HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2309-198211.Independent Police Auditor's (IPA) Report of Review of Investigations as of June 1, 2023
and Police Department Use of Force Report for January - June 2023
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: INFORMATION REPORTS
Lead Department: City Manager
Meeting Date: September 18, 2023
Report #:2309-1982
TITLE
Independent Police Auditor's (IPA) Report of Review of Investigations as of June 1, 2023 and
Police Department Use of Force Report for January - June 2023
BACKGROUND/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 June
1, 2023.
Attachment A contains the IPA report for investigations completed as of June 1, 2023.
For reference, the prior IPA report was published on June 5, 2023 as an Informational Item1, and
covered the time period of July – December 2022. The IPA also published a recruitment and hiring
special report on May 8, 2023.2 The Police Department’s website lists all past Independent Police
Auditor Reports, here. For an overview of the history of the expanded scope of the IPA work,
please visit the City’s Race and Equity webpage at: www.cityofpaloalto.org/raceandequity.
1 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/police-department/accountability/ipa-reports/january-
2023-independent-police-auditors-report-and-papd-use-of-force-report.pdf
2 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/police-department/accountability/ipa-reports/february-
2023-review-of-papd-recruitment-and-hiring.pdf
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 recommendations (Minutes). The first report of Police Department responses to
the IPA report after the March City Council action was June 20, 2022.3
Attachment B has the Department’s responses to the current IPA Report on Investigations
Completed as of June 1, 2023.
Police Department's Use of Force Report for January 2023-June 2023
In 2020, the City Council directed staff to include use of force information when transmitting the
IPA reports to the City Council. Attachment C contains the Department’s Use of Force Report for
January 2023 – June 2023.
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
RESOURCE IMPACT
The cost for contract services provided by Office of Independent Review (OIR Group) is included
in the FY 2024 Adopted Operating Budget. Staff support is provided from the Police Department,
City Attorney’s Office, and City Manager’s Office.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Not a project.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Palo Alto Review of Investigations Completed as of Jun. 1, 2023
Attachment B: PAPD Response to OIR Recommendations Jun. 1, 2023
Attachment C: PAPD Use of Force Supplemental Report Jan. - Jun. 2023
APPROVED BY:
Ed Shikada, City Manager
3 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/police-department/accountability/ipa-reports/june-2022-
independent-police-auditors-report-and-papd-use-of-force-report.pdf
1
INDEPENDENT POLICE AUDITORS’ REPORT
Review of Investigations Completed as of June 1, 2023
Presented to the Honorable City Council
City of Palo Alto
2023
Prepared by: Michael Gennaco and Stephen Connolly
Independent Police Auditors for
the City of Palo Alto
2
Introduction
As we have for several years now, OIR Group publishes reports semiannually in Palo Alto
for consideration by City Council and the general public. This Report covers six months of
recent activity within the Palo Alto Police Department, across the designated range of
categories that is subject to our review in our capacity as the City's Independent Police
Auditor.1
The goals of our work are straightforward: to offer increased transparency about
processes that have long been primarily internal and confidential within policing, to
increase the scrutiny of the Department's internal review processes from the perspective
of an independent outsider, and offer recommendations where applicable with an eye
toward strengthening PAPD performance in the future.
The IPA scope of responsibility in Palo Alto, as defined by the City Council in a way that
has evolved over time, calls for evaluation of all Department investigations into alleged
misconduct. The IPA is now also responsible to review select incidents involving use of
force by officers – a grouping that includes all Taser cases, dog bites, and instances of
significant injury or hospital treatment.
The pool of matters covered below is, as with our previous Report from earlier this year, is
a relatively small one. Only one complaint investigation emerged during the relevant
months. We also looked at one relatively straightforward use of force and one that was
part of a more complicated incident – and ended up involving a vehicle pursuit with a car
that crashed, followed by a foot pursuit and use of physical force.
For the second time, this Report also features a discussion about PAPD's administrative
process with regard to the review of "pointed firearm" incidents. Public recognition of
these events as a significant exercise of police authority has increased in recent years,
and what was once treated as a routine tactic is now subject not only to pol icy limitations
but to a new level of formal review.
