HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2305-1532 City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: INFORMATION REPORTS
Lead Department: City Manager
Meeting Date: June 5, 2023
Report #:2305-1532
TITLE
Independent Police Auditor's (IPA) Report of Review of Investigations Between July and
December 2022 and Police Department Use of Force Report for July - December 2022
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council receive this information report including the most
recent report from the City’s Independent Police Auditor at OIR Group.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Since 2006, Palo Alto has utilized an Independent Police Auditor (IPA) to conduct secondary
review of certain investigations of uniformed Police Department personnel and provide related
services. Since the inception of the independent police auditing program, the City has
contracted with the Office of Independent Review (OIR Group), to provide these services. The
following report transmits the Independent Police Auditor Report on Investigations Completed
as of December 31, 2022.
For reference, the prior IPA report was published on September 27, 2022 as an Informational
Item, see Item 11 (starts on packet page 162). The Police Department’s website lists all past
Independent Police Auditor Reports, here. Attachment A contains the IPA report for
investigations completed between July 2022 and December 2022. Per Council direction, the
Police Department also shares use of force information through a report provided alongside
each IPA report. This report is included here as Attachment B.
Item 16
Item 16 Staff Report
Item 16: Staff Report Pg. 1 Packet Pg. 389 of 406
Police Department's Response to IPA Recommendations
On March 14, 2022, the City Council directed the Police Department to provide written
responses to future IPA recommendations1. The first report of Police Department responses to
the IPA report after the March City Council action was June 20, 20222. The Police Department
responses to the current IPA report are included here as Attachment C.
Process to File a Complaint to the IPA
The public can find more information about filing a complaint through the link here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Police/Accountability/Employee-Complaint
Complaints may also be directed to the Independent Police Auditor as follows:
Contact: Mr. Mike Gennaco
Phone: (323) 412-0334
Email: Michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com
Or mail to: OIR Group
1443 E. Washington Blvd., #234
Pasadena, CA 91104
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Independent Police Auditor's (IPA) Report of Review of Investigations Between
July and December 2022
Attachment B: Police Department Use of Force Report for July - December 2022
Attachment C: Police Department Responses to IPA Report
APPROVED BY:
Ed Shikada, City Manager
1 Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/city-
council-agendas-minutes/2022/20220314/20220314amccs.pdf
2 PDF Page 827 for Item 33 Information Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-
minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/city-council-agendas-minutes/2022/20220620/20220620pccsm-amended-final-
final.pdf
Item 16
Item 16 Staff Report
Item 16: Staff Report Pg. 2 Packet Pg. 390 of 406
1
INDEPENDENT POLICE AUDITORS’ REPORT
Review of Investigations Completed as of January 1, 2023
Presented to the Honorable City Council
City of Palo Alto
March 2023
Prepared by: Michael Gennaco and Stephen Connolly
Independent Police Auditors for
the City of Palo Alto
Item 16
Attachment A -
Independent Police
Auditor's (IPA) Report of
Review of Investigations
Between July and
December 2022
Item 16: Staff Report Pg. 3 Packet Pg. 391 of 406
2
Introduction
Below is the latest installment of a report process that dates back more than fifteen years.
As the Independent Police Auditor (“IPA”) for the City of Palo Alto, OIR Group1 is
entrusted with the responsibility of providing outside scrutiny of the Palo Alto Police
Department ("PAPD") across certain key areas of its operations. These include the
handling of civilian complaints and other allegations of officer misconduct, and the review
of significant use of force used by officers.
Our "inventory" for this latest six-month review cycle (with cases completed as of
December 31, 2022) is small. The Report covers only two misconduct allegations from
the public, one internally generated investigation into the alleged mishandling of an
incident in the field2, and one use of force that met the IPA review criteria (because the
subject, who had minor injuries, was treated at th e hospital). As we note, except for the
internally generated complaint in which some of the allegations were found to have
violated policy, the officers' conduct was found to be consistent with policy in each
instance. In our review, which focuses more on the strength of the investigative and
review process than the “bottom line” outcome, we found much to commend, especially
the thoroughness and thoughtfulness of the administrative review processes that resulted.
