critical department operations as personnel capacity allows. RECOMMENDATION FOUR: PAPD should advise its members of the apparent need to obtain a blood draw in order to support a successful prosecution and consider changing policy to require it in cases involving suspected driving while intoxicated (marijuana or other drugs). The Department agrees with advising its officers of the importance in obtaining a blood sample or other biological (urine) sample when it can be lawfully obtained in support of a successful prosecution. This has been accomplished via a department training memorandum. RECOMMENDATION FIVE: PAPD should ensure, through documentation, that any recommended verbal counseling does in fact occur. The Department agrees with this recommendation and has created an Administrative Investigation Disposition memorandum which documents departmental action taken as part of an administrative 2 | P a g e investigation. This memorandum is provided to the involved officer and retained in the administrative case file once the investigation has been completed. RECOMMENDATION SIX: PAPD should determine how a body-worn camera should be placed that would still successfully video events when wearing a traffic vest and import that knowledge to the involved officer and the Department as a whole. The Department agrees with this recommendation and has revised the Police Policy Manual to address its expectations for wearing body-worn cameras in conjunction with other articles of clothing so that it is able to successfully capture events. RECOMMENDATION SEVEN: The Department should assign two investigators to key interviews in its internal affairs cases, and at a minimum should ensure such staffing for the interview of the subject employee. The Department agrees with this recommendation and has revised its administrative procedures to ensure that two investigators be assigned to key interviews. Although it was not the case for all interviews related to the reviewed investigation, the Department’s typical practice has always been to assign two investigators to such interviews. RECOMMENDATION EIGHT: PAPD should revise its force review protocols to instruct supervisors that when an initial attempt at a subject interview is not productive as a result of an observed physical or mental condition, the reviewer should attempt to re-interview the subject at a later, more favorable time, or document why such an attempt was not made. The Department agrees with this recommendation and has revised the Police Policy Manual to ensure investigators attempt to re-interview a subject if the initial attempt to interview is not productive or document why such an attempt was not made. RECOMMENDATION NINE: PAPD should develop protocols to ensure that body-worn camera evidence of any reportable force be reviewed by the supervisor assigned the force review close in time to the date of the incident. The Department agrees with this recommendation and has revised the Police Policy Manual to ensure body-worn camera evidence of any reportable force as part of a force review is reviewed by a supervisor or manager close in a timely manner. RECOMMENDATION TEN: PAPD should ensure that in force cases for which there is a seeming discrepancy in the evidence (as in gaps between officer versions, or between reports and body-worn camera footage), the review is elevated to a formal internal affairs investigation. The Department agrees with this recommendation. In the reviewed investigation, the Department did not find any apparent discrepancy and the video evidence was comprehensive, so no further investigation was deemed necessary. RECOMMENDATION ELEVEN: PAPD should revise its protocols to ensure that PAPD personnel assigned to administrative investigations attempt to interview all civilian victims and witnesses, even when they are represented by counsel. The Department agrees with this recommendation and has revised its administrative procedures to ensure that administrative investigators attempt to interview civilian victims and witnesses, even when represented by counsel and if no interview occurs, provide an explanation as to why. 3 | P a g e RECOMMENDATION TWELVE: PAPD should advise those assigned to conduct internal investigations that witness officers to any force incident should be interviewed, if possible, even if they are employed by another police agency. The Department agrees that in situations in which a force incident occurs relevant witness officers should be interviewed when feasible but recognizes that, in some cases, comprehensive video evidence may obviate the need to interview all officers present. RECOMMENDATION THIRTEEN: During internal investigations into uses of force, PAPD should retrieve and review any body-worn cameras of other agency witness officers. The Department agrees that as part of an administrative force investigation, supervisors should attempt to obtain and review body-worn camera footage of non-PAPD witness officers and has revised the Police Policy Manual. RECOMMENDATION FOURTEEN: Per its stated intent, PAPD should modify its policy requiring officers to contact residents of yards prior to searching, ensuring that specific questions are asked about potential individuals in the back yard, the Department’s intent to deploy a K-9, an advisement to residents to stay inside during the search, and a follow up contact when the search has been completed. The Department agrees that, when time and circumstances allow, officers should contact residents of yards prior to searching, ensuring that specific questions are asked about potential individuals in the back yard, the Department’s intent to deploy a K-9, an advisement to residents to stay inside during the search, and a follow up contact when the search has been completed and has revised the Police Policy Manual to reflect this. RECOMMENDATION FIFTEEN: The K-9 handler and PAPD cover officer should be counseled on the importance of identifying themselves as police officers during any attempts at apprehension. The Department agrees with this recommendation and has revised the Police Policy Manual to expressly reflect the Department’s existing expectation for officers to identify themselves prior to the use of force. RECOMMENDATION SIXTEEN: PAPD should revise policy to ensure that any post-incident interview of a person subjected to a K-9 deployment be handled by a supervisor. Department policy already provides that any post-incident administrative interview of a person subjected to a K-9 deployment be handled by a supervisor. Consistent with best practices, the Department will continue to allow the investigating officer to conduct post-incident interviews of a person subjected to a K-9 deployment in a professional manner unless circumstances provide that such interview is best handled by a supervisor. RECOMMENDATION SEVENTEEN: PAPD should advise all members of the K-9 program (including the involved officer in this incident) that even when formal announcements are not practicable, officers should provide a modified warning so that the subject and other potential uninvolved individuals are advised of the impending intent to deploy the police dog. The Department agrees that when formal announcements are not practical, officers should provide a modified warning of the impending intent to deploy the police dog once circumstances make it feasible to do so. This has been addressed in the Police Policy Manual. RECOMMENDATION EIGHTEEN: PAPD should follow through where possible on obtaining relevant photographs of injuries and medical records in force cases resulting in hospital visits. 4 | P a g e The Department agrees with this recommendation and has revised the Police Policy Manual to ensure that officers should follow through where possible on obtaining relevant photographs of injuries and attempt to obtain medical records in force cases resulting in hospital visits. RECOMMENDATION NINETEEN: PAPD supervisors should refrain from going beyond the involved officer’s own claims in justifying force through the listing of possible threat-based rationales. The Department agrees with this recommendation and has revised is administrative procedures to reflect the refrain of supervisory actions beyond the officer’s own claims in justifying force.