As we mentioned in our last Report and describe below, the Department's process is still
developing, and we note a couple of concerns and suggestions in the discussion that
follows. Importantly, though, PAPD appears to be committed to smoothing the bumps in
its protocol and achieving the goals of more rigorous evaluation.
1OIR Group has served as Palo Alto's Independent Police Auditor since 2007. It is led by Michael
Gennaco, a former federal prosecutor, and a nationally renowned authority on the civilian
oversight of law enforcement. Its website, which includes past versions of its semi-annual reports
on PAPD, is www.oirgroup.com.
3
In developing the summaries, analyses, and recommendations that follow, we benefitted
from our full access to the underlying records associated with each case. The
Department continues to be cooperative in providing us with the requisite reports and
other evidence (including body-worn camera recordings), and it remains open to our
feedback. We appreciate the opportunities to engage with PAPD and, ideally, contribute
on behalf of the public to the enhancement of its operations.
4
External Complaint Investigations
Case 1: Third-Party Complaint about Failure To Properly Handle
an Allegation of Sexual Assault
Factual Overview:
An adult male underwent two surgical procedures in the same Palo Alto hospital, several
weeks apart. A few months later, he contacted PAPD to make a rape allegation that was
based on his contention that he had been given a catheter without his consent during both
hospital visits.
A supervisor spoke with him and took some investigative steps in relation to the man's
report. The man eventually agreed to a release of his medical records, which included
signed copies of the consent form to which he had agreed prior to both surgeries. Based
on the language within the form, and on a consultation with the District Attorney's Office
as to whether the conduct at issue was criminal in nature, the Department decided not to
move forward with developing charges and making a formal submission for prosecution.
This was disappointing to the man, who energetically maintained that he was a crime
victim and accused the supervisor and others of not doing their job. He expressed his
frustration through communications with the initial supervisor and PAPD management that
included references to possible legal action in response.
PAPD Investigation and Outcome
The Department decided to formalize the man's concerns and the PAPD analysis within a
Supervisor Inquiry Investigation. It essentially recounted the history of the interactions
with the complainant, and reached a conclusion that any misconduct allegations were
"Unfounded."
IPA Review and Analysis
We concur with the finding that no violations of policy occurred. The initial supervisor had
handled the man's report with appropriate due diligence, and PAPD took several
additional steps to ensure that its interpretation of the facts was sound.
Use of Force Cases:
Case 1:
Factual Summary
This case involved officers' efforts to take a man into custody after he had allegedly
assaulted employees without provocation upon entering a restaurant. The PAPD
5
involvement began when police received a call for service from employees at the
restaurant, reporting that the subject had entered the restaurant, began yelling, and
throwing furniture, and then assaulted two employees. The body-worn camera recording
from the initial officer to arrive at the scene shows two employees holding a man down
who is on his back.
The officer called for backup, and a number of additional officers arrived within seconds to
assist. The officer rolled the subject onto his stomach, which resulted in the subject’s
hands being beneath him. After three additional officers arrived, the subject did not
comply with instructions in both English and Spanish to put his hands behind his back so
that he could be handcuffed. As a result, one officer reported delivering several punches
to the subject’s thigh, while a second officer reported delivering several knee strikes to the
man’s rib area. Eventually, the officers were able to roll the man onto his stomach and
secure him with handcuffs. The subject suffered no visible injuries from PAPD’s reported
uses of force and declined medical attention.
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, as well as interviews of the restaurant employees who
were victims and witnesses to the earlier assaultive behavior.
The reviewing supervisor determined that the force was justified by the circumstances
and consistent with policy. The supervisor found that the exigency of arriving to an
incident in which the subject had reportedly just punched two employees made it
impracticable to deploy de-escalation techniques other than the instructions given to the
subject to place his hands behind his back.
IPA Review and Analysis:
We reviewed body-worn camera footage and reports from this incident, and we concur
with the Department's finding that the force was an appropriate response to the subject's
resistive behavior.
6
Vehicle Pursuit -- Pointed Firearm -- Foot Pursuit --
Use of Force
Factual Summary
This case began when officers were asked to respond to a reported retail theft at a local
shopping center. The involved officer responded to the call and observed a female sitting
in a vehicle in a nearby parking lot whom he suspected of being involved. He pulled
behind her car. The subject then exited her car while talking on her cell phone. She
spoke briefly to the officer before returning to her car and closing the door over the
officer’s objections. The officer unholstered his firearm as he moved to ward the driver’s
side of the vehicle and pointed his gun at the woman. The officer then immediately
backed away from the subject’s vehicle as the subject placed her car in reverse, striking
the patrol car. The subject then put her car in forward gear and drove over the curb and
away from the location.