At the same time, this Report also has a new feature: a brief discussion of three reported
instances in which PAPD officers pointed firearms in the context of enforcement activity.
(None resulted in a discharge of the weapon.) PAPD has begun tracking these events in
keeping with a burgeoning trend throughout the state to categorize pointed weapons as
an exercise of police authority that warrants documentation and review , and we were
asked expressly by Council to include such events as part of our semi-annual process.
We describe the circumstances for each of the incidents at issue, and offer
recommendations about how the Department can further standardize its new internal
review protocol in ways that are not unduly burdensome.
1 OIR Group is a team of police practices experts that has worked in the field of civilian oversight
of law enforcement since 2001. Led by Michael Gennaco, a nationally recognized leader in the
field, OIR Group performs a range of services in jurisdictions throughout California a nd in several
other states. More information about its projects, including a number of public reports, is
available at oirgroup.com.
2 This is the first completed case involving internal allegations within the police department since
those types of investigations became expressly included as part of our expanded scope of work.
Item 16
Attachment A -
Independent Police
Auditor's (IPA) Report of
Review of Investigations
Between July and
December 2022
Item 16: Staff Report Pg. 4 Packet Pg. 392 of 406
3
PAPD's leadership continues to facilitate our access to the information required for our
work as auditors. Just as importantly, it engages with us in an effort to understand our
perspective, and it is open to suggestions that are intended to enhance the effectiveness
of the processes we review. We appreciate this dynamic, and we are gratified by our
continued opportunity to serve in this important role for Palo Alto.
External Complaint Investigations
Case 1: Third-Party Complaint about Officer Aggression during
Detention of Misdemeanor Suspect
Factual Overview:
Palo Alto dispatch received a call from a manager who claimed that an adult male had
walked out on a $140 bill after dining at her restaurant. She described the man and
stayed on the phone as she followed him on foot onto a street that was blocked to
vehicles and included a number of shops and outdoor dining options. It was during
daylight hours, and several members of the public were in the area.
Two of these people were a mother and her young adult son, who were having a meal
outside and were passed, first by the man, and then by a single Palo Alto police officer
who was responding to the call. The officer yelled for the man to stop and had his hand
atop his holster as he ran closer to the subject. The man did stop and turned toward the
officer, who directed him to turn and face the wall. He refused, saying he had done
nothing wrong. The officer then told him to sit on the curb while he attempted to sort out
the situation with the restaurant manager, who had caught up to them. Aga in, the man
failed to comply, claiming he had left money at his table. He did , however, eventually
agree to wait while a backup officer arrived, and he was calm during the thirty-minute
detention that ensued – much of which was spent trying to determine the man's identity.
The mother and son watched the situation unfold and were immediately concerned about
different aspects of the officer's actions. Especially troubling to the son was the idea that
the officer had run up with his hand on his weapon – a response that seemed to them to
be both unduly aggressive and needlessly endangering to bystanders. They expressed
concerns to both the backup officer (who passed them on the way to the encounter and
then again as he returned to his vehicle to do a computer check on the subject) and later
to a supervisor who came to the scene.
Item 16
Attachment A -
Independent Police
Auditor's (IPA) Report of
Review of Investigations
Between July and
December 2022
Item 16: Staff Report Pg. 5 Packet Pg. 393 of 406
4
Meanwhile, the restaurant manager also expressed unhappiness with the initial officer's
treatment of the man. She said that she had only been seeking a "mediation" when she
called the police (using a non-emergency number) and found the officer's tone and
commands to be excessive. She accordingly demurred from pressing charges for any
alleged offense at the restaurant; additionally, the mother and son witnesses ultimately
paid the bill that was in dispute.
The supervisor spoke to the two bystanders for several minutes. He heard their
concerns, and also took time to explain the uncertainty officers experience at the outset of
any encounter. He cited the fact that an officer from a nearby jurisdiction had recently
been shot and wounded in the context of a routine traffic stop. He also explained the
complaint procedure options available to them.
The mother ultimately did submit a complaint form that reiterated their concerns: that the
officer had been too aggressive for the context, that it had been demeaning for him to
order the man to get on the ground, and that the officers had overreacted to a minor
problem.