The officer pursued the subject while utilizing the lights and siren of his vehicle. After
losing sight of the subject at one point, he reacquired her location and continued to
pursue her. After approximately two minutes, the officer observed the subject’s vehicle
roll over. As he approached the subject, the officer again drew his weapon and pointed it
at the woman. The woman ignored the officer’s commands and began to run away. The
officer ran after her and tackled her to the ground after a brief foot pursuit. Additional
officers arrived and assisted in handcuffing the subject. Paramedics were called to the
location and the subject was transported to a local hospital.
We were further advised that as a result of the incident, the involved officer received an
injury to his wrist which caused him to be out of work for several weeks.
PAPD Review
The initial review focused on the vehicle pursuit. The reviewing supervisor concluded that
the pursuit was within policy since the subject had just rammed the officer’s car – an act
which met the requisite “violent felony” standard that PAPD policy requires before a
pursuit can be initiated. The supervisor further concluded that the pursuit was controlled
and the direction of travel was appropriately called out by the officer. In evaluating the
driving of the officer, the supervisor noted that the officer had failed to stop at a controlled
intersection on one occasion and crossed the center line on another occasion to pass a
box truck.
To his credit, the supervisor further noted that the officer had failed to include in his initial
report that he had pointed his firearm at the subject at the initial stop. The supervisor
7
indicated he discussed with the officer the need to document that action and the officer
had prepared a supplemental report documenting his decision to unholster his weapon
and the rationale for doing so.
Finally, to the supervisor’s additional credit, he noted that as the subject was being
directed into a vehicle, the officer said: “It’s not that hard to get into a fucking car.” The
supervisor said he reminded the officer of PAPD policy restricting the use of profanity and
counseled him on its use. Department management's use of such "teachable moments"
occasions for course correction is a practice we endorse.
IPA Review and Analysis
IPA was provided and reviewed the recordings from both the officer's in-car video system
and his body-worn camera, the police reports, and the supervisory memorandum. As
discussed below, we noted a few issues for further consideration.
The Vehicle Pursuit
PAPD’s vehicle pursuit policy acknowledges that vehicle pursuits are one of the most
dangerous enforcement actions an officer may be involved in. As a result, the policy sets
out a series of detailed expectations for initiating and terminating a pursuit, as well as
expectations that supervisors carefully review the incident to determine whether the policy
requirements have been met.
As detailed above, the review of the vehicle pursuit was set out in a supervisory
memorandum. However, in that memorandum, certain aspects of the pursuit were not
fully documented. For example, PAPD’s vehicle pursuit policy states that pursuing units
should exercise due caution when proceeding through controlled intersections. The
memorandum notes that the officer failed to stop at one controlled intersection. Yet a
close review of the MAV ("dash-cam") footage shows that the officer failed to stop or slow
through six controlled intersections.
The memorandum further notes that the officer crossed over to the opposite lane of a two-
lane road in order to pass a large truck. The MAV footage, however, shows that it was
actually two large trucks that were passed in the maneuver. The MAV footage also
shows that later in the pursuit, the radio car again briefly crossed into the opposing lane.
The analysis of the pursuit suffers from the omission of important facts that were captured
by the video equipment. While a more careful analysis may have still concluded that the
pursuit was in policy, the failure of the supervisory memorandum to include all salient
8
facts – and to base any subsequent analysis on all those facts –undercuts the legitimacy
of the Department’s bottom-line conclusion.2
Recommendation ONE :
PAPD should ensure that supervisors include all salient facts in their vehicle
pursuit evaluations.
Foot Pursuit
Current PAPD policy advises officers that “the safety of department members and the
public should be the primary consideration when determining whether a foot pursuit
should be initiated or continued. Officers must be mindful that immediate apprehension of
a suspect is rarely more important than the safety of the public and department
members.”
The policy further requires officers involved in foot pursuits to complete the appropriate
crime/arrest reports documenting, at minimum, the following:
(a) The reason for initiating the foot pursuit.