PAPD Investigation and Outcome
This case was handled as a "Supervisory Inquiry Investigation" and was initially reviewed
by the supervisor who participated in the service call and had spoken with the two
concerned citizens in the field. Based on the body-worn camera recordings, the sergeant
was able to determine that no violation of policy had occurred. The first officer to arrive
had indeed been elevated in his initial attempts to get the man's attention and g ain
compliance. But he adapted quickly upon getting an initial sense of the subject, and did
not force the issue in spite of the man's initial recalcitrance. His brief gesture of having his
hand near his weapon was judged to be a reasonable exercise of d iscretion as he
assessed the situation. And he actually instructed the man to "have a seat" on the curb
for safety reasons – as opposed to ordering him to "get on the ground."
Each of these elements led the supervisor to believe that no further action was necessary.
A lieutenant then evaluated the initial memorandum. He concurred with the findings that
no policies had been violated by the officer or his backup. However, he also identified five
separate ways that the incident could have been handled differently/better by the three
Department members who were involved.
These "training points" were later discussed with the relevant officers. They included the
importance of being mindful of surroundings and avoiding unnecessary behaviors which
might alarm bystanders. The lieutenant also reminded the supervisor to limit speculation
and explanation when addressing a potential complaint in the field, and to ensure that
responsiveness to a complainant not come at the expense of appr opriate monitoring of
the underlying call for service. Finally, the lieutenant noted that the time-consuming
Item 16
Attachment A -
Independent Police
Auditor's (IPA) Report of
Review of Investigations
Between July and
December 2022
Item 16: Staff Report Pg. 6 Packet Pg. 394 of 406
5
inquiry into the man's identity was actually peripheral to resolving the call, and that
prolonging a contentious call for service should be avoide d where possible.
IPA Review and Analysis
We concur with the finding that no violations of policy occurred. While the mother and
son were very reasonable,3 and while their concerns were understandable, our
impression was that the officers were controlled and professional in navigating the
situation with the subject.
Though the original officer had indeed been slightly elevated at the outset of the contact,
his demeanor was far from egregious; on the contrary, we were struck by how quickly he
pivoted to a calm, accommodating exchange with a contentious person. And, though he
did have his hand on his holster at the outset of the encounter (and rested it near there at
times during the detention), the officer never withdrew the gun or treated the subject in a
threatening manner. While the complainants were correct about the man's unarmed
status and the relatively benign nature of the crime at issue, the officer's low-level
precautions were a reaction to initial uncertainty that dissipated quickly.
We were also impressed with the lieutenant's careful scrutiny of the incident, as well as
his constructive suggestions for improving future performance. Treating a complaint as a
learning opportunity is one hallmark of an effective administrative review process. The
points that emerged here seemed insightful and worth sharing . And the extra effort to
translate observations into actual interventions (in the form of a follow-up discussion with
involved personnel) was also commendable.
3 Notably, the two were careful at the scene to acknowledge counterarguments as they politely
expressed their concerns, and the written complaint included a paragraph of appreciation for the
supervisor's willingness to engage with their perspective and share his own.
Item 16
Attachment A -
Independent Police
Auditor's (IPA) Report of
Review of Investigations
Between July and
December 2022
Item 16: Staff Report Pg. 7 Packet Pg. 395 of 406
6
Case 2: Complaint about Failure to Investigate and Other
Mistreatment
Factual Overview:
This case involved two separate calls for service that occurred within several hours of
each other, and involved the complainant during h is time at a local hospital.4 The first call
involved a report by the complainant that he had been the victim of a sexual assault, with
the perpetrator being a police officer from a neighboring jurisdiction. Two PAPD officers
went to the hospital to meet with the reporting party and to gather forensic evidence of the
alleged crime; he declined to give a detailed statement because of a stated dislike/distrust
of the police.
Several hours later, the complainant was discharged from the hospital after different
conflicts with staff. The process became contentious, and hospital security was needed
to escort him from the premises. This led to a physical struggle in which the complainant
allegedly bit a security guard. PAPD responded to the scene, arrested the person for
battery, and ultimately cited and released him in the field. They left him, seated in a
hospital wheelchair, at the bus stop where the hospital staff had first brought h im.
Several weeks later, the Department received the first of multiple complaints about these
encounters. (The complainant's mother, who lives out of state, also wrote on his behalf.)
The core of them was twofold: that the Department had failed to take a ppropriate action
regarding his assault allegation, and that the officers had been rude and unresponsive to
his various needs when they arrived to address his forcible removal by hospital staff.
PAPD Investigation and Outcome
This case was handled as a Supervisory Inquiry Investigation. Because some of the
involved officers had been supervisors, it was a lieutenant that conducted the review. He
was able to rely on body-worn camera videos, other documentation, and his own
conversations with the complainant. The lieutenant determined that the officers had acted
professionally and in keeping with their duties, and that no further action was required.
With regard to the complainant's allegations of assault by a police officer (and subsequent
alleged failures of due diligence), the PAPD members who spoke with him handled the
4 There was some ambiguity (and conflict within official records) as to the gender of the involved
party, but he apparently self-identified as male.
Item 16
Attachment A -
Independent Police
Auditor's (IPA) Report of
Review of Investigations
Between July and
December 2022
Item 16: Staff Report Pg. 8 Packet Pg. 396 of 406
7
intake of his case in an appropriate manner. They spoke with hospital staff, attempted to
get a useful statement from the complainant, collected physical evidence, and turned the
case over to the agency in the jurisdiction where the alleged crime had occurred. What
happened after that was not controlled by, or the responsibility of, the handling officers or
PAPD.5
Body-worn camera evidence also refuted the allegations that PAPD officers had
mistreated him after he was removed from the hospital by security personnel. The
complainant claimed that PAPD officers had failed to help him when he was "tossed" from
his wheelchair by security. External evidence showed that this was not accurate.
Recordings showed the on-scene officers making repeated offers to assist, and ultimately
lifting the complainant back into the chair.6 Similarly, the officers took down his version of
the confrontation with security and took other steps in an effort to assist him – all in
contravention of the different claims that had been made against PAPD personnel.
IPA Review and Analysis
We concurred with the Department's findings in this case. While leaving the man at the
bus stop at the end of the encounter raised initial concerns in light of his compromised
circumstances, the reality was that officers had made appropriate attempts to engage and
provide support. (As the lieutenant noted, one supervisor on scene went to some trouble
to retrieve a missing folder of paperwork from the hospital at the complainant's request
when their investigation was concluded.) And overall, in both of the encounters that the
complaint(s) encompassed, the PAPD officers came across as being patient and
solicitous with a person who was in emotional turmoil.
5 Per the Department's memo about this complaint review, the neighboring jurisdiction confirmed
that it was pursuing the investigation in conjunction with the District Attorney's Office.
6 The complainant claimed to be paralyzed and unable to move his legs, a contention that was
disputed by the hospital staff that treated him.
Item 16
Attachment A -
Independent Police
Auditor's (IPA) Report of
Review of Investigations
Between July and
December 2022
Item 16: Staff Report Pg. 9 Packet Pg. 397 of 406
8
Internal Complaint Investigations
Case 1: Complaint by Employee Regarding Handling of an
Investigation
Factual Overview
A PAPD employee complained about the way that an incident was handled by
supervisors. The case stemmed from a confrontation between two civilians. The
employee complained that supervisors did not support a robust investigation of the
incident and presentation of the matter to the District Attorney. The employee further
complained that one supervisor had not been factual in an internal email relating to
instructions for the handling of the incident.
Appropriately, PAPD made the decision to have the issues handled by an outside
investigator, since it involved allegations by a PAPD employee against supervisory PAPD
personnel. In addition to the concerns raised by the employee, the investigator was also
asked to investigate concerns that the Administration had regarding the conduct of the
complaining employee relating to the incident. There was a concern that the employee
had failed to follow instructions on the handling of the case and had used derogatory
language when referring to supervisory employees.
The investigation was extremely thorough and detailed. It found no wrongdoing relating
to the supervision of the incident and did not find any basis for a false statement finding
against the supervisor. It did, however, find that the complaining employee had
improperly failed to follow instruction and had used derogatory language in referencing
supervisors. The investigation thoroughly framed and reached a disposition as to the
allegations and counter allegations.