(b) The identity of involved personnel.
(c) The course and approximate distance of the pursuit.
(d) Whether a suspect was apprehended as well as the means and methods used.
1. Any use of force shall be reported and documented in compliance with
the Department Use of Force Policy.
(e) Any injuries or property damage.
While in this case the initiating officer documented some of the above information in his
police report, information such as the course and approximate distance of the pursuit was
not specifically included. More critically, the foot pursuit sets out certain criteria an officer
should consider in determining whether to initiate and continue a foot pursuit. In
reviewing this incident, the supervising officer did not evaluate the officer’s actions to
determine whether the officer’s actions were “reasonable” and followed the criteria set out
in policy. There should have been an evaluation of the officer’s conduct and whether his
actions complied with the Department’s foot pursuit policy, especially given the use of
force that terminated the pursuit.
2 The reader should not conclude that IPA found any intent to deceive as a result of the
memorandum failing to include all salient facts.
9
Recommendation TWO:
The Department should expressly evaluate compliance with its foot pursuit policy,
particularly when the end of the pursuit involves a use of force involving potential
injury or pain to the subject.
The Use of Force
The repeated pointing of the involved officer’s firearm.3 The supervisory memorandum
appropriately notes that the pointing of the firearm at the initiation of the incident should
have been documented, along with the rationale for doing so. However, the
memorandum fails to note that the officer actually unholstered his firearm and pointed it at
the subject on two separate occasions: first at the initiation of the contact and again after
the subject’s car rolled over and she got out of the car. To the off icer’s credit, he
described both “pointing a firearm” incidents in his supplementary memorandum.
The tackling of the subject. There is no apparent PAPD review of the officer’s admitted
“tackling” of the subject, causing her to go to the ground – an action he reported to a
supervisor on scene immediately after the incident. The body-worn camera recording
shows that, at one point, the officer told a supervisor that he saw blood on the subject’s
hands after she went down but did not know if it occurred because of the tackle or the
accident.
The officer then said it probably didn’t occur from the tackle since they had landed on
grass. There are no indicia that the subject was interviewed relating to the use of force.4
As a result, there is insufficient documentation of the take-down, which leaves a question
as to whether a more formal force review process was needed per policy. That gap
should have been closed.
Recommendation THREE:
PAPD should ensure that sufficient inquiry is made at the scene regarding any
reported use of force to determine whether a more formal review is required.
3 We note here that PAPD does not technically categorize the pointing of a firearm as a "use of
force" per the definitions of its policy manual. However, the Department has recently subjected
this tactic to a greater degree of formal scrutiny, as discussed further below in the "Pointed
Firearm" section of this Report.
4 If the subject had been interviewed and indicated that any injury or pain that she had received
had been a result of the rollover accident, that would have dropped the physical contact at the end
of the foot pursuit below the level of PAPD's process for the formal supervisory review of force.
10
Interviews of Witnesses
One civilian witness assisted the responding officer in controlling the subject until backup
officers arrived. Another civilian witnessed the incident. According to the body-worn
camera recording, the responding officers encountered the two individuals after the
incident and asked if they had in fact been participants. When they replied affirmatively,
the initially involved officer advised them that since he himself had been involved, it would
be better for a non-involved officer to obtain their statements. The officer then creditably
followed up with a supervisor and the civilians were interviewed b y another officer. And
the subject was also interviewed by non-involved officers about aspects of the incident.
These were noteworthy instances in which Department members showed a
consciousness of best practices to ensure the objectivity of the review. As such, they
deserve acknowledgement.
"Pointed Firearm" Incidents
As noted above, this is the second audit cycle that provided us with the opportunity to
evaluate the Department's administrative handling of incidents in which officers point their
firearms at a subject in the context of an enforcement encounter. PAPD reported five
instances that fit the criteria, and gave us available materials, including police reports and
relevant body-worn camera recordings.5 A new feature was also included for each case:
a brief memo from a reviewing supervisor who had assessed the incident and evaluated
the legitimacy of the involved officer's actions.
This supervisorial memo is the product of the Department's evolving system for
addressing these incidents with completeness, appropriate rigor, and efficiency. Our
previous Report cited "growing pains" in this endeavor that were of two types. First was
the need for more timely and accurate identification of these incidents when they occur,
and second was the need for a further vision for developing and documenting a review
process – one that effectively balanced meaningful accountability against new impositions
on supervisory time and attention.