IPA Review and Analysis
The investigative memo did a creditable job of parsing out and addressing the charges
and counter charges that were presented. We have no reason to disagree with the
outcome reached.
We did note one investigative challenge faced by the outside investigator. Apparently, the
complaining employee and another employee had used personal emails and text
messages from personal cell phones to communicate about this case , including the
possible sharing of draft police reports and strategies on how to prepare the eventual
report. When the investigator asked the complainant for copies of these records, the
complainant’s attorney declined to produce them. As a result, valuable work -related
information was inaccessible to the investigator.
Item 16
Attachment A -
Independent Police
Auditor's (IPA) Report of
Review of Investigations
Between July and
December 2022
Item 16: Staff Report Pg. 10 Packet Pg. 398 of 406
9
In another context, the California Supreme Court has determined that work -related
information by a government employee, even if conveyed over personal email account s,
is subject to a California Public Records Act request. City of San Jose v. Superior Court,
2 Cal. 5th 608 (2017). Yet here, the employee was able to successfully forestall access to
this work-related information by refusing to simply produce the information. Moreover, in
the policing context, work related emails may need to be reviewed in order to meet the
Department’s discovery and Brady obligations.
We have been advised that even though sworn employees are issued cell phones for
work-related business, a number of employees and supervisors continue to use their
personal phones for work. Yet current policy prohibits their use for work-related purposes
except in “exigent circumstances”. And current policy also advises employees that using
personal cell phones subjects employees to a disclosure requirement for such
information, even if it is lodged on their personal phone.
702.5 PERSONALLY OWNED PCD
[…]
(e) The device should not be used for work-related purposes except in exigent
circumstances (e.g., unavailability of radio communications).
(f) Employees are advised and cautioned that the use of a personally owned PCD
either on-duty or after duty hours for business-related purposes may subject the
employee and the employee's PCD records to civil or criminal discovery or
disclosure under applicable public records laws or a lawful order.
The Department should enforce current policy. Moreover, the Department should advise
internal investigators that if it is learned that information potentially relevant to the
investigation is lodged on a personal cell phone, that they should order the empl oyee to
surrender the information. If there is a refusal to do so, the employee should be subject to
further disciplinary charges for insubordination.
RECOMMENDATION 1
PAPD should enforce its current policy prohibiting employees from using personal
email accounts or cell phones to conduct police business except in exigent
circumstances.
Recommendation 2
PAPD should advise internal investigators that employees who have lodged
information potentially relevant on a personal cell phone should be ordered to
surrender such information or be subject to potential future charges for
insubordination.
Item 16
Attachment A -
Independent Police
Auditor's (IPA) Report of
Review of Investigations
Between July and
December 2022
Item 16: Staff Report Pg. 11 Packet Pg. 399 of 406
10
Use of Force Case:
This case involved officers' efforts to take a young man into custody as he experienced the
apparent effects of drug use and was acting erratically in public. His agitation led officers
to detain him, and some resistance ensued as the subject became intermittently frantic
about his condition and the police presence. In light of the subject's highly agitated state,
officers sought the assistance of emergency medical personnel, who ultimately transported
him to the hospital.
The PAPD involvement began when police received an early morning call for service in a
residential neighborhood regarding a young male who had jumped over a fence on to the
report party's property and was screaming. (He was accompanied by another young male
who seemed calmer.) Another person in the vicinity called separately to report a young
man running in the middle of the street with no shirt. Officers quickly spotted the subject
and engaged with him; in fact, he quickly approached the driver's side door of an arriving
patrol car as the officer emerged, to the point where the officer shoved him backward to
create space. He was speaking incoherently and not responding to officer instructions, and
they quickly decided to detain him in handcuffs; this process was challenging in light of his
heavy perspiration and lack of cooperation. Multiple officers were eventually able to get
him to the ground using bodily force (but no weapons or strikes). They had renewed
difficulty in trying to get him into the backseat of a car; another officer put a restraint device
around his ankles as they awaited the paramedic response.
When the medical personnel arrived, they administered a sedative after assessing the
subject's condition. He was then transported to the hospital, and released there from police
custody based on the determination that the subject was under the influence of psychedelic
drugs.7
PAPD Review:
The case went through the Department's supervisory review process, which utilizes a
detailed template to ensure that relevant evidence is gathered and that compliance with
policy is thoroughly evaluated. Here, the assigned supervisor showed due diligence in
moving through the relevant investigative steps. These included review of body -worn
camera recordings and reports, and follow-up interviews with the subject (whom the
supervisor spoke with by phone after he had recovered from his experience) as well as a
third-party witness.
7 Officers eventually made contact at the scene with the original companion of the subject, who
confirmed the officers' assessment that they had consumed drugs earlier in the evening.
Item 16
Attachment A -
Independent Police
Auditor's (IPA) Report of
Review of Investigations
Between July and
December 2022
Item 16: Staff Report Pg. 12 Packet Pg. 400 of 406
11
Though the subject did receive several abrasions in the course of the encounter, he was
quick to assure the supervisor that the injuries were minor and that he expected them to
heal completely. He expressed appreciation for the officers' interventions during the
incident.
The reviewing supervisor determined that the force, which was limited to physical restraints
and grappling on the parts of different officers, was justified by the circumstances and
consistent with policy.
IAPD Review and Analysis:
We reviewed body-worn camera and reports from this incident, and we concur with the
Department's findings. The limited , controlled force was appropriate to the subject's erratic
behavior and resistance.
We did notice that two supervisors were among the several officers who responded to the
scene and went "hands-on" at one or more points in the encounter. As we have noted
before, our sense is that the ideal function for supervisors entails monitoring t he situation
and providing direction as needed while refraining from being directly engaged.8 Our last
report addressed this issue and included a related recommendation:
"As needed, PAPD should reinforce to supervisory staff the principle that, barring exigent
circumstances, supervisors should refrain from direct physical engagement with subjects,
so as to maintain their ability to manage the operation as a whole."
PAPD, for its part, concurred with the concept while noting that officer and subject safety
must remain the priority, and that circumstances may occasionally dictate a need for more
active involvement. They supplemented this point with another relevant observation: that
staffing and resource limitations have necessarily made supervisory participation in direct
enforcement activity more commonplace in recent months.
8 It is true that one of the supervisors did assert a leadership ro le, which arguably "freed up" the
other to provide more direct assistance. Still, there also appeared to be an able cadre of line-level
officers to handle the actual grappling with the subject.
Item 16
Attachment A -
Independent Police
Auditor's (IPA) Report of
Review of Investigations
Between July and
December 2022
Item 16: Staff Report Pg. 13 Packet Pg. 401 of 406
12
We respect these arguments while reiterating that supervisors should prioritize a strategic
detachment where possible so as to maximize the "added value" of their rank and presence
in the field.
"Pointed Firearm" Incidents
PAPD reported three instances in which the Department's officers pointed firearms at a
subject. The circumstances varied, but each of these events was found to be consistent
with policy and training.
The context for the deployments was as follows:
• A "real time" suspect in auto burglaries was observed by an officer who attempted
to conduct a traffic stop of his vehicle. The subject drove away and was pursued by
multiple officers; he eventually collided with a police car in a parking lot before being
surrounded. Two officers reported pointing their guns as they gave initial commands
to the subject and he emerged from the car. His hands were raised, and he
eventually went to the ground as ordered. Officers handcuffed him without further
incident.
• Multiple officers responded to reports of a man allegedly brandishing a gun at
another driver in the context of a possible "road rage" encounter. Of ficers located
the subject as he was exiting his vehicle. When he did not comply with their initial
commands to stop, one of the officers pointed his firearm as he gave additional
direction. He reported that he was concerned by the combination of the sub ject's
lack of cooperation and the report of a gun. Officers eventually took the subject to
the ground and handcuffed him; the "gun" at issue turned out to be a black power
drill.
• PAPD SWAT personnel assisted a neighboring agency in the service of a search
warrant for a murder suspect, and members pointed their firearms in keeping with
their respective assignments during that operation.