New mechanisms for ensuring the "capture" of relevant incidents have been implemented
– and in fact led to the surfacing of an instance that was missed in 2022 and belatedly
5 A sixth incident was one element of a larger encounter that had several "reviewable" features,
and which we discuss above.
11
reviewed for this cycle.6 We expect that ongoing refinements will enhance the
identification process even further going forward.
As for the supervisor's memo, it constitutes a useful step in the right direction. While the
initial examples have been quite brief, they constitute formal documen tation of a
purposeful assessment that itself is adding accountability in an arena that members of the
public clearly care about. However, as discussed below, we questioned the substance of
the evaluations in at least a couple of instances.
The context for the five deployments was as follows:
• Police received an early morning call from a grocery store employee regarding a
young male subject who had allegedly brandished a firearm in the context of a
dispute at a checkout register. Different officers responded to the area in an
attempt to locate the subject. A responding supervisor encountered the person,
who was walking in the neighborhood. Because of the reports that the subject was
armed, the supervisor unholstered his duty weapon and pointed it at the subject
while giving commands for him to get on his knees. The subject was initially non -
compliant but was then taken into custody without further incident.
• Using a locator app, officers tracked the subject in a robbery/assault into a
neighboring city and found him seated in a stolen vehicle. The male subject initially
fled from officers. One officer trailed him, first in his radio car and then on foot. He
eventually re-encountered the subject in a parking lot and ordered him at gun point
to get on the ground. Though initially non-compliant, the subject was eventually
taken into custody without further incident.
• In responding to the same call for service as the robbery/assault case above, a
responding officer noted a second subject walking away at the stolen car location
from which the first subject had fled. The officer continued to monitor the vehicle
location, saw the second subject back in the car's vicinity, and pointed his firearm
to gain compliance with commands for the person to get on the ground.
• Responding officers located a subject who was wanted in connection with a
residential burglary that had just occurred. He was walking along a freeway
onramp, and an officer who spotted him got out of his own vehicle and , using his
car as cover, pointed his weapon in the man's general direction while giving
commands. The man complied eventually and was arrested.
• Several officers responded to a broadcast regarding a reckless male driver who
was involved in several hit and run collisions (and was eventually arrested for
6 To be clear, our sense is that any gaps have been a function of adapting to new expectations
and clarifying definitional ambiguities, and not a matter of intentional evasion on the part of
officers. And we reiterate a point from our last report: the very small number of apparent
deployments reflects appropriate restraint on the part of PAPD personnel in the field.
12
being under the influence of drugs). One of the officers who found the subject and
who used his radio car to block the subject's escape route briefly unholstered his
weapon and pointed it in the man's general direction while giving initial commands.
Each of these tactical choices was found by PAPD to be consistent with policy and
training, and we concurred with these "bottom line" conclusions. At the same time, we
noted a couple of concerns.
First, in one case, the officer had simultaneously unholstered both his Taser and his
firearm, and briefly pointed both at the subject while giving commands as the man
approached. Because of the potential for "weapons confusion" and inadvertent trigger
pull, this is considered tactically problematic, to the point where a specific admonitory
reference is included in Department policy.
Here, the officer seemed very much in control, and he quickly and overtly holstered his
gun so as to de-escalate the situation. In our view, though, the supervisor's memo should
have – and did not – make note of the tactical misstep. This effort would not be for the
sake of nitpicking or undermining the officer, but instead to constructively enhance future
performance. This, along with accountability where appropriate, is an important way to
make administrative review meaningful and worthwhile.
We also disagreed with a supervisor's assessment that a particular use of "terse and
provocative language" was an effective factor in gaining the subject's compliance in
conjunction with a pointed firearm. In our viewing of it, the subject was already
cooperating – to the point of lying down on the sidewalk and extending his arms – when
the officer punctuated an additional command with a particularly harsh profanity.
While flagging the issue at all was to the supervisor's credit, we reiterate a point we have
made often: although there are indeed instances when understandable adrenaline or the
desire to give a verbal "jolt" make officer profanity excusable, the bar would ideally be
higher than what we saw (and heard) here.