For this, the first time our process encompasses this category of incident, we offer a few
observations. For starters, the heightened accountability expectations that are reflected in
this protocol are commendable for PAPD and the City. It is consistent with a larger shift in
which traditional deference to law enforcement autonomy is being replaced by a greater
degree of transparency and a heightened public interest in police practices. And certain
exercises of authority, which once were not even considered reportable, are now subject to
new levels of scrutiny.
Item 16
Attachment A -
Independent Police
Auditor's (IPA) Report of
Review of Investigations
Between July and
December 2022
Item 16: Staff Report Pg. 14 Packet Pg. 402 of 406
13
As a substantive matter, we reviewed the reports conne cted to these incidents and found
the respective use of firearms, and the Department's endorsement of them, to be
reasonable in light of the known circumstances. We were also struck by the very small
number of events that were reported in the entirety of last year. Assuming that officers are
in fact meeting new reporting requirements with appropriate rigor, this reflects a restraint
that seems notable in and of itself.
At the same time, it seems as if the Department's protocol is still finding its way to some
extent. Most obviously, there were initial (and apparently inadvertent) time lags in providing
us with information about the earliest of the incidents – and a fourth incident (which is still
in process) was belatedly discovered months after its actual occurrence. We have no
reason to believe that these minor lapses in process are anything other than the "growing
pains" of new procedures, and are confident they have been rectified for the future.
The evolution of the process has a substantive component as well. T he incidents were
reviewed by supervisors (and reports were approved) in keeping with regular practice . But
while a "bottom line" conclusion was forwarded to us along with the relevant documentation,
there was not a formal standalone assessment of the tactic that was memorialized in a
supervisory memo – unlike, for example, PAPD's standard use of force reviews.
This raises the question as to what level of formality and thoroughness makes the most
sense for the review of a tactic that is usually of very brief duration, has limited impact, and
occurs in the context of a larger police response that is itself subject to standard review. As
always, there is a tension between the optimally robust and the realistically attainable.
Department leadership has expressed to us its hesitations about over -committing
supervisor time and energy in this specific context.
We are sympathetic to this and recognize the ways that a lesser standard could potentially
suffice for this particular category of accountability. Still, there seems to be room for a
"happy medium" of sorts, particularly in light of the low volume of incidents involved. We
think, for example, that a simple template would be both beneficial and minimally labor -
intensive. It could, for example, capture the supervisor's specific review efforts, include at
least a brief analysis in support of any findings, and identify collateral actions items where
relevant (such as positioning, or waiting for backup, or communication concerns).
We know the Department is considering its options a s it adjusts to this new aspect of its
responsibilities, and we welcome further dialogue on the topic.
RECOMMENDATION 3
PAPD should develop an efficient, formalized structure for supervisors to review
and opine regarding instances in which officers point their firearms at subjects in
the context of enforcement activity.
Item 16
Attachment A -
Independent Police
Auditor's (IPA) Report of
Review of Investigations
Between July and
December 2022
Item 16: Staff Report Pg. 15 Packet Pg. 403 of 406
1 | P a g e
DATE: MAY 10, 2023
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CHIEF ANDREW BINDER
SUBJECT: USE OF FORCE REPORT SUPPLEMENT TO IPA REPORT DATED MARCH 2023
This memorandum responds to the City Council’s November 2020 direction to provide use of force
summary data (which encompasses all use of force incidents in which a “Supervisor’s Report on Use of
Force” has been completed by the Police Department) as an attachment to each Independent Police
Auditor (IPA) report. Most commonly, a “Supervisor’s Report on Use of Force” is completed after an
officer uses some form of force that results in a visible or apparent physical injury to a subject or the
subject complains of pain or alleges they were injured. Policy Manual §300 (“Use of Force”) requires
that all uses of force by Police Department members “be documented promptly, completely, and
accurately in an appropriate report.”1 The policy also requires that a “Supervisor’s Report on Use of
Force” be completed by the supervisor, and that report is routed for approval through the chain of
command up to and including the Police Chief.
Consistent with the IPA’s expanded scope of administrative review established by the City Council in
November 2020, the Department forwards the following types of use of force cases to the IPA for review
and recommendations: all cases where a subject’s injuries necessitate any treatment beyond minor
medical treatment in the field, and all cases where an officer uses a baton, chemical agent, TASER, less-
lethal projectile, canine, or firearm. The IPA’s scope of administrative review was further expanded in
July 2021 to include cases when a firearm is pointed at a subject.
For the first time in this memorandum, the Department is choosing to release the race of the
recipient(s) of any force used.
This summary covers the period of July 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022.
Use of Force Cases
From July 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022, the Police Department responded to more than 19,000
calls for service and effected more than 600 arrests. During that time, there was one case where force
requiring a “Supervisor’s Report on Use of Force” was used. The IPA’s review of that case appears in the
current IPA report before you, and they concurred with the Department’s findings that the use of force
was justified by the circumstances and consistent with policy.
The race of the subject upon whom force was used was white.
1 The Palo Alto Police Department Policy Manual is updated quarterly and posted online at
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Police/Public-Information-Portal/Police-Policy-Manual.
Item 16
Attachment B - Police
Department Use of Force
Report for July -
December 2022
Item 16: Staff Report Pg. 16 Packet Pg. 404 of 406
2 | P a g e
Firearm Pointed at Person Cases
From July 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022, officers pointed a firearm at a person on two occasions.
These two cases were each identified in early 2023 during follow-up investigation stemming from
routine internal auditing procedures. That audit also identified another qualifying case from the first
half of 2022. As noted in the IPA’s report before you, our protocol in identifying and investigating these
cases remains new and the inadvertent time lags in reporting are not expected to continue as a result of
new procedures recently put into place (which contributed to identifying these three older cases).
These three cases are being sent to the IPA for their review in the near future, and we expect them to be
included in the next IPA report
The IPA’s review of the three “pointed firearm” cases that appear in the current IPA report before you
stem from incidents that occurred during the first half of 2022. The IPA concurred with the
Department’s findings that the pointing of the firearms were justified by the circumstances and
consistent with policy.
The race of the subjects at whom a firearm was pointed in the three cases that appear in the current IPA
report before you were Hispanic, white, and Pacific Islander (respectively).
July – December 2022 Use of Force Summary
Type of Force Number of Cases Status of IPA Review
Physical Strength 1 Reviewed in current report
Chemical Agent 0
TASER 0
Baton 0
Less-Lethal Projectile 0
Canine 0
Firearm 0
Firearm Pointed at Person 2 Being sent to IPA in the near future for inclusion in
their next report
Item 16
Attachment B - Police
Department Use of Force
Report for July -
December 2022
Item 16: Staff Report Pg. 17 Packet Pg. 405 of 406
1 | P a g e
DATE: MAY 10, 2023
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CHIEF ANDREW BINDER
SUBJECT: POLICE DEPT RESPONSE TO MARCH 2023 IPA REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDATION 1: PAPD should enforce its current policy prohibiting employees from using
personal email accounts or cell phones to conduct police business except in exigent circumstances.
The Department agrees with this recommendation and will reinforce to all current employees the policy
prohibiting employees from using personal email accounts and personal cell phones to conduct police
business except in exigent circumstances. In addition, this training will be added to the mandatory in-
house training curriculum for new sworn employees.
RECOMMENDATION 2: PAPD should advise internal investigators that employees who have lodged
information potentially relevant on a personal cell phone should be ordered to surrender such
information or be subject to potential discipline for insubordination.
The Department agrees with this recommendation and will proactively advise investigators to order
employees who have lodged information potentially relevant on a personal cell phone to surrender such
information or the employee will be subject to potential discipline for insubordination.
RECOMMENDATION 3: PAPD should develop an efficient, formalized structure for supervisors to review
and opine regarding instances in which officers point their firearms at subjects in the context of
enforcement activity.
The Department agrees with this recommendation and has developed a standardized template and
instructions for supervisors to review and opine regarding instances in which officers point their firearms
at subjects in the context of enforcement activity.
Item 16
Attachment C - Police
Department Responses to
IPA Report
Item 16: Staff Report Pg. 18 Packet Pg. 406 of 406