Recommendation FOUR:
PAPD should encourage supervisors to treat the "pointed firearm" review process
as an opportunity for holistic assessment of officer performance , and should
document and address issues where relevant.
Recommendation FIVE:
PAPD should continue to scrutinize officer profanity and emphasize the limited
nature of exceptions to the general prohibition.
13
On the whole, we consider PAPD's enhanced attention to the pointing of firearms as an
important addition to its mechanisms for meaningful internal review. And the process, if
imperfect, is already being refined in positive ways.
1 | P a g e
DATE: AUGUST 31, 2023
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CHIEF ANDREW BINDER
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO IPA RECOMMENDATIONS IN JUNE 1, 2023 REPORT
RECOMMENDATION 1: PAPD should ensure that supervisors include all salient facts in their vehicle
pursuit evaluations.
The Department agrees and will reinforce to supervisors that all relevant and factual details should be
included in vehicle pursuit evaluations.
RECOMMENDATION 2: The Department should expressly evaluate compliance with its foot pursuit
policy, particularly when the end of the pursuit involves a use of force involving potential injury or pain
to the subject.
The Department agrees and will reinforce that foot pursuit details be included in reports as required by
policy and that supervisors evaluate compliance with the foot pursuit policy.
RECOMMENDATION 3: PAPD should ensure that sufficient inquiry is made at the scene regarding any
reported use of force to determine whether a more formal review is required.
The Department agrees and will remind supervisors to make sufficient inquiries at the scene of any
reported use of force to determine if a formal Supervisor’s Report on Use of Force is required by policy.
RECOMMENDATION 4: PAPD should encourage supervisors to treat the “pointed firearm” review
process as an opportunity for holistic assessment of officer performance, and should document and
address issues where relevant.
The Department agrees and will continue to use “pointed firearm” reviews (and all supervisor reports) as
an opportunity to assess officer performance and to document and address issues as appropriate.
RECOMMENDATION 5: PAPD should continue to scrutinize officer profanity and emphasize the limited
nature of exceptions to the general prohibition.
The Department agrees and will continue to evaluate an officer’s use of profanity to ensure its use is
consistent with policy directives.
1 | P a g e
DATE: AUGUST 31, 2023
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CHIEF ANDREW BINDER
SUBJECT: USE OF FORCE REPORT SUPPLEMENT TO IPA REPORT DATED JUNE 1, 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. 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, under certain circumstances, a “Supervisor’s Report on Use of
Force” also be completed by the supervisor, and that report is routed for approval through the chain of
command up to and including the Police Chief. 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.
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.
Continuing the practice established in the last iteration of this memorandum, the Department is
choosing to release the race of the recipient(s) of any force used.
This summary covers the period of January 1, 2023 through June 30, 2023.
Use of Force Cases
From January 1, 2023 through June 30, 2023, the Police Department responded to more than 20,000
calls for service and effected more than 700 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 (as “Case 1”), 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 Hispanic.
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.
2 | P a g e
Firearm Pointed at Person Cases
From January 1, 2023 through June 30, 2023, officers pointed a firearm at a person on six occasions.
The current IPA report includes a review of six total incidents during which officers pointed a firearm at
a person. Three of those incidents occurred in 2022 but were discovered in early 2023 (as described in
the last iteration of this memorandum). The other three incidents occurred between January 1, 2023
through June 30, 2023.
In their review of these six incidents, the IPA concurred in each case with the Department’s findings that
the pointing of the firearm was justified by the circumstances and consistent with policy.
In the “‘Pointed Firearm’ Incidents” section of the current IPA report, the race of the subjects at whom a
firearm was pointed were white, Black, Black, Hispanic, and Hispanic (respectively). In the case
described in the “Vehicle Pursuit – Pointed Firearm – Foot Pursuit – Use of Force” section, the race of
the subject at whom a firearm was pointed was Black.
For the Next Use of Force Report
Due to continued refinement of our auditing procedures, the Department has identified two final cases
from 2022 where firearms were pointed at people. Those cases will be sent to the IPA for their review
in the near future, and the Department expects them to be included in the next IPA report. Also being
sent to the IPA in the near future for inclusion in their next report are three additional incidents that
occurred between January 1, 2023 through June 30, 2023. The administrative review of those three
incidents had not been completed in time for inclusion into the current report.
January – June 2023 Use of Force Report 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